# Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage????   WTF is wrong with us?   And yes,  I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread.   I hope many of you will follow suit.  Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 29, 2015)

Not to most people. The fags and the progessives want it real bad though because changing society is what rocks their world and gives them a reason for living.


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

No. But both parties are going to focus on it, and the GOP more so. Till either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush takes back the Republican party from Ted Cruz.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Not to most people. The fags and the progessives want it real bad though because changing society is what rocks their world and gives them a reason for living.


 

sadly, you are correct.   the marxist collectivist progressives have taken control of our media and one of our political parties.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> No. But both parties are going to focus on it, and the GOP more so. Till either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush takes back the Republican party from Ted Cruz.


 

OMG,  Cruz is not in control of the party.   where do you get this shit?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Last post on the subject eh?

I've been trying to encourage that for over a year. Falls on deaf ears every time. Troll threads are almost always the most popular. Don't believe me look at any Rderp thread


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

yes, i know.   But I will not participate in any more of them.   if the idiots get no response to their trolling, maybe they will go away,  but I doubt it.  Liberalism is a mental disease, they display it every day.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


To be fair I think there are as many gay threads started by our side. This thread & my last one are prime examples of our side egging on the subject.


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > No. But both parties are going to focus on it, and the GOP more so. Till either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush takes back the Republican party from Ted Cruz.
> ...


From those on this board, that view him as some kind of hero by going on and on about 'the gays' and how 'evil' they are. 

Even though literally most Americans don't give a shit if gay people get married or not, and would prefer if gays got married so the court battles ended.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


 

yeah, we have been guilty of that,  but its so much fun to watch the libs dodge, lie, and deflect as their ideology is destroyed by facts and logical thought.

But I am over the gay shit.   I will roll with whatever the court decides,  but the gay mafia won't rest until the institution of marriage is completely destroyed and will all live in a hillary villiage and dance around the may pole singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke".


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


 

please give us a quote and a cite where CRuz has said gays were evil.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 29, 2015)

It shouldn't eve rate as an issue when we deal with:

-being on the verge of national insolvency
-have a military being gutted and demoralized
-wide open border with insane violent zealots all over the world
-a president who is actively trying to divide the country
-cities being burned down "in honor of" criminal thugs
-assholes who take 15 minutes to place an order at a fast food drive thru
-pinheads with obozo stickers on their stupid priuses driving 5MPH below the speed limit in the left lane
-South Park only doing 10 episodes a season
-Honey boo boo

These are all issues that need to be resolved and are of a much greater priority.


----------



## initforme (Apr 29, 2015)

It  a total non issue to me and why it bothers some so much I will never know.  In the end I don't care what they decide.  Its also hypocritical to believe in less gov't and wanting the gov't to stick their nose in on the issue.  Some traditions are meant to fall.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

initforme said:


> It  a total non issue to me and why it bothers some so much I will never know.  In the end I don't care what they decide.  Its also hypocritical to believe in less gov't and wanting the gov't to stick their nose in on the issue.  Some traditions are meant to fall.


 

thats your opinion and you have a right to express it.   Issues like these should be decided by the whole of society, not 9 unelected old farts in black robes.   Let the people decide.


----------



## rcfieldz (Apr 29, 2015)

It's all GaySpeak...


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> It shouldn't eve rate as an issue when we deal with:
> 
> -being on the verge of national insolvency
> -have a military being gutted and demoralized
> ...


 the last 4 on your list made me laugh.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 29, 2015)

If we don't start paying down that debt, we aren't going to have issues to argue over.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2015)

My guess is. The MAJORITY of the people are already sick and tried of hearing them whine, bully others and wants it stopped being used for their agendas of division dirty politics.

They were kicked out of Congress into minority for this very reason. so kick them the rest of the way out come 2016


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

The fag queens just want all the focus on them when no one really gives a shit about all their anal sex and dick sucking.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 29, 2015)

If we don't  post anything, does that count? The silent majority. The invisible pink unicorn. No?  Gays are not the center of my universe. Not in a million years.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Look!  Another Gay Thread!


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Not to most people. The fags and the progessives want it real bad though because changing society is what rocks their world and gives them a reason for living.
> ...


First post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > No. But both parties are going to focus on it, and the GOP more so. Till either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush takes back the Republican party from Ted Cruz.
> ...


Second post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## g5000 (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Why do you keep starting topics about how many gay marriage topics there are?  Is there something you want to tell us?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Third  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Fourth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Fifth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > It  a total non issue to me and why it bothers some so much I will never know.  In the end I don't care what they decide.  Its also hypocritical to believe in less gov't and wanting the gov't to stick their nose in on the issue.  Some traditions are meant to fall.
> ...


Sixth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 29, 2015)

We are capable of taking care of multiple problems at the same time

Doesn't mean you ignore lesser issues until all major issues are resolved


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > It shouldn't eve rate as an issue when we deal with:
> ...


Seventh  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


Your ability to count is impressive


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


 

did you read the OP, idiot?


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


In inverted commas, meaning not a direct quote but pretty much what the rhetoric over gay people comes down to, excluding the icky factor.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

another idiot who cannot read, or comprehend, the OP


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> We are capable of taking care of multiple problems at the same time
> 
> Doesn't mean you ignore lesser issues until all major issues are resolved


 

read the OP.    then answer the question.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...


 

then you admit you lied and that he never said anything even close to that.


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Never lied. Look up Ted Cruz's gay jihad nonsense.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



aw, did that hurt your wittle fweeelings? poor rambling whiny baby
waaa. the thread isn't about Ted Cruz. so try and stay on the topic if that's at all possible


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


So you believe terrorists aren't evil? Well, how else could you support Reagan's marriage of convience with the Taliban:


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



, jihad is an act that someone does to try and SHOVE their VIEWS down everyone's throats. so what he said fits what the homosexuals are doing to us right now. but DISHONESTITY is a trait and tactic of you on left


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



It's the most engrossing distraction, which is why leaders, on both sides, are happy to promote a national "debate" on the topic.


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...





Stephanie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


Good. I hit a nerve. You are way too easy Stephanie, and you call me a crybaby, lol.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Grampa Murked U said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Seventh   post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Seventh   post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


I never said it was my last post. Learn to read dyke


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Eighth   post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We are capable of taking care of multiple problems at the same time
> ...


Ninth   post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Tenth   post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 29, 2015)

"Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?"

It wouldn't be an 'issue' at all if the states simply obeyed the Constitution and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law.

This is an issue solely due to the consequence of those hostile to same-sex couples seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Grampa Murked U said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


Ummmmmm.....Gramps....are you telling us you are Redfish's sock?  Or is he YOUR sock?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



yeah ok, some people need goals in life I guess.  no matter how shallow or petty. how childish but fitting


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Oopsie....my bad, Gramps.


----------



## hipeter924 (Apr 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Kinda like the last gay thread, that said it didn't like gay threads.


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I mostly just hate the people that keep posting in the gay threads. What is wrong with you people!??!?


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 Wrath upon those who do evil Why Ted Cruz chose Liberty University to launch his campaign - Salon.com


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2015)

homosexual marriage is just so ho hum

they'd like to think more people care. But jobs, the economy, anyone been grocery shopping lately? mygawd. gas FINALLY came down after it being over $3 a gallon for six years under Obama reign of terror.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


WTF are you smokin?


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



I will make you a deal- I won't start any threads on the issue.

I agree that there are other issues that are more important- but people talk about what they want to talk about- and the majority of posts on USMB have little to do with what is important in America.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Aren't you participating right now?


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 29, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The fag queens just want all the focus on them when no one really gives a shit about all their anal sex and dick sucking.



Yet those seem to be all you want to talk about.

Hell there was one whole sub thread where you couldn't stop posting about those sex acts.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 29, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Says the queen of deceipt.....who started a whole thread with a lie.....and just kept lying.

Now you are lying about what 'jihad' is.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



"I have made my last post on a gay thread."

Doesn't get much clearer than that.....yet you keep posting in this gay thread.....


----------



## Contumacious (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Forums >  US Discussion > Politics >
> 
> 
> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA? *
> ...




*Yes it is.*

*According to Jonathan Gruber, Americans are stupid. So by concentrating on the gay issue they will  forget the really important issue: "Operation Jade Helm"*


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 29, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?"
> 
> It wouldn't be an 'issue' at all if the states simply obeyed the Constitution and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law.
> 
> This is an issue solely due to the consequence of those hostile to same-sex couples seeking to deny gay Americans their civil rights.



I repeat...

*THERE IS NOT ONE MOTHER FUCKING WORD ABOUT GAYS, SEXUALITY OF ANY SORT, OR MARRIAGE IN THE COTUS!!!*

again..

*THERE IS NOT ONE MOTHER FUCKING WORD ABOUT GAYS, SEXUALITY OF ANY SORT, OR MARRIAGE IN THE COTUS!!!*

There is a precisely worded and well defined right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment, but you bed wetters REFUSE to acknowledge it.

If and when you sniveling parasites ever do maybe, just maybe, more people will sympathize with your phony "rights" that you make up out of absolute thin air.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Apr 29, 2015)

*Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*

Nope.  The economy, jobs, inflation, illegal immigration, etc. are far more important.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Grampa Murked U said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


I apologize, got a bit ahead of myself. there.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 29, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> Nope.  The economy, jobs, inflation, illegal immigration, etc. are far more important.



Don't forget Honey boo boo. Something has got to be done about that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Apr 29, 2015)

*Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*

*It demonstrates that the U.S. of A is mired in a steamy swamp of evil.*

*Now the thing about being mired in a swamp... Is that if one knows that they're mired and they understand that their survival depends upon doing whatever is necessary to get out, then there's a very good chance of getting out and back on sound footing.*

*Sadly... The U.S. Culture is badly infected with Relativism (Evil) and they do not recognize the danger... Thus seriously undermining the odds of survival.*


----------



## bodecea (Apr 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> *It demonstrates that the U.S. of A is mired in a steamy swamp of evil.*
> 
> ...


Yeah yeah yeah....


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Rightwing bigotry is the most important issue in America.  Once we have annihilated that,

the road to progress will be cl


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> *It demonstrates that the U.S. of A is mired in a steamy swamp of evil.*
> 
> ...



Ah yes, more wisdom from the guy who declared the Jews evil for killing Jesus.  lolol


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (Apr 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


I don't care what you do you homo. Go have all the gay butt sex you want.


----------



## Kosh (Apr 29, 2015)

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA? 

NO!

Yet you will see the far left uses words like "equality" and demonstrate they do not understand it's meaning..


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> *It demonstrates that the U.S. of A is mired in a steamy swamp of evil.*
> 
> ...



Them's some big letters.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Apr 29, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


ROFLMNAO

POOR Gilligan.  It still struggles with simple context.  'THE Jews that set Jesus for execution did so on false charges...  which IS evil.

LOL!  But unfairness to you... As an imbecile, wholly isolated from the spirit of God, there's no way you could possibly know that.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...




To the less than 1% of perverts in this country, it is the most important issue although, I have no idea whatsoever why. To the other 99% of the population who see this world turning into hell - we don't give a damn.

Frankly, I don't give a damn what they do in bed - just LEAVE it in the bedroom.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 29, 2015)

It seems the Right's opposition to gay marriage is the most important issue to them.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Apr 29, 2015)

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



What if they do butt sex though? It's just not that simple.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Posting on message boards isn't "dealing" with _anything at all._ 

The priority argument is asinine - *this is a fucking message board.* We all post here for entertainment value, not to fix the world's problems.

If you don't want to post about gay marriage, then don't. Simple as that.


----------



## dblack (Apr 29, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



But.... what about the butt sex?


----------



## Kosh (Apr 29, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



Cool since this an entrainment board then we no longer need moderators..

You can't have it both ways, calling this a "entrainment" board then trying to moderate it like a "discussion" board is stupid..


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 29, 2015)

Kosh said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Huh?

"Entertainment" and "discussion" are not mutually exclusive. This board is _both_.

The "entertainment" come from the "dicussion". Get it?


----------



## Kosh (Apr 29, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Once again showing that this board does not need mods since everyone is here for "entertainment" and not "discussion".


----------



## Borillar (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


It's pretty far down on my list. Just a few steps above tax cuts for the rich and restricting abortion rights.


----------



## PratchettFan (Apr 29, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



You know, it's a tad hard to believe you have made your last post when you make that statement in creating yet another thread on the subject.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 

This is not a gay thread, idiot.   It is a thread about the priorities being assigned to the issues that we face in this country.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Borillar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

Ok, lets see now.   The Bush tax cuts (what you call tax cuts for the rich) cut the tax rates for everyone who pays taxes, not just the rich.   Those tax cuts were continued by obama when he could have cancelled them.   So its accurate to say that obama cut taxes for the rich.

abortion is murder.   all forms of murder should be restricted.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

PratchettFan said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

this thread is about the priorities we are assigning to the issues facing us.   It seems to me that gay marriage is being given much too high of a priority.  

That is what this is about, not whether gay marriage is right or wrong.   I will no longer post in any threads on the right or wrong of gay marriage.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> It seems the Right's opposition to gay marriage is the most important issue to them.



yeah ok if you say so. What can they can do when it's SHOVED in their face day in and day out by you left,  who has nothing else to run on in the upcoming elections. Nobody want's the left/dem policies anymore,  that's why they kicked out Democrats out of control of Congress.

so it's back to your tried and true dirty politics. Last time it was made up war on womeeeen folk. this time it's all them homosexuals in the country. oh wait, they are less than 5% of the people...whoa


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Eleventh  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post

Bonus feature:   OP claims a thread with the title "Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA" isn't a gay thread.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Twelfth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post


----------



## deltex1 (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


It's time for the Fag Forum.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Thirteenth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the Right's opposition to gay marriage is the most important issue to them.
> ...


 

thats the dem/lib strategy as demonstrated by obozo on a daily basis.  Divide the nation on race, sex, age, education, income, ethnicity, location, etc.    Divide and conquer is not a new tactic.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > PratchettFan said:
> ...


 

Wow, she can count too.  But your stupidity is on display since this is not a thread about gays.  Its a thread about priorities.   Keep it up,  you verify what everyone thinks of your idiotic posts.

Here's your chance.     Is gay marriage the most important issue facing the nation today?   yes or no.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Fourteenth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Fifteenth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 

welcome to my ignore list.   I knew you would eventually make it.   I only put idiots on ignore.   Anyone who participates in a civil debate and attempts to address the issues openly and honestly will never be put on ignore.  Those like you, who contribute nothing to the debate are a waste of my time.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Of course it is. don't think these riots AREN'T being planned either. I saw one sign in the group of rioters was A Professional sign made by: SEIU. And we all know who the UNIONS SUPPORT. the dem/progressive/commie party and that includes OBAMA

people better wake up. this isn't going to stop until that thug/progressive Obama, is out of office. How a President can a have a hand in this is the most "sickening" thing I've ever witnessed.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Sixteenth  post-"I have made my last post on a gay thread" post

And a run-away.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 

Sadly, it seems that obama wants a race war in this country.   The only possible motivation for some of his actions is that he is determined to bring this country to its knees as punishment for slavery and financial success.   Success that idiots like him think has been at the expense of the rest of the world.

It will take years to repair the damage done by this traitorous president.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Seventeenth.....well, you know.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

here's the sign I mentioned. Now tell me how this ended up in a riot? or a protest of this kind to begin with?

SNIP:
Results Of Freddie Gray Investigation Won’t Be Made Public This Friday 







ALL of it here:
Weasel Zippers Scouring the bowels of the internet Weasel Zippers


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?"
> ...


 
Read the 14th Amendment and get back to us


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> here's the sign I mentioned. Now tell me how this ended up in a riot? or a protest of this kind to begin with?
> 
> SNIP:
> Results Of Freddie Gray Investigation Won’t Be Made Public This Friday
> ...


 
You do realize this is a thread about gay marriage don't you?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 
WAKE UP STEPHANIE!

This is a gay marriage thread


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

Wow...Chickenfish stated another "how come there are so many gay threads" thread. How original. Has he stomped out of this one in a huff yet, vowing never to return?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes it will. If we survive him before he leaves office. I don't see it getting any better. If you notice he NEVER comes out and speaks for any other color or race except BLACKS. We tried to warn people before they voted for him. Now we are ALL getting to pay for them putting him in office with our towns and businesses being destroyed, our streets being invaded blocking off access to go to work, etc


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Wow...Chickenfish stated another "how come there are so many gay threads" thread. How original. Has he stomped out of this one in a huff yet, vowing never to return?



did someone force you into it or what?
50 other ones on here you can venture into. It's becoming the whole board it seems of you (gays) whining over one thing or another. threads, cakes, flowers, a state law, blaaa blaa bla


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Of course it is. don't think these riots are being planned either. You see one sign in the group of rioters was A Professional sign made by: SEIU
> 
> people better wake up. this isn't going to stop until that thug/progressive Obama, is out of office



It isn't going to stop even after the moonbat messiah is gone. Bed wetters are like locusts, they always come back and destroy. The only way this will stop is by getting tough and fighting them. Scott Walker did a great thing by taking down the unions which finance a lot of the fascist campaigns for public office. We need to continue to attack the sources of revenue the left uses to get their criminally insane authoritarian sociopaths into offices. We need executives at state and federal level to purge bureaucracies of leftist drones, and we need to take the education system out of the hands of these parasites as well. No more federal funding of education, no more government student loans either.

"Big education" has been increasing their prices due to the enormous amount of cash available, and the results are dismal. They're deliberately turning out kids with useless certifications in bullshit like French Art History, Gender Studies, and all sorts of inane shit. Then they're $50K or more in debt and are lucky if they can manage a McDonalds. The left destroys EVERYTHING it touches and they have to be ruthlessly fought until living in America is just so uncomfortable that we see a mass exodus of bed wetters floating south to Cuba.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Wow...Chickenfish stated another "how come there are so many gay threads" thread. How original. Has he stomped out of this one in a huff yet, vowing never to return?


Well, one good thing has come of this thread.   If he were to be believed.  But, I doubt he's telling the truth...he can't even tell the truth about the OP being his last post on a gay thread.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is. don't think these riots are being planned either. You see one sign in the group of rioters was A Professional sign made by: SEIU
> ...




These Universities it seems has become nothing but little commie camps to pump out nothing but Radical little protesters.

Hey, it was one of the tenants of the Communist manifesto. take over the SCHOOLS


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




He doesn't put idiots on ignore...He puts people who he cannot win an argument with on ignore. He's a chickenfish.


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...Chickenfish stated another "how come there are so many gay threads" thread. How original. Has he stomped out of this one in a huff yet, vowing never to return?
> ...



He says that in EVERY "gay thread". He comes barreling in talking about National Referendums then says "I'm done. I'm never posting in gay threads again"...to come back within days. Maybe he blacks out and doesn't remember?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 
What would you know about what goes on in a university?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well who want to argue with this chicken shit trolling? I don't blame him


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...Chickenfish stated another "how come there are so many gay threads" thread. How original. Has he stomped out of this one in a huff yet, vowing never to return?
> ...



No Steph, I came here of my own volition...but I'm not the one complaining about how gays get too much airtime...


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



He's a chicken for backing out of a bet when he found out he couldn't cheat.  He left cogent arguments behind a long time ago, Steph. Unlike you, he tried to have them...he just failed and got pissed.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I don't think she's bright enough to figure out that if they stayed away from or stopped creating the gay threads themselves, there wouldn't be as many and those that exist wouldn't go on as long.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...




I've read it and have not found where it states "... except gays, people of color, women, etc ... "

Maybe someone can point that out to me? 

Anyone?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


 

what it says is ALL equal.  no special treatment for any minority or majority.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
Who is getting "special treatment"?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

Duh,,  have you heard of affirmative action programs?    Duh.


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Christians for one...they are protected in all 50 states against discrimination in Public Accommodation.

Of course, for Chickenfish, he's against gays marrying because then _*he *_won't feel special anymore. He doesn't think gays are deserving to call their unions marriage and if they do, he won't have "special" status.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Sure have...they were found to be constitutional


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

you fricken moron.   affirmative action is SPECIAL TREATMENT.  I don't give a flying fuck if the SC found them constitutional,   they provide special treatment to some people over others.   They are not in compliance with the constitutional guarantee of EQUAL treatment under the law.

You asked who was getting special treatment,  It told you.   Now STFU


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Afirmative action stopped special treatment of white males and opened the door for women and minorities


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

so the fix for discrimination is more discrimination?    Brilliant.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Gays also get special treatment in that they are not allowed to marry whom they wish.

They should be treated just like everyone else - legally recognized marriage. 

Equality - period.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Worked

All Americans benefitted from affirmative action


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Yep, heard of it.  Who's getting special treatment?   I know corporations are.  That's a fact.  Now they're people too, and I don't hear conservatives complain about that.


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 30, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Conservatives don't seem to mind when corporate citizens get married to different corporate citizens.  It's called mergers.  Why aren't the patriots all over these kinky corporate marriages?


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I can understand that some good ole' boys wouldn't like that the good ole' boy system doesn't work automatically for them anymore.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 30, 2015)

Gay marriage is of no relevance to anyone with a brain... total distraction.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 30, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's just fucking stupid... seriously stupid.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> That's just fucking stupid... seriously stupid.



Weapons grade stupid.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 30, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Conservatives don't seem to mind when corporate citizens get married to different corporate citizens.  It's called mergers.  Why aren't the patriots all over these kinky corporate marriages?



You really are stupid, you know that?

But, you're a dimocrap so it's not completely your fault....  Well, yes it is.  You could choose NOT to be a dimocrap and get an education.

I was going to pose a question to you in the form of, "If not 'persons' then what should Corporations be?"

But I thought about it and knew you wouldn't even get off the ground trying to answer it.

Laws apply to persons.  Not to things.  Embrace that concept.......

You can't Sue a tree.  You can Sue the owner of the Tree because the owner is a 'person'

You can't sue a Car that just hit you and crippled you, but you can sue the owner of the Car, which is often a Corporation, because the owner is a 'person'

You can't sue a piece of paper, laws don't apply to "THINGS" laws apply to 'persons' and a Corporation is a person

dimocraps are just simply stupid.

It breaks my heart that people this stupid still exist


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 30, 2015)

P.S.

Corporate Mergers are halted all the time.

ALL the time


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 30, 2015)

Edgetho said:


> P.S.
> 
> Corporate Mergers are halted all the time.
> 
> ALL the time



Sure, that's why only 5 or 6 companies own all the news media.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

how did white kids who were denied admittance to college benefit?   how did white college graduates who did not get jobs that were given to less qualified blacks benefit.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who is the victim or who is the benficiary.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

yep, corporations get special treatment,  The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the entire world.   pretty special, right?


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yep look at the Clinton Foundation and unions. Yet you will still support them as being a good far left drone..


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The far left is run by super rich white men who still rely on said network, yet you still support them..


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Kosh said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I can handle true liberals, but these far left drones that have hijacked that term are the true disease..


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 30, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Naw, they're all shit stains imo


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 30, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



They're not liberals in the classic sense.. they're fascists.....


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?"
> ...



And this is why the thread continue..........13 year old boys want to show off their swear words...


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



As opposed to someone that has the mentality of a two year old, like all the far left drones on this board..


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



This is about the most Gay thread there is.


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then you should support it instead of trying to suppress it, but that is what the far left drones do. Try and silence their opposition.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> And this is why the thread continue..........13 year old boys want to show off their swear words...



No, it continues because bed wetting liberals need to have elementary civics lessons over and over yet fail to achieve even the most basic understanding of what's been posted.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Good question...

Just remember that before affirmative action women were severely restricted in the professions they could choose. Woman at the top of your class?  You can become a teacher, nurse ...maybe executive secretary

CEO?  Forget it honey....you don't have what it takes


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So now this thread is about affirmative action?

LOL>...


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > And this is why the thread continue..........13 year old boys want to show off their swear words...
> ...



You continue to be obsessed with bed wetting......


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL....once again a Conservative who calls any criticism 'suppression'......


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You continue to be obsessed with bed wetting......



You continue to take issue with that because of some personal problem I suppose.

You still ignore the issue because it's easier than thinking.


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes just look at the Obama administration..


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Once again a far left drone showing that criticism and suppression are like riots and protests. They are one and the same..


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

true,  do you think affirmative action fixed that?   The women in the obama administration make less than men doing the same jobs.   WTF?


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Kosh said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
This post has been *REPORTED*

*Failure to include the phrase "far left drone"*

Future violations can lead to your being banned


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

no its about national priorities.   It asks a simple question which you lefties seem unable to answer.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Of course it did. Prior to affirmative action, women were slated for support jobs and blacks were slated for menial labor....Affirmative action changed that

Women in the Obama administration are paid in accordance with Civil Service Regulations and salaries are not set by the President


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

To me it's one of the least important. 

Of FAR greater import is climate change, then US-led wars of aggression, then planetary defense (asteroids and other impacters.)


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> To me it's one of the least important.
> 
> Of FAR greater import is climate change, then US-led wars of aggression, then planetary defense (asteroids and other impacters.)


 

climate change and the attack of the asteroids----------------Wow, what an idiot.

how about the radical islamic wars of agression?   no problem?
how about 18 trillion in debt?


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No, its about you being unable to stay on topic in your own thread- you know- your very own - its not 'Gay' thread...


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

are you totally fricken crazy?   affirmative action did not create female CEOs.   Those women did it on their own by hard work and intelligence. 

and you know nothing about GS pay scales if you think they justify women making less in the obozo white house.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 30, 2015)

dimocraps like discussing gay butt ranger bean flicker issues because --

They're comfortable with the topic.

Just that simple.

Get them outside their comfort zone, get them talking about something they're unfamiliar with -- Like, The Economy, Foreign Policy, National Defense and they're like a fish out of water.

dimocraps like things they're familiar and comfortable with.

Just look in here.....  You start a butt-ranger thread and it's like flies to shit.  It will VERY quickly grow to hundreds, sometimes THOUSANDS, of posts in no time at all.

Start a thread about something....... I dunno, something actually important to the future of America and Americans like -- Over Regulation, our faltering Economy, the out-of-control EPA, obama giving away huge sections of the Globe to murderers, rapists, torturers, woman-abusing goat fucking scum or even mooslums......

And it will wilt on the vine.

dimocraps only want o participate in threads they understand so they can give each other reach-arounds post after post.

It's like Alinsky said --



*RULE 2:* _“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. _

We wonder why dimocrap scum don't address 'real' issues?

This is why.  They stay away from things they have no knowledge of.  Which is about everything outside of gay butt sex, bean flicking and the re-writing of, and lying about, history


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > To me it's one of the least important.
> ...



Debt's too much to ever pay off and will result in catastrophic collapse eventually. So why worry about it?  Can't do anything about it. Can do things about other things though ensuring the world continues if not johnny come lately countries.

It's called triage, save who you can, don't waste time and resources on those you can't. US is beyond saving.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

threads migrate over time.   it was started asking a question about national priorities in our national debate.   I cannot help it if you are too dense to understand.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Yes, yes.....Conservatives always do everything "on their own"

I am well versed on GS pay scales and how they are set. That is why I laugh at your assertion that Obama pays women less. The GS scales are established before he took office


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 

actually we can do something about the debt, like paying down the principal rather than only paying interest. 

as to climate change,  the earth's climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, it will be changing hundreds of millions of years from now.    Man has never had anything to do with it, and never will.


----------



## Kosh (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



See how the far left will defend their prophets and religious leaders..

7 years in and still making excuses and pushing blame away from their religion..


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



In all, there's $1.36 trillion dollars in total circulation. Debt's over 18 trillion. Could seize every dollar in private hands and not even make a dent in the debt.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > To me it's one of the least important.
> ...



Interesting how you don't - or are unable to even address his concerns.

Risk analysis looks at both the likelihood of 'risk' and the potential 'harm' 
You obviously dismiss climate change- but any risk analysis would look at the likelihood and the harm if it is true- even assuming that the likelhood is low, the predicted and possible harm to the United States is huge- climate change could literally result in large segments of the United States disappearing underwater.

Likewise impacts by asteroids- we know that asteroids have hit earth with devestating results in the past- why would you dismiss that concern when you know that the potential harm could actually destroy the entire United States?

Now- lets look at your concerns?
Radical Islamic Wars? Certainly radical islamist pose a more likely risk to the United States- but their potential harm to the United States is far smaller than climate change or an asteroid impact. 

And 18 trillion in debt? Whether or not that is an actual risk to the United States is even more debatable than climate change. 

I can understand why these are your concerns- but Delta's concerns are logically as valid as yours- but you are unable or unwilling to consider them.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Is that a fact? Then, I'm sure that (being well-versed, as you claim) the GS rules and regulations do not apply to the president OR his cabinet, his staff or theirs. Nice try, but no cigar.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Apr 30, 2015)

My concerns are global and species-wide. My concerns don't end at borders. I regard the planet as a whole unit, not broken up into countries, screw countries. Same with people, we're one people not lots of different peoples. Thus what I choose to care about and focus my energies on effects everyone or everything, not merely a tiny inconsequential fraction of the whole like the USA. If it comes down to saving the Asian continent of the USA, my only question is how many live on the entire Asian continent vs the US. If more in Asia, that's who I care more about.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Try this one, it's more appropriate


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> To me it's one of the least important.
> 
> Of FAR greater import is climate change, then US-led wars of aggression, then planetary defense (asteroids and other impacters.)


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 

What is the annual revenue of the US government?    Dollars in circulation means nothing,  Government revenue vs expenses is why we continue to roll up more debt.   We could pay it off.

What's your plan?    just let it continue to grow and then declare national bandruptcy?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> My concerns are global and species-wide. My concerns don't end at borders. I regard the planet as a whole unit, not broken up into countries, screw countries. Same with people, we're one people not lots of different peoples. Thus what I choose to care about and focus my energies on effects everyone or everything, not merely a tiny inconsequential fraction of the whole like the USA. If it comes down to saving the Asian continent of the USA, my only question is how many live on the entire Asian continent vs the US. If more in Asia, that's who I care more about.


 

We are polluting the planet,  if you want a cause, take on pollution of air and water.  

But pollution does not cause the climate to change.   There is absolutely no proof that the acts of human beings have affected the climate of earth.  none, zero, nada, zilch.

We do also have an over population problem,  earth can only support a finite number of humans.   Again, if you want a cause, take on that one.

Focusing on unproven AGW is a waste of your time and efforts.


----------



## Contumacious (Apr 30, 2015)

Contumacious said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Forums >  US Discussion > Politics >
> ...



According to Jonathan Gruber, Americans are stupid. So by concentrating on the gay issue they will forget the really important issue: "Operation Jade Helm*"*


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Is assuring equal treatment under law for every American citizen not a priority?  I know that to Conservatives this issue is a non starter.  Conservative would be content if, at the least, homosexuals remained closeted and demur.  At the most, some Conservatives would bring back sodomy laws and make homosexuality itself a criminal offense.  Conservative concern for civil liberties is always low.

But without equal justice, none of us are free.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

not a word of your post is true.   Gays have every constitutional right that non-gay people have.   Marriage is not a constitutional right.

But the thread asks if this is the most important issue facing our nation.   are you saying you think it is?


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Everyone keep in mind that actual court rulings disagree with ChickenFish's opinion.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
You keep saying it is not a right and are continually proven wrong

Yet you repeat the lie


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 30, 2015)

b


Edgetho said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives don't seem to mind when corporate citizens get married to different corporate citizens.  It's called mergers.  Why aren't the patriots all over these kinky corporate marriages?
> ...



So how were laws applied before corporations had citizenship status?  There was  implied corporate person hood for executing contracts etc.  Then the corporate controlled supreme court gave them citizenship and  free speech rights in order to use unlimited amounts of money to influence politics.  There used to didn't be mergers.   A corporation was one entity only that had to serve the common good, since the founders and patriots didn't much trust corporations.  Pretty good link below about some corporate history.  Read it and weep.

Got go.  Got just received some newly uncovered Chairman Mao quotes I need to read..

Corporations Personhood and the Common Good Capital Commentary


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And there is no evidence that debt is harming us- while there is evidence that climate change very likely will.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > My concerns are global and species-wide. My concerns don't end at borders. I regard the planet as a whole unit, not broken up into countries, screw countries. Same with people, we're one people not lots of different peoples. Thus what I choose to care about and focus my energies on effects everyone or everything, not merely a tiny inconsequential fraction of the whole like the USA. If it comes down to saving the Asian continent of the USA, my only question is how many live on the entire Asian continent vs the US. If more in Asia, that's who I care more about.
> ...



Pretending that there is no evidence is just sticking your head in the sand.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yep- you sure are showing how you will not be posting about gay issues anymore.......


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 

the word marriage appears no where in the constitution, declaration of independence, or the bill of rights.

"pursuit of happiness" is a generic term.  "pursuit" is guaranteed, not happiness.

Marriage licenses are issued by the states,  the states should decide who they may be issued to.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 

There is evidence of pollution, yes

there is no evidence that pollution is causing climate change.

However, there is hard evidence that sun spots and ocean current changes cause temporary climate changes.

All of the so-called evidence of man made climate change has been debunked many times.

Face it,  the prophet algore lied to you.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has said otherwise three times- more precisely the Supreme Court has said three times that States do decide- they just can't restrict marriage in violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Face it- you are just sticking your head in the sand.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 


ATTENTION EVERYONE.   WE HAVE A WINNER IN THE DUMBASS POST OF THE DAY CONTEST.  THIS FOOL THINKS THAT 18 TRILLION IN DEBT IS NOT A PROBLEM BUT THE FAKE SCIENCE OF AGW IS.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 

As usual you totally miss the point.

so let me see if I can put it in words you can understand

do you think gay marriage is the biggest issue facing the USA today?   yes or no


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

tell that to the people in the northeast who froze their asses off in record snow last winter.

you are the one with his head in the sand-----------or maybe its up your ass.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Already answered before- absolutely no.

But then again- I haven't said- like you have- that you were done posting on the issue- and continued to post on the issue.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Not my problem that you don't understand science, or confuse a regional weather pattern for a global weather pattern.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL Redfish discovered the caps button.

I actually understand risk analysis- you understand nothing but fear mongery.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Apr 30, 2015)

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


...or fish mongery....


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I can't hear you.  Please stop mumbling.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

LOL,  there is no global weather pattern that proves that the acts of humans are changing the climate of our planet.

Have you ever flown across the pacific, atlantic, or indian oceans?   ever flown across the USA, Russia, Africa, South america?   I have and what you see is miles and miles of open space where no human beings exist or have any activities.

The idea that humans using fossil fuels to power their cities and have better lives is destroying the planet is absurd and based on ignorance.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


ROFLMNAO!

The earth's climate changes...  Deal with it.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

The sky is falling, the oceans are going to boil, we are doomed because soccer moms are driving evil SUVs.

you fuckin moron.   you and your AGW cultists are the fear mongers.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Apr 30, 2015)

THE READER  SHOULD BE ADVISED:

The northern hemisphere is presently transitioning from 'Climate Change''  to  'Global Warming' season.
This while the southern hemisphere is transitioning from global warming to climate change season.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Wow....you get really pissy when you lose an argument.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 30, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The myth that human presence has no impact on the environment is based upon fear and wishful thinking.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
The word "woman" does not appear in the Constitution

Does not mean they are not covered under it


----------



## bodecea (May 1, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## rightwinger (May 1, 2015)

bodecea said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
The word "corporation" does not appear either


----------



## PratchettFan (May 2, 2015)

Redfish said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Bull.  You didn't ask what our top priority is, you asked if gay marriage was.  You made it your topic at the very beginning and it continues to be just about the only topic you want to talk about, while you insist you don't want to talk about it.  There are lots of other topics on this very board, and I don't seem to see you in any of them.


----------



## Misty (May 2, 2015)

I don't care if gays want to marry. They will find out that there are consequences to marriage that might not be as lovely as gays think. Let them feel the pain. 

That being said, according to the stats only 1% of the 3% that are gay, actually want marriage. So when liberals talk about the one precenters, it actually applies to gay marriage.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 2, 2015)

Misty said:


> I don't care if gays want to marry. They will find out that there are consequences to marriage that might not be as lovely as gays think. Let them feel the pain.
> 
> That being said, according to the stats only 1% of the 3% that are gay, actually want marriage. So when liberals talk about the one precenters, it actually applies to gay marriage.




Actually 93% (i.e. 9 out of 10) members of the LGBT community state that they favor Same-sex Civil Marriage.

A Survey of LGBT Americans Pew Research Center s Social Demographic Trends Project



Now, I'm a heterosexual white male.  At the age of 24 if you asked me if I was planning on getting married - the answer would have been "No".  That could then be spun as my answer says that I don't want marriage.  Not the case at all, I just didn't want marriage at that time.  Four years later, after meeting the right woman, we go married and have been together for 28 years and counting.  Because I didn't want marriage at age 24 doesn't mean that I don't support marriage.


>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 2, 2015)

Redfish said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And the 14th Amendment requires the states to allow the American citizens residing within the states equal protection of (equal access to) the laws of the states, including marriage law same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

You and others on the right keep trying – and failing – to reject this fact: that Americans, including gay Americans, are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where their civil rights are immune from attack by the states, as one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence.


----------



## timslash (May 3, 2015)

Can't disagree with you. But you forget that every issue is important and maybe you will not believe, but same-sex marriages issue is as important as for example issues about national debt! We should ban same-sex marriages and everything will be okay, because now, this is endless dispute...


----------



## Seawytch (May 3, 2015)

Misty said:


> I don't care if gays want to marry. They will find out that there are consequences to marriage that might not be as lovely as gays think. Let them feel the pain.



I'm sorry your experiences with marriage were not ideal, but that doesn't mean everyones is. Marriage has been even more lovely than I thought it would be, thanks!



> That being said, according to the stats only 1% of the 3% that are gay, actually want marriage. So when liberals talk about the one precenters, it actually applies to gay marriage.



You got a link to these "stats"?


----------



## rdean (May 3, 2015)

*Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*

For Republicans, it's having a black president.


----------



## LittleNipper (May 3, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


The most important issue facing America today is her decadence. She is selfish, greedy, unrepentant, foolish, prideful, and ungodly. Gay marriage is just a symptom  a much deeper rot.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

no, I get pissy with the stupidity of you moronic leftists who believe the shit that your masters pump into your empty heads.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

that argument can also be made for polygamy, sibling marriage, parent child marriage and every other form of human grouping as marriage.

Is that where you on the left want our society to go?

BTW,  gay marriage is an oxymoron.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> BTW,  gay marriage is an oxymoron.



Speaking as a retired Navy Chief...

So is "Intelligence Officer" and "Jumbo Shrimp".


But they both exist in reality.


>>>>


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > BTW,  gay marriage is an oxymoron.
> ...


 

I get it,  but intelligence officer is an officer in charge of intelligence, it has nothing to do with his intelligence.  Shrimp is a kind of shell fish, the word shrimp does not denote size.  jumbo shrimp is a large type of shrimp.

whereas,  the words gay and marriage have opposite meanings.

But I get your joke.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And here Red Minnow is...back in a gay thread.


----------



## RicO'Shea (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



It IS an important issue because it calls into question the way the first amendment is defined. Since there is no definition of marriage in the constitution it cannot be interpreted to be solely between a man and a woman. Constitutionally, marriage is all inclusive, it has no limitations and the SCOTUS justices who stupidly question the "age old" definition of marriage need to recuse themselves out of sheer stupidity. This Supreme Court is a joke, but that's par for the course when rightists hold the majority.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (May 5, 2015)

Most important. Only if you're gay and wanting to get married I suppose.  So for the less than 1% of people that describes, gotta wonder why it ever even makes the news at all.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

RicO'Shea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

your post is a study in contradictions.   you first admit that marriage is not addressed in any of our founding documents, and then like most leftists, try to create something that you admit does not exist.

marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a permit issued by each state, not the federal government.  The constitution leaves such things to the states, therefore, the voters of each should decide.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Most important. Only if you're gay and wanting to get married I suppose.  So for the less than 1% of people that describes, gotta wonder why it ever even makes the news at all.


 

my point exactly.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (May 5, 2015)

In Denmark, and Star Trek lore (among Deltans from whence my nic comes,) people don't typically 'marry.' They live together as long as they're interested, then go their separate ways when not.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> In Denmark, and Star Trek lore (among Deltans from whence my nic comes,) people don't typically 'marry.' They live together as long as they're interested, then go their separate ways when not.


 

right, no commitment, no responsibility,  just do what feels good at the moment.   do you really believe that creates a healthy society?


----------



## RicO'Shea (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It is an issue for the federal government to decide on. If a same sex couple is married in one state, and they need to relocate to another state that doesn't recognize their marriage it's not fair for them. This is too difficult for the simpleton right wing mind to comprehend, but it's a very distinct possibility and it gives the federal government due cause to rule on it.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

RicO'Shea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


 

Oh, its not faaaaaaaaaair,  it might hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings------well tough shit.   Stay in a state that recognizes your gay hook up as a marriage. 

My CC permit is not recognized in New Jersey or New York,  so I don't go to those states with my gun in my pocket.   BFD.

you gays need to grow the fuck up and realize that you are less than 2% of the population and the rest of us don't have to cater to your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


So much for the OP being the last gay thread post he makes.....once a liar always a liar, it would appear.  He just can't quit the gay.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > In Denmark, and Star Trek lore (among Deltans from whence my nic comes,) people don't typically 'marry.' They live together as long as they're interested, then go their separate ways when not.
> ...



Probably helps. US isn't in the top 20 of any metric worldwide. Denmark comes in 'happiest nation' year after year. They must be doing something right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2015)

Redfish, you are one person, and the right thinking America does not give a shit if  you throw a fit about this.  It is going to happen.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> My CC permit is not recognized in New Jersey or New York,  so I don't go to those states with my gun in my pocket.




Do any state allow CC permits from other states but restrict which ones they honor nor not based on the gender of the person that holds the permit?


>>>>


----------



## George Costanza (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> yeah, we have been guilty of that,  but its so much fun to watch the libs dodge, lie, and deflect as their ideology is destroyed by facts and logical thought.


 
I guess there is no room for tolerance in the conservative's definition of "logical thought."


----------



## Seawytch (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You got one thing right, it's not about how YOU feeeeeeel about gays marrying, it's about equal application of the law. 



> My CC permit is not recognized in New Jersey or New York,  so I don't go to those states with my gun in my pocket.   BFD.



And if CC permits were treated exactly like marriage licenses, you'd have a point. They aren't so you don't. 



> you gays need to grow the fuck up and realize that you are less than 2% of the population and the rest of us don't have to cater to your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.



Do the Jews "need to grow the fuck up and realize that you are less than 2% of the population and the rest of us don't have to cater to your feeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings"? They are less than 2% of the population...


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > My CC permit is not recognized in New Jersey or New York,  so I don't go to those states with my gun in my pocket.
> ...


 

nope, they discriminate against all CC permit holders regardless of race, sex, or gayness.   Would you support a SC decision to allow CC permits from any state to be valid in all states?

Why are you on the left afraid of letting the people decide this at the polling place?


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

George Costanza said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, we have been guilty of that,  but its so much fun to watch the libs dodge, lie, and deflect as their ideology is destroyed by facts and logical thought.
> ...


 

your post above is an intolerant post.   You on the left are intolerant of anyone who dares disagree with your far left socialist marxist collectivist agenda. 

there are no variables in logical thought.  Logic is logic, it is based an unbiased study of the facts, without emotion or empathy or preconceived bias.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish, you are one person, and the right thinking America does not give a shit if  you throw a fit about this.  It is going to happen.


 

it may happen, and if it does I will accept the will of the people, but I will not change my thinking because some government asshole tells me that I must.

Now, if the SC rules against you, will you accept that ruling and STFU about this?   yes or no.


----------



## Seawytch (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Why do you keep bringing up completely unrelated things in your threads? If you think CC permits should be treated like Marriage Licenses, start a thread on THAT. 

Would you like to have to get a new marriage license each time you move to a new state like you do a CC permit?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Well, there you do.    You just proved Seawytch's point for her...Well done.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> nope, they discriminate against all CC permit holders regardless of race, sex, or gayness.   Would you support a SC decision to allow CC permits from any state to be valid in all states?



Yes, I support peoples rights to keep and bear arms.



Redfish said:


> Why are you on the left afraid of letting the people decide this at the polling place?



I'm not a member of the left, I'm a right of center Republican and have been so since I first registered to vote in 1978.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2015)

Redfish: "Now, if the SC rules against you, will you accept that ruling and STFU about this? yes or no."  Of course, but I would not shut up anymore than you.  But, yes, it is going to happen.


----------



## RicO'Shea (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


----------



## RicO'Shea (May 5, 2015)

RicO'Shea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not important to gays. Comparing your CC permit to gsy marriage is really fucked up, unless of course you want to give it a blow job.  Ist Americans today approve of gay marriage, so a vote would be fine with me. You're the one that needs to grow the fuck up and realize that it's a civil rights issue, and that your homophobic issues need to be dealt with through psychological therapy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2015)

I have enjoyed watching the reactionary far right "dodge, lie, and deflect as their ideology is destroyed by facts and logical thought."  The facts of the situation are simple, the courts overwhelmingly agree, the last half dozen elections have fallen to the majority, which supports marriage equality.  Particularly the millennials.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > nope, they discriminate against all CC permit holders regardless of race, sex, or gayness.   Would you support a SC decision to allow CC permits from any state to be valid in all states?
> ...


 

my comment was addressed to snake snarkey,  not you.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish: "Now, if the SC rules against you, will you accept that ruling and STFU about this? yes or no."  Of course, but I would not shut up anymore than you.  But, yes, it is going to happen.


 

Yes, I will.   because to do otherwise would be a waste of time and effort.

But you never answered,   if they rule against you will you STFU about it?  Will you accept the ruling of the highest court in the land in accordance with the constitution?   yes or no.


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

RicO'Shea said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

 the majority does not approve of it.   The very blue state of california voted it down twice. 

BTW, its not homophobic to be opposed to gay marriage.

In this country we still have freedom of thought and belief,   do we not?


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2015)

George Costanza said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, we have been guilty of that,  but its so much fun to watch the libs dodge, lie, and deflect as their ideology is destroyed by facts and logical thought.
> ...


1996 GOP Convention in San Diego, a popular sales item was a t-shirt with "Intolerance is a Beautiful Thing".


----------



## Redfish (May 5, 2015)

RicO'Shea said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

Its NOT a civil rights issue.   Its a societal issue whether this society wants to sanction a gay union and call it a marriage.   It has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights.   That is a bullshit failed argument.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Go back and check, you replied to a post I made.


>>>>


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 5, 2015)

Considering gays make up about 2% of the population and not 100% of that number care about gay marriage, I'd say it is of no real consequence.  What this is really about is chipping away at tradition.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## bodecea (May 5, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Considering gays make up about 2% of the population and not 100% of that number care about gay marriage, I'd say it is of no real consequence.  What this is really about is chipping away at tradition.  Nothing more, nothing less.


So....what does being about 2% of the population have to do with this?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 5, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Considering gays make up about 2% of the population and not 100% of that number care about gay marriage, I'd say it is of no real consequence.  What this is really about is chipping away at tradition.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> ...



The question was is gay marriage the biggest issue in the U.S. today?  How can something that affects 4.7 million people (_maybe_) out of 316 million be the biggest issue facing the country?  Looka, don't get me wrong, I don't care one way or another.  Get married, don't get married.  But the biggest issue in the country today?  Nah, no way.  That's absurd.  $60,000,000,000,000 in debt and unfunded liabilities?  Ok... now you have my attention.


----------



## Syriusly (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



BTW- only moron's say that.


----------



## Syriusly (May 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You bigots need to grow the fuck up and stop telling gay people that they can't get married.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 5, 2015)

Until I hear a sensible argument demonstrating actual harm resulting after same sex marriage, I will continue to believe that all arguments against it are based in ignorance, fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...



And you moral busy bodies need to stop pushing your morality on others.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 5, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


How can marriage equality directly effect you?  How can it directly effect your community?  Does your moral code trump all others?  If so, why?


----------



## Syriusly (May 5, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Which 'moral busy bodies' would that be? 

You say you are from New Orleans? Home of laws imposing morality on others- i.e. laws against consensual sodomy. 

Doesn't get much more 'pushing morality' on others than telling others 'If you do that in your bedroom, we will send you to jail'.


----------



## Redfish (May 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


 

Listen carefully, idiot.   A majority of the inhabitants of planet earth do not consider a gay union to be a marriage.   In most of the world gays are shunned, ridiculed, or killed.  In the USA they have the rights that every citizen has.   Marriage of two men or two women is not a constitutional right.   If the voters of some states want to sanction it, fine.  But the voters of each state should make that decision.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.   It has been that for over 3000 years (yes, there were some exceptions but they are tiny).  

A gay civil union would give you all of the "cash and prizes" that you claim you can't get.  The word marriage would not give you anything more, and you fucking well know it.

This is not about rights, equality, or fairness.  its about a 2% minority trying to use the government to mandate societal acceptance of an aberant lifestyle,   and you fucking well know that too.


----------



## Redfish (May 6, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Until I hear a sensible argument demonstrating actual harm resulting after same sex marriage, I will continue to believe that all arguments against it are based in ignorance, fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes.


 

OK.  one final time.   If gay marriage is federally sanctioned using equality, discrimination, and fairness are legal arguments, then polygamy, sibling, parent/child, and every other form of marriage MUST also be sanctioned using the exact same arguments.

What legal argument will you bring to deny marriage to polygamists, etc?   Why would you discriminate against them because they do not believe as you do.

Thats the societal damage----------------------


----------



## Nosmo King (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Until I hear a sensible argument demonstrating actual harm resulting after same sex marriage, I will continue to believe that all arguments against it are based in ignorance, fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes.
> ...


Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults to establish a next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously exists.  That eliminates polygamy, incestuous relationships and any other combination you might be fearful of.

Polygamy would require a multi-partnership, not the marriage contract which is exclusive to two individuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


Let's get the little wheels back on your broken band wagon.

(1) The majority does approve of it, the millennials overwhelmingly.

(2) To oppose marriage equality is homophobia.

(3) You may believe and think as you will, yes.

(4) Of course it is civil rights issue. 

(5) #4 above is why SCOTUS will make it the law of the land.

(6) If you believe #3 above, you will not shut up about it, despite your lie otherwise.


----------



## Redfish (May 6, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


 

where in the constitution do you find that definition of marriage?   Where in the bill of rights or any of the amendments?  where in any SC decision?

thats the problem, you THINK that definition is enshrined somewhere, but its not.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Evidence of what Red Minnow bases his belief system on......


----------



## Redfish (May 6, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


 

1, wrong
2 wrong
3 true
4 wrong
5 maybe, maybe not
6 I will accept the SC ruling either way,  will you if it goes against you?


----------



## Nosmo King (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


It's in the marriage license itself!  The contract establishes a new legal entity and is exclusive to two individuals.  What state has marriage defined as a group of three or more?  What state says the marriage contract is open to minors?  What state holds a marriage contract to those with a previous next-of-kin relationship? 


If all we had as a code of law was the constitution, nothing much could get done!


----------



## Syriusly (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Listen carefully, moron. The United States does not live by what the majority of the inhabitants of the world consider- if we had gone by that women would not have gotten the vote for another 50 years- if ever. The majority of the world is opposed to the death penalty- and we don't care. 

You bigots only suddenly care about what Russia and Saudi Arabia think about marriage when it comes to homosexuals. 

You bigots need to grow the fuck up and stop telling gay people that they can't get married.


----------



## Syriusly (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...



Simply being opposed to gay marriage does not necessarily make you homophobic- but you certainly could be.

But certainly if you are not opposed to gay marriage you are not homophobic.


----------



## Syriusly (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Until I hear a sensible argument demonstrating actual harm resulting after same sex marriage, I will continue to believe that all arguments against it are based in ignorance, fear, suspicion and hurtful stereotypes.
> ...



No- only someone who does not understand the arguments believes that is true.

None of those things happened when mixed race marriage bans were overturned, none of those things happened when the bans on inmate marriage were overturned, and none of those things happened when the bans on marriage by people who owed child support were overturned.

Its  false argument- essentially a strawman by those who cannot make a successful argument against gay marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 6, 2015)

Syriusly has Redfish on the run.

The following is a slippery slope fallacy: "If gay marriage is federally sanctioned using equality, discrimination, and fairness are legal arguments, then polygamy, sibling, parent/child, and every other form of marriage MUST also be sanctioned using the exact same arguments."  Absolutely no proof that such will happen, not even common sense to that point.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


Question...would a person opposed to allowing legal marriage for people of the Jewish Faith be considered anti-semitic?


----------



## Seawytch (May 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...




Yeah, it kinda does. Being opposed to gays civilly marrying is bigotry. 

The Rude Pundit


----------



## buddhallah_the_christ (May 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Hah, i've noticed that cr@p earlier. We have a huge amount of actual problems which do really endanger our country. But we prefer to discuss how and where will we marry gays and lesbians. The problem is exaggerated. It is a sort of advertisement.


----------



## candycorn (May 7, 2015)

He he he....

The gift that keeps on giving.....

Unabashed Republican hatred....


----------



## candycorn (May 7, 2015)

That one of the  two political parties in the nation thinks that this subset of citizens have fewer rights than everyone else....

When this set has not broken any laws...

That depriving people of rights can be based solely upon their otherwise peaceful behavior....

Nothing is more important in a very real sense.  
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."  MLK


----------



## AntiParty (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Christians are scared to death of gay marriage because of the raptures. But they can't control the end of times by using Judgment on others. "Do not Judge or be judged" may be the sin that starts the raptures. Gays loving and Christians hating. Anything wrong with this picture?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 7, 2015)

REDFISH SAID:

“BTW, its not homophobic to be opposed to gay marriage.”

Actually it is, given the fact there's no rational basis in support of denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law. There's also no objective, documented evidence in support of prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, and seeking to do so is devoid of a proper legislative end – indeed, this is why the courts have invalidated measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

In addition, the 'states' rights' argument fails, as the states have no authority whatsoever to deny same-sex couples their inalienable, fundamental rights as protected by the 14th Amendment.

In the end, there is no legal, Constitutional basis justifying denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, the only motivating factor is unwarranted animus toward gay Americans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 7, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Considering gays make up about 2% of the population and not 100% of that number care about gay marriage, I'd say it is of no real consequence.  What this is really about is chipping away at tradition.  Nothing more, nothing less.


Nonsense.

'Tradition' is not justification to deny citizens their civil rights.

And the percentage of gay American in the population has no bearing whatsoever on the issue, if one American is denied his civil rights, that's one American too many; there is no more important issue than ensuring every American be afforded his comprehensive civil rights.


----------



## Muhammed (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


It's not merely a nomenclature issue.


----------



## AntiParty (May 7, 2015)

Vine


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RicO'Shea said:
> ...


 

homophobic =  afraid of homosexuals.     I am not afraid of homosexuals. 

I know that in the current jargon, homophobic is used to mean opposed to gay marriage, but that is not what the word means.


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

Yes, it is.  That is all it is.   It is all about the word marriage being used to define a homosexual union.

the entire debate is about the word 'marriage'.    If you on the left would face that reality we might be able to solve this mess.


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

AntiParty said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

what's wrong is that the picture you have created is totally inaccurate.


----------



## Syriusly (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Actually neither of your definitions is correct. 

Per Webster:

Dictionary
*homophobia*
_noun_ ho·mo·pho·bia \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
*Definition of HOMOPHOBIA*
*:*  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

And that describes you perfectly.


----------



## Syriusly (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Clearly it isn't- note Georgia's law- the homophobes don't merely object to the word marriage- they object to any legal recognition of same gender unions. If homosexuals had not been winning recognition of their right to marry in the courts- the homophobes would still be fighting against them having civil unions.

(_a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]
_


----------



## Skylar (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So 'separate but equal' again? That doesn't have a good track record. Mainly because the separation doesn't exist because they are equal. But because they're not.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


I nominate this as the most Ironic thread of the year!


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

and you are full of shit.   I have gay relatives and friends who I love and respect,  you fricken moron, you know nothing about me.   Go fuck yourself, asshole.


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


 

so you admit that this is all about the word 'marriage' and has nothing to do with equality, the constitution, fairness or anything else.   Its about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal to normal heterosexual human beings.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Do they know you are homophobic?


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

If pointing out the hypocrisy of liberals is ironic, then I agree.


----------



## Redfish (May 7, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

They know I oppose gay marriage, as do most of them.   There is not 100% agreement on this within the gay community.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



There is not 100% agreement on anything so that's kind of pointless.  

The question really is, why do you have friends who lie to you?


----------



## Syriusly (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Sure- you love and respect them sooooooo much that you want the law to discriminate against them.

What an asswipe.


----------



## Syriusly (May 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose


Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?


----------



## Redfish (May 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

No, for the final time.  I want gays to have equal rights,  I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with.  The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others.   Thats my issue.

Now, the solution:   pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood.   Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Nonsense.  You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground.  Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children.  OMFG


----------



## Redfish (May 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Bullshit,  if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.  

For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent. 

You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


So much for you saying you were no longer posting on gay threads.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Bullshit.  Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do.  Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Red Minnow will be disappointed to find out his fellow incest/polygamy travelers will have to build their own legal cases to make their desires legal.


----------



## Redfish (May 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

I don't care if you agree,  it is already in the works. 
Time will prove me right, and you wrong
Watch.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 8, 2015)

bodecea said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Odd isn't it that people claiming to be filled with moral sanctity are arguing for incest, plural marriages, and sex with children if consenting adults of the same sex are allowed to marry.  Really odd.


----------



## Seawytch (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You might love them, but you don't respect them. You don't think they deserve the same rights, benefits and protections you have. That's disrespectful...and mean.


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Basically they seem to think that there is no actual reason to prevent incestious marriage or plural marriage- other than they find it 'icky'- because that is the only reason they seem to come up with for preventing the marriage of two people of the same gender.


----------



## Redfish (May 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

You idiot,  I am opposed to those things,  but I understand that you revert to insults when you have lost the debate to a logical, reasoned, intelligent response.

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this.   Time will prove me right.


----------



## Redfish (May 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


 

Ok, then you tell us what legal arguments you will bring against polygamy etc once gay marriage is approved by the SC.


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Reasons for approving mixed race marraige
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will be made for all forms of marriage, using mixed race marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

If the courts allow mixed race marriages- then the court is opening the door to incest.......

(paraphrasing the arguments of the State of Virginia- 1967)


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You have never presented a logical, reasoned or intelligent response. 

You just offer up you bizarre opinions and declare yourself the winner. 

While arguing for discrimination against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You miss my point. 

Which doesn't surprise me.

You clearly have no argument against polygamy- since you announce that if same gender marriage is allowed- polygamy would be allowed. 

If you have no argument against polygamy- why do you oppose it?


----------



## Seawytch (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.



Really? What case?


----------



## there4eyeM (May 8, 2015)

The question of 'marriage' between any two people is far from important as a 'problem' for America.


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And that is Bullshit.

The Supreme Court ruled that mixed race marriage bans were unconstitutional- that did not make a precedent making every other form of marriage legal- it did make clear that the Supreme Court has the authority to look at any State marriage law and decide whether or not it is constitutional. 

The reason why the State of Virginia lost in Loving v. Virginia was,  in part, because they could not provide any compelling state interest that was achieved by denying them their rights to marriage. 

This is the essential question in this case: Is there any compelling State interest in preventing same gender couples from marrying?

And that would be the same question asked for any other kind of marriage bans, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court rules in favor of same gender marriage.

If you cannot provide a compelling State interest in preventing a polygamous marriage- why exactly do you oppose polygamous marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



That is a solution to a non-existent problem.


----------



## mdk (May 8, 2015)

A whole thread filled with "this is my last post" about gay marriage. Too funny!


----------



## Seawytch (May 8, 2015)

mdk said:


> A whole thread filled with "this is my last post" about gay marriage. Too funny!



You can find that statement from Chickenfish in just about every "gay" thread. It's his "go to" when he's getting his ass kicked.


----------



## mdk (May 8, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > A whole thread filled with "this is my last post" about gay marriage. Too funny!
> ...



He cries about people spending too much time talking about gay marriage and then spends most of his time here whining about gay marriage. lol


----------



## RKMBrown (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


With plural marriages, yes.  That argument can be used.
However, with incest and sex with children harm is done to the children, thus the argument does not hold any weight.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


No, time won't prove that being gay is the same as raping a child.


----------



## Syriusly (May 8, 2015)

For a guy who keeps telling us how important this issue is to him- he sure wants to talk about it alot.


----------



## Skylar (May 8, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



This is what....the the 2nd or 3rd thread he's started lamenting about how many threads there are on gay marriage?


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

race and sexual orientation are not analogous.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

a mixed race marriage is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.   Thats why the SC ruled as it did.   "Loving" in no way sets a precedent for same sex marriage.

Its not up to me to provide a reason to oppose polygamy,  that is the question for you.   If you favor SSM, on what grounds do you oppose polygamy?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Incestuous marriages don't involve children.  All participants are adults.  How are you going to object to that?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No one is talking about raping a child, moron.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


In the grand scheme of things, this issue should be at the bottom of the totem pole. What is happening to Mother Earth is far more important than this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 9, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> My guess is. The MAJORITY of the people are already sick and tried of hearing them whine, bully others and wants it stopped being used for their agendas of division dirty politics.
> 
> They were kicked out of Congress into minority for this very reason. so kick them the rest of the way out come 2016


Gays were kicked out of Congress? Do tell..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 9, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...




Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 9, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


"DINHONESTITY"



Ahhhh, yet another golden Stephanie-moment.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



I think a ruling by the court that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage is pretty important. 

The arguments for SSM ( btw it is not about gay marriage) are the same for SSSM.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Loving demonstrates that the states are subject to constitutional guarantees related to marriage. And that marriage is a right.

Given that marriage is a right, you'll need far more than 'because we can' to withold that right from gays. You'll need a very good reason, a compelling state interest, and a valid legislative end. 

Opponents of gay marriage have none of these three. And they need all three.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with the case that the USSC is hearing. None of the legal questions being answered are about sibling marriage. Nor is anyone in the Obergefell case related.

You're obsession with incest doesn't amount to relevance.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Defending your first amendment right is damn important.  I would think even a  libertarian would see this


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I think your in the wrong thread to be deflecting.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Same sex sibling marriage utilizes the exact same arguments presented in the SSM case. 

Now tell me it can't become law.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I think you're avoiding the topic of same sex marriage like it were on fire. As your argument opposing same sex marriage doesn't work. And you know it.

Which is why you're bizarrely trying to change the topic to incest.

I'll stick with same sex marriage, thanks.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Why don't you go marry your brother you sick fuck.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Again with your obsession with incest. If you want to wax eloquent on all your thoughts on sibling sex......feel free to start a thread on the topic. This one is about same sex marriage.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Who says I have a brother, oh-ignorant one?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


That's what you ultimately want. You want sick unnatural relations.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 9, 2015)

Again the federal tyrannical courts is about to strip more state rights away and for what? So progressives have a spring board to attack churches and force them to perform these sinful ceremonies


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Again....you work with your legal teams to make that happen.


----------



## mdk (May 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Again the federal tyrannical courts is about to strip more state rights away and for what? So progressives have a spring board to attack churches and force them to perform these sinful ceremonies



Not a single church has been forced to marry any couple, gay or otherwise, against their wishes. Not one.


----------



## danielpalos (May 9, 2015)

Only when the Right can't seem to handle that _moral challenge_ and tries to resort to Statism and the _coercive use of force of the 
State_ while claiming they are not really like that, afterward.


----------



## mdk (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It shows they really do not have any valid reasons (save its icky) to deny gays access to marriage. It is why they have to change the topic to incest, polygamy, PA laws, marrying children and/or animals.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

mdk said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Again the federal tyrannical courts is about to strip more state rights away and for what? So progressives have a spring board to attack churches and force them to perform these sinful ceremonies
> ...



Not by the government...their congregation is another matter.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

_I never said anything about under age children.   I said consenting adults._


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Again the federal tyrannical courts is about to strip more state rights away and for what? So progressives have a spring board to attack churches and force them to perform these sinful ceremonies




Oh, GAWD, not that shit again.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

This thread merely asks if gay marriage is the most pressing problem facing this nation.  The fact that rather than try to answer the simple question, you on the left always want to get into the right or wrong of gay marriage indicates that you may actually think this is a bigger issue than 20 trillion in debt, high unemployment, radical islam within the country, illegal immigration, the mid east burning, etc.

I really think that the focus on this by the left is to take the attention away from the massive failures of obama and liberalism in general.

Now, do you have an opinion on the original question or not?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Not at all, although I see why you so desperately try to deflect. SSM AND SSSM are EXACTLY the same. 

No one has ever been able to come up with an argument to disagree. 

The closest I've seen as an argument againt same sex sibling marriage is that OPPOSITE sex siblings could produce defective children. 

So, for that argument to be successfully argued, courts must find that someone else's ability can be used to deny "rights" of another. 

That wouldn't bode well for SSM would it?

What am I missing?


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

no one ever said it would.   parent/child marriage when both are over the age of majority is not rape,  but it could become legal if gay marriage becomes legal.  

deny it all you want, but we are on a legal slippery slope.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 

nice summary


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

mdk said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Again the federal tyrannical courts is about to strip more state rights away and for what? So progressives have a spring board to attack churches and force them to perform these sinful ceremonies
> ...


 
yet


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

And Red Minnow again is posting in a gay thread.......


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.



It sounds like that's what YOU want. 

Here is a clue for you so you don't get into trouble...

Animals, children and dead people can't consent. Hope that keeps you out of jail.


----------



## mdk (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Gays have been getting married in MA for over a decade now. Not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Fear mongering is pretty what ya'll have left.


----------



## Edgetho (May 9, 2015)

The issue is neveer the issue with dimocrap scum.

The issue is the Revolution

With dimocrap scum constantly putting traditions, including Marriage and Religion, under attack, they help to destabilize and destroy the Family Unit.

Absent the Family Unit, the only place to turn is The State.  Always the omnipotent State with dimocrap scum.....  Always.

Only 16% of Black Children in Ballmer are raised in a two-parent household.

You think that's bad?  Really?  Are you THAT STUPID?!?!!

Do you think scum of the fucking earth dimocrap filth GIVE A FUCK about that?

They LOVE IT like that.  THAT is how they want ALL of America.

With them in charge, of course.  Sitting on 'Mt Olympus' looking down on the hard scrabble lives of poor, uneducated, unloved, un-parented Prols who are no more important to the leadership of the dimocrap scum party than the Chicken they're having for dinner.

You can call me names, you can say I'm inventing shit, you can say this is all a grand delusion......

But people......  It EXISTS.  What I'm describing EXISTS and it is what dimocrap scum want to do to us.

Do you think Kim Jong Un gives a FUCK about his people?  Of course he doesn't.  No more than dimocrap scum care about theirs.  Bang up job they've done with Blacks, huh?  

Do you think Kim's people even KNOW how bad they have it?  No, they don't

With the DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media in tow, dimocrap scum could easily construct an Orwellian America.

In fact, I can PROVE that is their goal.

You can, too.  All you gotta do is look around. Listen.  Look.  Observe


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Beyond that...what church has ever been forced by the government, to perform interracial or interfaith weddings despite their being FEDERAL anti discrimination protections? I'll help out our anti gay friends by answering...not a one.


----------



## Edgetho (May 9, 2015)

mdk said:


> Gays have been getting married in MA for over a decade now. Not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Fear mongering is pretty what ya'll have left.



Grow up  

Articles Gay Marriage A Trojan Horse Movement
<snip>
The agenda is never the agenda for the Left. And this is especially true for gay marriage. Homosexual marriage is a _Trojan horse_ tactic. The true agenda is to establish the primacy of homosexual rights over the First Amendment’s guarantee of the _free exercise of religion_. Our nation was _founded on this principle_, and the gay marriage movement seeks to destroy it.

Consider that Annise Parker, the lesbian mayor of Houston, Texas, demanded to review pastors’ church sermons before public outrage forced her to back off. We have already seen how small businesses have been singled out and attacked for refusing to provide certain services to gays.

What is less known is that these gay couples are frequently part of the movement. They deliberately seek out businesses known for their Christian owners. They deliberately demand a service they know in advance will be refused. When the inevitable happens they use it as pretext to destroy the business and savage its owners. Doesn’t it amaze you how quickly legal groups immediately materialize to assist in the attack? The fact that they got unexpected push back through a spontaneous crowd sourcing campaign to support one pizza shop will not dissuade them from future efforts. If gay marriage is adopted, their current bullying behavior will look like child’s play compared to what’s coming.<snip>



Read more: Articles Gay Marriage A Trojan Horse Movement 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## mdk (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Exactly. That doesn't support their narrative so it will be dismissed and/or ignored.


----------



## mdk (May 9, 2015)

Edgetho said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Gays have been getting married in MA for over a decade now. Not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Fear mongering is pretty what ya'll have left.
> ...



No where in that article does it say that churches are being forced to marry gay people. People are no longer buying the fear your peddling anymore.


----------



## danielpalos (May 9, 2015)

Edgetho said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Gays have been getting married in MA for over a decade now. Not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Fear mongering is pretty what ya'll have left.
> ...



The Only Trojan Horse movement is on the part of the Right through their insistence on bearing False Witness to our own laws in favor of commandments from Religion.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

mdk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Far longer than that. Gays were never prohibited from marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Why do you guys bother with these junks argument the courts have already tossed?  Gay marriage would be a non-issue, if you homophobic children would just let it fucking go...


----------



## mdk (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So churches are not, nor will they ever be, forced to marry any couple against their wishes. Glad we agree.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

Edgetho said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Gays have been getting married in MA for over a decade now. Not one church has been forced to marry a gay couple. Fear mongering is pretty what ya'll have left.
> ...


Grow up?   From a poster who is terrified of the thought of his fellow citizens being given equal rights?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



They may have tossed prior to SSM being the law of the land, but after they can't (at least in the case of same sex sibling marriage), that would create a legal paradox that the courts would be forced to address. 

Incest laws were created because only Males could marry Females and the State would be sanctioning the creation of defective children. 

Now that it will allow for same sex unions, and since same sex coupling cannot create defective children, that aspect is not applicable in those unions. 

It only takes one brother/brother couple, whether gay, or heterosexual that simply want the financial benefits that come with marriage, and.......,

HOUSTON WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM

Now, argue for SSSM and lose the political influence you currently enjoy, argue against it and the argument for SSM, fly out the window. 

See the paradox?

Again, what am I missing?


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

There is no paradox, Pops. You are free to challenge prohibitions on adult siblings marrying.. I wish you and whoever luck and happiness.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> There is no paradox, Pops. You are free to challenge prohibitions on adult siblings marrying.. I wish you and whoever luck and happiness.



Yet you of all people can't make a single argument and continue to deflect. 

For someone who always have THE answer, you remain mute on this paradox. 

I gave you an example of two brothers wishing to marry, not because their gay, but because of financial benefit, creating the paradox, and you stand silent. 

That silence is very telling.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > There is no paradox, Pops. You are free to challenge prohibitions on adult siblings marrying.. I wish you and whoever luck and happiness.
> ...



What's telling is that you can't discuss same sex marriage. That your argument has collapsed so completely that you're desperate to change the topic to incest. 

If your claims had merit....you wouldn't have needed to run.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I am discussing it, and your bigotry against relationships you find icky. 

And that is your only argument, that it's icky. 

Making you


Wait for it


A hater and a bigot.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Tell us, Pop, when SC rules in June and GM goes legal all over the US, will you continue to argue this issue?


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > There is no paradox, Pops. You are free to challenge prohibitions on adult siblings marrying.. I wish you and whoever luck and happiness.
> ...


You want to distract to your fav form of marriage so bad.  Get your own lawyers to work on it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Tell us, Pop, when SC rules in June and GM goes legal all over the US, will you continue to argue this issue?



Oh my yes 

It will be interesting when the brothers/sisters I used in my example are denied a marriage license and use the same argument SSM advocates used, see how the justices react when they realize that their legacy will be the legalization of incest.  

Good times, aye?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And your argument is that there is only one marriage. 

Bigot


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > There is no paradox, Pops. You are free to challenge prohibitions on adult siblings marrying.. I wish you and whoever luck and happiness.
> ...



Actually Pops, I think it's a great idea. When are you filing?

_There are states that now have legal status for two adults regardless of sexual relationship, who share a home and finances. This seems reasonable, as siblings not in incestuous relationships may well need to care financially and legally for one another. And, if they consent to sex,  it has nothing at all to do with their legal and financial obligations.

Once more - same-sex marriage is not, never has been about sex. It is about legal and financial protections for consenting adults who share a life and make up a family unit and any children they bring into that unit._


Do the arguments for pro-gay marriages apply to pro-incest marriages - Quora


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, Pop, when SC rules in June and GM goes legal all over the US, will you continue to argue this issue?
> ...


There would be so few incestuous marriages no one who matters will give a fuck.  That will not be their legacy.  You might as well have picked man and dog, it's just as worthless.

Any two adults, and get over it.


----------



## danielpalos (May 9, 2015)

I can't wait until we can finally convince women to simply be _moral_ enough to bear _true witness_ to us and fornicate us into relationships, not Only for the sake of _honesty_ as a form of respect toward fellow human beings in modern times but also as a _moral_ of "goodwill toward men " by  helping us with our _probity_ so we won't have to lie for sex.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



It only takes one

The paradox continues

I also disagree, I know of a couple of aging sisters who would apply for a marriage license tomorrow if they could.

One is not very healthy and who is in financial distress because of it, the second sister has a good job with excellent benefits. If the two could marry (even though they're straight), sister one could go on sister twos health insurance at almost zero cost.

Who are YOU to deny THEM that right after the supremes rule.

What are you? A bigot?

Once that gets out on social media, marriage without stigma, it probably would spread like wildfire.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What part of "any two adults" in my post did you miss?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I won't go to the site, cuz this is delicious. 

1. You are arguing that THE STATES define marriage, NOT THE COURTS. 

2. They are discriminating based on PROCREATION ability

You're link destroyed your two biggest arguments. 

Question though. Are those marriages federally recognized?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Baby out with the bath water. 

Thanks.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

We should just view homosexuality as a mental illness and send them to the psych ward.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No Pops, that's not the only reason. 1st cousins can marry in some states only if they don't procreate so there is no validity in your argument.

Again, I think it's a great idea that you should pursue with all rapidity.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Good lord, which states recognize sibling MARRIAGE?

From what I've read, they are voided.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Changing the subject is so boring. Siblings are not cousins, are they?


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> We should just view homosexuality as a mental illness and send them to the psych ward.



You, as an anti gay bigot, are free to "think" whatever you like. Science disagrees...but that has never deterred bigots.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Which makes your babble about incest all the more pointless.

You've conceded the same sex marriage debate, abandoning your arguments, running from it and refusing to discuss it.

You can be taught.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'm here, you?

Not so much.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Not to most people. The fags and the progessives want it real bad though because changing society is what rocks their world and gives them a reason for living.



Not to most people.  The domestic terrorists want to own every form of arms ever created, unfettered, unlicensed and _un-infringed_ by common sense.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh, you're here. But you won't discuss gay marriage. Its legality, morality, any pending cases about it. Anything.

You'll only talk about incest. Desperate to talk about something, anything....but the argument you've already lost.

Keep running.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

mdk said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wrong. It shows why all the arguments in support of gay marriage are absurd.  Those arguments also justify incest and polygamy.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > We should just view homosexuality as a mental illness and send them to the psych ward.
> ...


I don't care that much if you want to go have gay butt sex. I'm just saying what it really is.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



They always bring up that straw man because they have no valid arguments against it.  If you look at all the arguments supporting gay marriage, they are all based on one logical fallacy or another.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



If the arguments justifying gay marriage are so absurd.....why have 44 of 46 federal courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and against the bans?

The record of failure of your 'reasoning' is very nearly perfect.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Incest but not polygamy.  Marriage is still two adults here, so far.  But hey, let's be Biblical and then you can marry a flock and have another on the side.  Good times...


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.
> ...



Animals don't have to consent to being slaughtered for food, so why should they have to consent to being married?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Work against what? Your desperate attempt to change the topic?

When your argument against gay marriage has collapsed so completely that you can't even *discuss* gay marriage anymore.......clearly you've run into some problems with your claims.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


His "reasoning" stops at "I hate faggots"...


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Those judges ruled in favor of gay marriage because they are packed with liberal judges who don't give a fuck what the law says or what logic says, just like you.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



See, Seawytch.....they have no interest in discussing gay marriage. These are red herrings for the sole purpose of changing the topic. For fuck's sake, his _best _argument against gay marriage* is hamburgers.* 

They've conceded the gay marriage debate, running from it and refusing to discuss it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Your argument works if you want to fuck a goat, not marry one.  Getting married requires that both parties can consent to a legally binding contract.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


WOW yeah cause incest is best and children are never involved.  WOW


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Apparently you don't understand the concept of "analogy."  Liberal morons always pretend not to understand analogies when those analogies devastate their moron opinions.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Really? Why should that be?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Many, probably most, weren't Liberal, just much smarter than you, and therefore able to follow the spirit of the law.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Pop is talking about pedophilia.. marrying pre-pubescent children etc.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The queers claim marriage has nothing to do with children.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



More than half of them are liberal, moron.  Obama has been in office for 8 years.  How many do you suppose he has put on the court?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


While it doesn't necessarily have to be, it follows tradition, legal traditions.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



44 of 46 times? A judge or two might rule match your description. But you're describing virtually the whole of the judiciary. And they almost all contradict you. Including many Reagan appointees. 

Laughing.......only our resident gay marriage opponents would be so desperate as to try and argue that the FAILURE of their argument in virtually every federal court is evidence that they must be right.

Here's a much simpler explanation: your reasoning sucks. The anti-gay marriage argument is a self contradictory mess that doesn't hold up.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Who says marriage is between two adults?  The GAYstapo just makes stuff up.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> The queers claim marriage has nothing to do with children.


And it doesn't.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Having two sexes also follows tradition, numskull.  You and the GAYstapo are throwing tradition out the window, so anything goes now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Who says marriage is between two adults?  The GAYstapo just makes stuff up.


Who says?  Your society.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



I don't want to have any anal sex...lots of straight people do though.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The queers claim marriage has nothing to do with children.
> ...



Then why should incest be an issue for marriage?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Says who? Remmeber, Brit.....you can't actually back up a thing you say. You merely make shit up and then insist we accept your imagination as unimpeachable fact.

Laughing....um, no. 

And no, dip....Obama's been in office for 6 years. Even math is beyond you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Requiring that they be opposite sex is traditional, but it goes against an American value, equality before the law.  Bye bye tradition, in this case.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Yeah, and the First Amendment would be a non-issue if no one complained when the government tried to censor us.

What a moron.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


It isn't as far as I'm concerned, any two adults can marry.  I suspect society will take an alternate view as it already does, of incestuous sexual relations, which is real problem.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Wrong.  There's nothing unequal about recognizing the facts of biology.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



ROFL! Im other words, you don't really believe your own arguments.  Otherwise you would be defending incestuous marriages.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Gay marriage is a done deal.  It's none of your fucking business in the first place.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

All these fags butt holes are getting wet with the idea of getting to have anal sex after being legally married. It's sickening.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Remember, you're an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



"It's done deal?"  Is that supposed to be an argument of some kind?  How is it not my business?  All laws are my business, numskull.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


This isn't biology, this is the law, and the concept of equality.  We don't require that married people will, or even can, produce children.  Marriage is not about them, obviously.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> All these fags butt holes are getting wet with the idea of getting to have anal sex after being legally married. It's sickening.


Do grow up, please.  That's a bathhouse, not a wedding reception.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Gay marriage is not the issue, now is it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No, most of them are none of your business, nor do you have a say, nor were you ever meant to.  Plow the fields and shut the fuck up, as the Founders wanted.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



I've already answered that question.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > All these fags butt holes are getting wet with the idea of getting to have anal sex after being legally married. It's sickening.
> ...


Look at craigslist casual encounters and you'll see the filth I'm talking about associated with homos.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



But in only CERTAIN cases do we require that they can't. And we deny rights to those that can. 

Doesn't work well with the whole SSM argument does it?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...




The law takes biology into consideration, moron.  That's why we have men's and women's bathrooms.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Stop looking at gay porn.  And men sending around pictures of their dicks is hardly limited to the fags eh?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You must be of legal age to marry. 

I sure hope you ain't a chick, youre far to easy.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Incest is a dog that won't hunt Pop, let it go.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron.  Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business.  I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You're simply a moron.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron.  Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business.  I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.


Liberal Elitist actually, like the Founders of this nation.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Wrong, as usual.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



New York:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 165 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 9 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Chicago:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 200 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 0 responses

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 6 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 2 responses

Houston:

Straight female looking to have sex with a male: 54 responses

Straight male looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bi-curious male looking to have sex with a male: 10 responses

Bisexual female looking to have sex with a female: 1 response

Bloggasm Your chances of getting laid through Craigslist A Bloggasm case study


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



At least I can count...and recognize Obama been in office 6 years rather than 8. That puts me head and shoulders above you.

But tell us again how a majority of the judges in the federal judiciary are 'liberals'? Bush appointed 62. Obama has only 53. Wait......you're not really good with numbers, are you. My 4 year old niece had the same problem. Let me see if the explanation I gave her will help you.

Mr. Alligator is hungry. His jaws open to eat the biggest numbers!

6 < 8

See, 6 is less than 8. Lets try another:

53 < 62.

See, 53 is less than 62. So how are 'most judges liberal' because Obama's 'been in office 8  years'? Explain it to us.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Since marriage is the result of law, they are all my business, you fucking Nazi moron.  Only a fascist would tell me the law is none of my business.  I can't imagine a statement that is more blatantly fascist.
> ...



The Founding Fathers believed queers could marry?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread. 

Got the best of Ya running for cover.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Says you. Naked denial is all you have. And you can't even count. 

44 of 46 times? That's not a 'liberal judge'. That's a vastly better argument.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nope...nor blacks not being property or women having the right to vote...but they planned for possibilities.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


They believed that the pitchforks were good for the plowing fields and making babies, and that they should have no say in making laws.  If they had wanted that we'd be a democracy.  Laws need to be made by wiser men than you, much wiser.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your math implies there were no judges already on the court prior to Bush.  You're ignoring all the judges Clinton put on the court.  You're also ignoring the fact that some of the Bush judges may have retired by now.

You're just not good at this logic crap, are you?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And again with your bizarre obsession with incest. No thanks. I'll stick with the gay marriage. debate.

You know.....the issue you lost so utterly on that you can't even discuss it any longer. That same sex marriage.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then you look pretty stupid citing the Founding Fathers as support for gay marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Gonna be fun watching those judges squirm when the first same sex sibling marriage case wins using their rulings as the basis.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Funny, I'm actually being inclusive and you get pissy

The paradox continues......


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



My math implies *that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. *You say that a majority of judges are liberals. 

*Prove it. *I've actively disproven your 'Obama's been in office for 8 years' bullshit. And shown that Obama hasn't even appointed as many judges as Bush has. 

*You've shown nothing but the fact that you can't count. *Try again. This time with more than you citing yourself. As you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Pitchforks are good for making babies?  They should have no say in making laws?

Was that supposed to make sense?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You're actually running from the topic of gay marriage like it were on fire, conceding the argument and refusing to discuss the topic.

Good. You can be taught.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Your inability to do simple math proves that you're an idiot.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Same sex sibling marriage is a dog that hunts and catches prey. Just check out this thread.
> 
> Got the best of Ya running for cover.


Not at all.  Any two adults, meaning you got nothin'.  Gay sex isn't illegal but incest usually is.  That might change but it's gonna be a while and what happens in June when gay marriage becomes legal nationally won't change that.

You keep barking but there's no ball to throw for you.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not at all.


"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Gonna be fun watching those judges squirm when the first same sex sibling marriage case wins using their rulings as the basis.


Even if it does, so what?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Incest is an issue for marriage according to the law.   No one gives a fuck about your opinion.  You have made it clear you don't care whether about the right of a man to marry his sister, so your arguments about giving gays the right to marry are obvious lies.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Did to them, does to me.  Learn American history.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Incest is about sex, not marriage.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Bottom line:  None of the Founding Fathers would have approved of gay marriage.  Hell, 30 years ago almost no Democrats would have approved of it.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then you should support changing the law to allow a man to marry his sister.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Who gives a fuck?  They approved of owning slaves, and raping them.  For all we know they would have hated Internet porn and microwave ovens.  I couldn't care less.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



wrong.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Then you should support changing the law to allow a man to marry his sister.


I do.  None of my fuckin' business.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You can't seem to make up your mind whether the Founding Fathers would authorities on gay marriage or not.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Then you should support changing the law to allow a man to marry his sister.
> ...


You have never complained once that the law doesn't allow it.  In fact, you have admitted time and again that you don't give a crap.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Got that in English?  The Founding Fathers were just that, founders.  We've moved beyond them, on dozens of issues.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


My position has never changed, any two adults.  The law will catch up, eventually.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



FYI: it's same sex marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

All you incest fans need to get adult incest decriminalized first. Small steps. Best of luck in your endeavors.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> All you incest fans need to get adult incest decriminalized first. Small steps. Best of luck in your endeavors.


Yeah, that one has an icky factor of 22, on a the same scale that has gay sex at 6, and grandma sex at 8.  That will take some doing.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


They would not have approved of non white, non landowning, non males voting either. And?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I somehow don't think TJ was aware the the Supreme Court would actually consider rendering a ruling that opened the door to same sex sibling marriage. 

You?


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You mean when they ruled on Loving in the 60s?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




there is no logical fallacy in supporting equal rights and if there is it is lodged in your tiny little retarded brain.   Only those who claim liberty as their cause take away the rights of others - to marry, to form unions, to vote.  

Have you or any other member of the Crazy Right Wing rewritten the DoI, and eliminated this phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


He wouldn't have imagined what we are doing now, sitting around in our underwear in front of a computer screen arguing about gay marriage and incest.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > All you incest fans need to get adult incest decriminalized first. Small steps. Best of luck in your endeavors.
> ...



Not when you guys provided all the ammunition needed, by the way, you do realize that sex is not a requirement for a marriage license. Right? You knew that, Right?

You both are so old fashioned. 

Marriage today is simply a financial arrangement. 

You traditionalists crack me up.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Ok then explain what you meant by "parent/child marriages."  Note you appeared to be defending pop23 who is talking about marrying underage children.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You realize you just made another argument for same sex sibling marriage, right?  You're not stoopid enough to think you didn't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


How many times do I have to say Any Two Adults?  Your dog doesn't hunt, move along.

When incest becomes legal then you can argue for marriage equality, not before.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



"I somehow don't think" is the most honest post ever by POP23.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



STOOPID: look for the word marriage above. Soon it won't, but for now it actually has meaning.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Nonsense.  Gays are not screwing their children.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


What kind of drugs are you on?  The strawman was that gay marriage will lead to child rape and incest.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



PMH thinks only his/it's opinion matters!

Bigot much.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My opinion is the same as the courts.  Yours is the same as Chicken Little so yeah, mine is more important in this case.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And not including the entire sentence makes you what?

Ohhhhhhh myyyyyyyyyy


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No dumb ass they are claiming the having children is not a REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE.  Can you or can you fucking not understand the difference between a REQUIREMENT TO HAVE CHILDREN IF YOU GET MARRIED, and INCEST?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Says Dr. Demento^^^^


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You think children get married? WTF kind of drugs are you on?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Because the law has stated that incest is illegal.  Just as the law used to say gay sex is illegal.  Just as the law currently says murder is illegal.  INCEST IS ILLEGAL Get over it.  If you want to make INCEST legal start your fight to make it legal, and get the fuck off gays accusing them of promoting incest.  It's a dumb ass argument.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Tell that to the courts, who know you are full of shit.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You're the dumbest human to ever walk the planet.  Have an adult explain the word REQUIREMENT to you.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Well, stranger things have occurred, but I'll let the Supreme Court decide if the specific scenario you posted ever comes to their plate.  As it stands, two brothers or two sisters have every right to sign a contract, and as consenting adults engage in sexual activity; thus, this entire silly debate is all about a word:  Marriage.

[Obviously there are medial reasons not to allow a brother and sister, or members of the opposite gender within consanguinity marry; most states outlaw it.]

This is one more faux crisis created by the Crazy Right Wing and _stoopid_ people which exemplifies the abject dishonesty inherent in self described conservatives.  The GOP tent, now owned by the far right isn't very big and Libertarians aren't so much in support of liberty for those who aren't white, male, Christian and extremists.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



laughing my ass off


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Oh my god!

You just made a case for........


SEPERATE BUT EQUAL!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


OMFG you're an idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Make up your mind dumb ass.  You fucking argued that letting gays get married is the same as letting old men like you marry little children.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The founding fathers believed slaves should never be allowed to vote?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Dude, he's trolling. He knows he's lost the gay marriage debate....which is why he won't discuss it. 

They've already conceded the argument.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You do realize that the law prohibiting incestuous marriage were the result of marriage being between members of opposing sexes only. You knew that right?

Now, after the federal laws are forced upon the population, the laws prohibiting same sex sibling marriage are no longer applicable. They become just another "tradition" your side threw away.

You realize that, Right.

What legal argument is there to stop teo members of the same sex, even closely related, from the rights and benefits of marriage?

Let's see if you have guts enough to answer, or will you join Seawytch and Skylar in there bigoted avoidance of the question.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Says the bigot


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm the one advocating gay marriage. You're the one arguing against it. 

You can't get around that.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Quote where I  said that!


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Siblings can't be gay?

You truly are a moron.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Still with your incest obsession? Riddle me this, batman.......how many people in the obergefell case are related?

I'll give you a hint. It begins with a Z.

Its also the relevance your red herring has with gay marriage.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Quote where I  said that!



So now you *don't* oppose gay marriage.

Well that was easy!


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Quote where I  said that!
> ...



Quote wher I said that. 

Can't blame you though, actually I feel a bit sad for you, cuz you're as dishonest as your cause.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Her cause is equality Pop.  Yours is God only knows.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When you're ready to discuss gay marriage again, feel free to join us. 

But as your red herrings and rout from the topic demonstrates.....you've got nothing.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I support gay marriage. No ifs, ands or 'quote me!' 

Pop clearly can't do the same.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Mine is to make sure that those unintended consequences don't come back and bite us in the butt.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No he didn't, moron.  Like all the gay marriage apologists, you can't debate the issue honestly,


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you support same sex sibling marriage. 

Got it. 

LBGTQSSS-LMNOP


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Funny, when facing their own arguments how quickly they fall apart.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



How will any woman argue that bigamy is illegal?  I want to see what happens the first time someone uses the gay marraige logic to defend himself against bigamy charges.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


How would gay marriage, or incestuous marriage bite us in the ass?  And even if it did, when did equality become subject to negative consequences?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You've tried to prove that and failed every time so far.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



You are a 200 proof imbecile.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why then were you arguing about 'procreation' and the like as it relates to gay marriage? What 'unintended' consequences were you referring to with it?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Refer to the Soviet Union and mass starvation of the Kulaks.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Says the hapless soul that thinks Obama's been in office for 8 years. 

Try again after you've learned how to count.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


They can use the argument, but marriage here is still one at a time, between just two people.  To fix that you have the change the law, as we are on gay marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Can't say as I give a damn or that has anything to do with the price of tea in China, which it doesn't.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Actually, destroying marriage is her cause.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you want to debate 'honestly', show us your evidence that most federal judges are 'liberal'. That is the excuse you gave for why the federal judiciary has ruled against gay marriage bans 44 of 46 times.

Or is this just your normal schtick where you offer up excuses you can't possibly support factually?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Did we "fix the law" to allow gay marriage?  Nope, we just has some liberal judges rule the way the queers wanted it.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Save for one small problem: marriage is still around after gays were allowed to join it. 

I just attended a wedding a few weeks back. Apparently 'destroyed' doesn't mean what you think it means.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


More people getting married means you're against marriage?  Nope.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Yes, the law is being fixed, using the American Way, the courts.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You're queer, aren't you?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Yeah, the 'damage to the institution' nonsense went over like a lead brick in the USSC. Even among the conservative justices.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 9, 2015)

*FUCK NO!!!!


I'll tell you what's more important
1.  Our infrastructure
2. Our children's education and development 
3. Our police and how they can develop a relationship with their communities that doesn't = violent riots.
4. Our science institutions that save untold numbers of people that makes us the United states a leader in science.
5. Jobs and the economy.

No, gay marriage or gays aren't important at all. In fact, why focus so much energy even talking about them.*


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That's a special kind of stupid.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Are....are you hitting on me? 

And of course, you still haven't managed to prove that most federal judges are liberal. When I ask you to back your claim up.....you desperately try and change the topic.

That's 'honest debate', huh?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Matthew said:


> *FUCK NO!!!!
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what's more important
> ...



Probably because the issue will be legally resolved in a matter of weeks. The other stuff won't.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You're a queer, aren't you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Pro-marriage means you want people to get married, period, my little pissing infant.

I am pro-marriage, therefore okay with gays getting married.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So because you can't tell how many years Obama's been in office.....I'm 'queer'?

How does your inability to count translate into my sexual orientation?

Red herring much?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



No it won't.  We'll have something you idiots like to call marriage, but it won't be marriage.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Hmmm, no it doesn't, Nazi.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Apparently only smart people are gay.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You're queer because no one attacks critics of gay marriage has vociferously as a queer.  You show all the symptoms.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> No it won't.  We'll have something you idiots like to call marriage, but it won't be marriage.


What, in your opinion then, is marriage?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Sure it will. Marriage was still around the day before gay marriage bans were overturned. And was still around the day after. 

Its not like marriage is a finite commodity. There's plenty for both gays and straights. 

Its gonna be okay, Chicken Little.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Is that you're way of admitting you're a queer?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Do you include everyone, will the Supreme Court ruling also include all?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You don't have to be gay to fight for equality, just moral, which of course leaves you out...


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Says who? I support interracial marriage. Does that mean I must be black? I support immigration reform. Does that mean I'm Hispanic? 

Why then must one be gay to support gay marriage? More than half the country supports gay marriage. Are they all gay too?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Rome wasn't built in a day.  The issue at hand, gay marriage, that's all.


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Nope, we have a marriage. It's, it's binding and it will soon be recognized in all 50 states. Suck on it.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



In case you aren't aware of it, fewer and fewer people are even bothering to get married.  Why should they when it's such a meaningless institution?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, what you have is a practical joke.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The supreme court will answer the two questions they've been asked. Do you even know what they are.

More importantly....do you even care?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > No it won't.  We'll have something you idiots like to call marriage, but it won't be marriage.
> ...



Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  It always has been, and it always will be.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Nothing meaningless about it, it's just no longer expected for everyone, nor should it ever have been.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fewer people are getting married....because of the gays? You might want to check that trend line. It starts the decline LONG before gays were allowed to marry. 

See, in our universe cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by decades.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Give it a rest, since that is entirely untrue.  Even in history that hasn't been true, let alone modern history.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, it hasn't 'always' been that way. Until the last couple hundred years many societies had polygamy. One man and one woman is a more recent definition.

One man and one woman, one man and one man, and one woman and one woman is the most recent incarnation of the union.

It is what we say it is. We invented it after all.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


The lawyers charge the same, regardless of what you personally believe.  How lucky for her, and the rest of us, that what you think doesn't matter a fucking damn...


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You're an idiot.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Liberals have been attacking marriage for decades.  This is just the final assault on it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Yes, more people being allowed to marry means we hate, ...............................................wait for it,..........................................people getting married...


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



So gay marriage caused the reduction in marriage........despite the reduction in marriage beginning decades before gay marriage was recognized.

Yeah, causation is not your friend.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to back up your bullshit regarding most judges being liberal.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


There were a number of issues regarding harm done by incest. Yes, you are correct to say that one of those issues was harm done to the progeny through increased risk of birth defects.  There were other issues as well.  Being gay has nothing to do with incest.  There are laws against incest, with or without marriage licenses to screw your child.  It's not right for a number of reasons.  None of those reasons have anything to do with being gay.  

You are incorrect to say "laws prohibiting same sex sibling marriage are no longer applicable."  This statement that you keep making has no basis in fact.  NONE.

If you want to study up on the harms of incest go ahead, those harms have nothing to do with gay marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Nope...

The reason that the normalization of Sexual Deviancy is as 'popular' as it is, IS... because deep down inside, people understand that it's a catastrophe waiting to happen.

To "Let it Go" ... is to concede to it.   And there is NO UPSIDE TO THAT.

Understand that THE SPECIES OF REASONING, that rationalizes that Sexual Deviancy is normal and worthy of the _pretense_ ... IS THE SAME SPECIES OF REASONING that spends 18 trillion dollars IN DEBT *to buy votes*... that supports a political cult disguised as a Religion, which EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY MURDERS HOMOSEXUALS, WOMEN, THE POOR, THE ELDERLY, THE PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED and even "THE CHILDREN"; even as that species of reasoning, claims to have NO TOLERANCE FOR RELIGION: *AND* PEOPLE WHO EVEN THINK ABOUT DEFUNDING SACROSANCT PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO MAKE THE LIVES OF THOSE LESS FORTUNE MINORITY SOULS ... _Better.
_
For Pete's SAKE!   Enough of this "Social Conservative BAD!" Fiscal Conservative GOOD!" Bullshit.

The principles are THE SAME.  There is NO SEPARATING the principles that govern viable social policy and viable fiscal policy.

And the notion that abandoning social policy; scuttling such so as to appease those scuttling the nation's fiscal policy: is FOOLISH!

IT'S THE SAME PEOPLE, ARGUING THE SAME ADDLE MINDED SHIT... and when you abandon THE FIGHT AGAINST THESE SHITTY SOCIAL IDEAS, THEY'LL JUST BRING OUT THE NEXT SET OF SHITTY SOCIAL IDEAS.

Try this... stop trying to divide up the fight.

THE FIGHT... is against the Ideological Left.  ON EVERY SHITTY IDEA.

Understand: THE LEFT IS INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING ANYTHING BUT: *SHITTY IDEAS!*

Stop with the idiotic pretense that _"THEY'RE AMERICANS TOO!"   _They're not Americans.

They're Radicals... and when you're fighting Radicals... BECOME RADICAL _*or lose.*_

Want to know what they're doing: _*BUY THEIR BOOK!*_

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Anyone recognize those _'Rules For Radicals'_?

USE 'EM AND KNOCK OFF THIS _"WE NEED TO FOCUS"_ BULLSHIT WHICH BEGINS WITH THE DEMAND TO *STOP FOCUSING*.

I have news for you... WE ARE WINNING THE SOCIAL FIGHT.

The Reason that The Left has Lost THE LAST THREE MAJOR ELECTIONS BY LANDSLIDES OF INCREASING MAGNITUDE...  is *NOT*  BECAUSE OF THEIR SHITTY FISCAL POLICY... it is BECAUSE THEY SUED A BAKER AND WERE THREATENING TO SUE YOUR CHURCH.  Until it became clear that they were GOING TO GET THEIR CLOCK CLEANED IN THE '14 ELECTION... at which time the OFFENSIVE WAS *SWITCHED OFF!*

So... No.  Can't join this one.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Two things:  Glib and factual.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Q.  Does anyone read anything posted by Keys?


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't point this out to be captious, and only do so when someone calls others "stoopid":

SEPARATE and SEPERATE


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Q.  Does anyone read anything posted by Keys?



ROFLMNAO!

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted_, scamp.

(Reader, no doubt you recognized old ARFR #12, in the concession that WEE-CATCHER offered up there?
_
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. 

LOL!  _I say it here and it comes out_ *THERE!*    ...  Adorable.)_


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I already did.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're a lying POS. You've always been a lying POS.  And you always will be a lying POS.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No, please, be my guest, show me the physical or mental harm done by siblings marrying. 

Let's start with same sex heterosexual males marrying so they can have a reduced tax load, multi car insurance reductions and, since one has very low cost health insurance with spousal benefits HOW THIS COUPLE IS BEING HARMED, physically or emotionally. 

We will proceed with the rest as this discussion progresses. 

Don't you love the irony?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Have you produced the quote you attributed to me yet cowboy? 

Guess it takes s lying POS to know one, or are you the pot calling the kettle black?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Nope


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Wry Catcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Good lord, you lose the point then complain about the English. 

Geek much?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



According to the queers, marriage isn't about sex or reproduction, so those arguments are irrelevant.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I already quoted you.  You're gonna have to go look at what I quoted.  I'm not quoting the same post again scum bag.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That's a sure sign that you're a lying POS.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


no you lying POS.  They said marriage isn't ONLY about sex AND reproduction, ya dumb ass piece of shit lying asshole.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


WOW  ^DUMB ASS POS THINKS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SIBLINGS GETTING MARRIED


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Wrong, moron,  they said reproduction has nothing to do with marriage.  They said it dozens of times.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Lol, lying POS and a runner!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


EVERYONE SAW WHAT YOU WROTE YOU DUMB FUCK


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



No, I think it's a horrible idea, but once you "rainbow" types get "your" law change completed, ain't gonna be nothing to stop it. 

You do speak English, right? Or do you need an interpreter?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Then ANYONE may come to your rescue and save you. 

I ain't seen it yet, and it won't haooen cuz, it ain't never happened. 

Clear enough puddin pants?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?


----------



## Kondor3 (May 9, 2015)

Is Gay Marriage the most important issue in the US?

Probably depends upon whether one thinks that 'mainstreaming' and 'legitimizing' sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) and their lifestyle - and forcing everyone else to accept it despite thousands of years of moral imperatives to the contrary - is important.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


YOU WROTE IT YA DUMB ASS.  GO LOOK.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



In your arguments dummy


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You claim I did and can't produce it. 

Good god man, have you NO pride?


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?  

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying? 

Tell us or STFU.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Thus sayeth the "gentleman" whose avatar is prominently displayed in a gay bar in Palm Springs.....


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us, Pop, when SC rules in June and GM goes legal all over the US, will you continue to argue this issue?
> ...


WOW LEGALIZATION OF INCEST. You heard it here.  Pop23 says incest will be legalized.  That's right, Pop23 says the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild will be thrown out with the bathwater if gays get married.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ok, tell us why you cannot argue gay marriage on its own merits and have to default to your pet cause?


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


 

see post #609,  answer the question.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Ummm, we are


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



He (it won't). It will simply scream and kick like a child, attribute things to others that were never said, and drown it's sorrows with a glass of wine and some show tunes. 

Sad I know.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yeah cause if heterosexuals are allowed to get married then why can't brothers and sisters right?  I MEAN WHAT THE HELL?  WHY CAN OTHER PEOPLE GET MARRIED IF BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN'T?  ROLLS EYES... Oh wait... that didn't work before did it?  Wow I wonder why if heteros have been getting married for centuries, why is it that brothers and sisters can't?  ROLLS EYES...


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it. 

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No...you keep defaulting to YOUR pet cause.  I guess because you already have conceded that gay marriage is a fact and yet you still can't marry your sibling legally.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


YES OR NO YOU SAID THE GAY ARGUMENT WILL LEAD TO LEGALIZATION OF INCEST?  YES OR NO, YOU ARE SAYING GAYS GETTING MARRIED IS THE SLIPPERY SLOPE THAT WILL DESTROYS OUR FAMILIES AND DESTROY MARRIAGE AND ALLOW PARENTS TO MARRY THEIR CHILDREN AND BROTHERS TO MARRY THEIR SISTERS? YES OR NO


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman.  that is the norm for humanity.  On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on. 

what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling. 

I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages,  but you seem unable to find an answer.

Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to?   Why do you hate polygamists?   Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?

and before you say it,  I do not support polygamy or any other form of deviant marriage,  I am speaking from a legal standpoint only when I ask you these questions


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Legally it would be exactly the same.   But tell us, what do you see as the difference?   careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I have no intention of making a case against incest.  It's already illegal.  Nor do I have a desire to make a case "for" incest.   But thank you for asking.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're talking nonsense.  Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law.  Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

So you admit that SSM will open the door for all variations of marriage.   BTW its only incest if the law defines it as such.

But lets talk about that.   Why would you object to cousins or siblings who are too old to have kids getting married?   Why would you deprive them of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get from the govt?

I am trying to get you libs to THINK.     I am trying to get you to open your minds and realize the implications of what you are asking for..


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished.   What makes your cause more just?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No I don't admit that SSM will open the door for all variations of marriage, you are a liar.

I'm the opposite of lib.  You, are a liar.

I'm a conservative libertarian who believes in liberty.

The law clearly defines what incest is, and it's not being gay.

I object to incest even in cases where they can't get pregnant.  I also object to murder, even in cases where the murderer and his victim can't get pregnant together.

Cash and prizes?  WTF is wrong with you?

The implications of the SCOTUS throwing out tyrannical laws against gay marriage, is that bigoted people like you will have to find some other group to piss on.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Gay marriage is not "my" cause.  Liberty is my cause.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Look dude, we just disagree on this,  time will tell who is right.  

but as I said in the OP,  is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on?   Don't we have more important issues to deal with?   Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 9, 2015)

REDFISH SAID:

“yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.”

Wrong.

That something is perceived to be 'historic' or 'traditional' is not 'justification' to deny citizens their civil rights:

“[T]hat the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

REDFISH SAID:

“what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling. 
I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages, but you seem unable to find an answer.”

The answer is very clear and obvious: marriage is the union of two consenting, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex. 
Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, requiring no changes in marriage law; that's not the case for siblings or parents and children, because current marriage law can accommodate only persons not related to each other.

The same is true for multiple persons, as current marriage law can accommodate only two persons.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive the issue as somehow 'changing' marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage law will in no way 'change' should the Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit; same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, they've been marrying for more than ten years now – marriage unaltered, unchanged, and not 'redefined.'

REDFISH SAID:

“Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to? Why do you hate polygamists? Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?”

Unlike same-sex couples, marriage law is not written to accommodate three or more persons; consequently, there is no 'discrimination,' one cannot be 'discriminated against' by denying them access to a law that doesn't exist.

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'changing marriage,' or 'allowing' those ineligible to marry to do so; the issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are now eligible to marry, where the states are seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The law has now been comprehensively explained to you, each of your questions answered and addressed, each of your 'arguments' in opposition to allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law eviscerated.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

this is not a liberty issue, its a cultural or societal issue.   As such the people of the culture or society should decide what is to be considered right or wrong.   9 old farts in black robes should not be deciding how over 300 million people must live.   Let the people vote, let the will of the people be heard.   I will accept the will of the people,  will you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


The people were never supposed to have a vote in this case.  We are not a democracy.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


It is very much a liberty issue. As in the liberty to practice religion and whether states have the liberty to self govern


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Baking cakes for a living isn't serving Jesus, and the states don't get make all their choices since the Feds matter more.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Because life is pretty important, and marriage is a pretty big part of life.  Do we have more important issues?  I suppose if you think your marriage is insignificant...


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



AND, you can't post a reason that I'm wrong.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And yet if 9 'old farts' decide to override state laws related to hand gun restrictions.....they should be deciding it.

Judicial authority doesn't exist ONLY when you agree with it. Surely you understand this.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



God, you are lame.  

Do you even think before you post. 

And why are you obsessed with sibling sex?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You haven't posted a reason why your obsession with incest is relevant.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Ok, everything illegal today must stay illegal forever. 

Is that your argument?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You....you do realize that we can actually read the exchange between you and see that you've refused to talk about anything but incest, right?

As I said, I take it as a good sign. Your ilk have had their arguments about same sex marriage shredded so completely than they now refuse to even discuss the topic. You used to babble endlessly about 'procreation' and same sex marriage. Now you won't touch the topic with a 10 foot pole. 

You can be taught.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Dude, you've lost. You've completely abandoned your every argument against same sex marriage. You can't even discuss it now. 

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't be desperately scrambling to change the topic to anything BUT same sex marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> REDFISH SAID:
> 
> “yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.”
> 
> ...



Lame Clayton, the reason for "not too closely related" is because of the risk of defective children". Same sex siblings present no such risk. It is an argument that fails at the most basic level.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



^^^ reading comprehension problems


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You seem obsessed with me!

Can't blame you, im a helluva catch, but taken


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'm into discussing the topic. You're into obsessing about incest and running from the topic like it were on fire. 

You've lost. Your arguments against same sex marriage have failed. You've abandoned them, abandoned all your 'procreation' nonsense, abandoned all your 'the type of sex that makes babies' nonsense.......and now refuse to discuss the topic.

And you know it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Except that the traditional meaning for excluding brother from marrying brother will no longer exist if the Supreme Court rules in same sex marriage?

Ok, ready for you to deflect again.

GO!


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Then why do you want to exclude millions?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


When incest becomes legal, call us.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Millions?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No question being answered by the Supreme Court so much as mentions incest. Let alone answers any questions about it. No one in the Obergefell case is related.

*Your obsession with incest is gloriously irrelevant to the same sex marriage issue. And you know it*. You've had your ass handed to you on the same sex marriage debate and know you can't win. So you've abandoned the debate and now try desperately to change the topic. 

Nope. I'm happy with this one.

Keep running.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yeah... it turns out that promoting unprincipled behavior... promotes unprincipled behavior.  The upsides to which are Listed Here: ___.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



There's nothing 'unprincipled' about gay marriage. Try again.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> No question being answered by the Supreme Court so much as mentions incest.



Huh... that's an odd position to take for a gal who sees 'Same Sex Marriage' in the SCOTUS decision regarding Bi-Racial marriage.

(Skylar, that means that you look like an idiot, when you claim that SCOTUS decisions regarding genetic minorities and marriage, are relevant to Behavioral DEVIANCIES... and that is amplified exponentially, where you pretend that you haven't spent years braying that RACE equates to Deviant Behavior... only to now claim that the incest cult will not use the same irrational drivel you conclude that because SCOTUS decided to allow your deviancy, it normalized every pitiful freak to marry whatever the fuck it wants.)

LOL!  Which is just _EVER so precious_... in terms of humiliating shit coming from the mentally disordered.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



How many brother/brother, sister/sister pairs are there in the United states. 

Millions


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > No question being answered by the Supreme Court so much as mentions incest.
> ...



It is however a superb position for someone to take if they've actually read the questions being answered in _Obergefell._ 



> 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
> 
> 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog



Which I have. And you probably still haven't, despite me having posted them here for you. 



> (Skylar, that means that you look like an idiot, when you claim that SCOTUS decisions regarding genetic minorities and marriage, are relevant to Behavioral DEVIANCIES... and that is amplified exponentially, where you pretend that you haven't spent years braying that RACE equates to Deviant Behavior... only to now claim that the incest cult will not use the same irrational drivel you conclude that because SCOTUS decided to allow your deviancy, it normalized every pitiful freak to marry whatever the fuck it wants.)



I've said that the Supreme Court has cited race based cases of discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. And between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they have.

* 4 times.*

See, Keyes......you're hamstrung by one unfortunate fact: *you don't actually know what you're talking about.* You haven't read the cases, you don't understand the arguments, you don't even understand the questions being answered.

Thankfully, your hapless ignorance binds no one but yourself. And I'm free to read them all to my heart's content.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

marriage is not a right, and yes, my marriage is very important to ME and my Wife.   one man, one woman in a loving committed relationship.  

again, society should decide what forms of human behavior it considers acceptable,  and those decisions should be made by majority vote,  not minority dictate.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 

right to bear arms is the second amendment,  remind us which amendment mentions gay marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 

and if they could legally marry they could avoid inheritence taxes and reduce their income tax rate.   why do libs hate siblings?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Baking cake does not give you or the government the right to interfere with his religious practice.  Deal with it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL!  Skylar, Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  

That's a principle nature established, setting such in stone, when it created two distinct, but complimenting genders, who join by virtue of that design, of which marriage is a natural extension and serves as the nucleus of a little thing called: CIVILIZATION.  

LOL!  The Reader should recall that Skylar spent last week crying about Men not taking responsibility for the Children that they conceive, despite her unapologetic support for the reasoning that stripped humanity for any responsibility regarding conception...  recall her support for "THE RIGHT" TO MURDER CHILDREN THEY CONCEIVE.  Which she can't understand how such separates people from responsibility for the children that they conceive.  

The reason she can't put that incredibly simple equation together... is that she suffers from Mental Disorder.  

And viable cultures do not allow the Mentally DISORDERED TO CHANGE PUBLIC POLICY.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

its funny to watch the gay mafia get tangled up in their own rhetoric.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Correct, marriage simply becomes a financial tool, no different than a 401K or a IRA.

Best is the siblings simply keep dating until they find an opposite sex mate, divorce and move on.

I can think of dozens of reasons it becomes financially beneficial. And since there won't be any stigma because the left hate stigma, it could become very accepted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


His religion is not what he does for a living.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 

LOL

why can't libs understand that if two brothers or two sisters marry it would be a same sex wedding?  Isn't that what they say they want?

Liberalism really is a mental disease.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's the paradox of our lifetime. They create the argument then have to run from them.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 

Yes, they have all left this thread,


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


And in 37 of 50 States, one man and one man. And one woman and one woman. 

Get used to the idea.



> That's a principle nature established, setting such in stone, when it created two distinct, but complimenting genders, who join by virtue of that design, of which marriage is a natural extension and serves as the nucleus of a little thing called: CIVILIZATION.



Nature doesn't have marriage. Nature has fucking. We invented marriage. And it is whatever we say it is. No one is excluded from marriage because they can't procreate. *Why then would we exclude gays from marriage because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?*

Obviously we wouldn't. As there's no rational reason to do so.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says the poor soul whose arguments against gay marriage have collapsed so completely that he won't even discuss the topic. 

Try again.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. You've abandoned the topic of same sex marriage again. While running from all your rhetorical babble about 'procreation' and 'the kind of sex that makes babies'.

If I'd been saddled with such useless nonsense in opposition to gay marriage, I'd probably try and change the topic too. 

Thankfully, I picked a much more rational and defensible argument: the support of gay marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

yes, WE invented marriage and WE should decide what it means and who can participate in it.  

WE, not some minority group, not 9 old farts in robes,   WE,  THE PEOPLE.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

I'm sick of all these people thinking that fags fucking each other is a good idea. How about all the homos go to France with all the other pussies?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



The judiciary is part of our legal system. And they're supposed to interpret the constitution. Says who? Says Federalist Paper 78.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

Is a marriage of two sisters incest?   how about two female cousins?   how about one male and two female cousins?  mother/daughter?,  father/son? assume all of them are over the age of majority.  

Incest has been defined as male/female sexual activity within familial limits.  

you fools say you want SSM,  why isn't sister/sister a SSM?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



^^^ brings up another excellent argument that works equally well for same sex sibling marriage


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

yes, and when the constitution is silent on unclear on a matter we have constitutional amendments to clairify it.  

Why aren't you calling for a constitutional amendment?   afraid you couldn't get 38 states to ratify it?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I'm sick of all these people thinking that fags fucking each other is a good idea. How about all the homos go to France with all the other pussies?





Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Red, if incest is the best you can come up with a deflection, then you've lost. You're done. As the best you can hope to do is change the topic. An elegant demonstration that you've conceded the topic you're abandoning.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The question facing the supreme court is about an existing constitutional amendment.



> 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
> 
> 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog



Why would I call for a constitutional amendment when the 14th already covers it?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that, just as some heterosexual couples can't procreate, no same sex siblings can. 

So what's the big deal?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Again, you're just showing us that you've lost. As you've abandoned your arguments against same sex marriage. And are trying to change the topic to incest.

Which has nothing to do with anything being addressed.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yes, they certainly did.


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sick of all these people thinking that fags fucking each other is a good idea. How about all the homos go to France with all the other pussies?
> ...


 

you dodged my question.   Is sister/sister a SSM or not?    why would you ok two unrelated females to marry but not two sisters?  

I would really like an answer so I can understand your thought processes on this.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


If it's ok to fuck dudes I want to go fuck my brothers, dogs, donkeys, horses, and have 30 wives.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sick of all these people thinking that fags fucking each other is a good idea. How about all the homos go to France with all the other pussies?
> ...



Why do you assume same sex siblings will have sex? Most won't be gay, and even if they do, they can't procreate, so what's the deal with your obsession?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Marriage has many valid bases. But you don't have to have kids to have a valid basis of marriage. As millions of straight married couples demonstrate with no kids.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If same sex marriage is acceptable, then why not brother/sister marriage between two consenting adults?  What arguments have you got against it?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...





Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yes, let's move on.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


OMFG what a moron.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Shaving?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Incest is irrelevant. I'm not following your red herring. You've fled the gay marriage debate with your tail between your legs. And now you're trying desperately to change the topic.

Nope. I'm happy with this one.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I have no idea what a "valid basis" for marriage is.  However, I do know the reason it exists:  procreation.  Any other claims are absurd. 

I realize queers like you will never concede that point.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No moron. My argument is that you are fucking wrong.  Incest is not the same as gay's getting married.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Huh? WTF kind of whacky drugs are you taking?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Seriously. If 'is a marriage of two sisters incest' is the best they can do, we've reached mercy rules territory.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It's entirely relevant.  If marriage between any two consenting adults is legitimate, then how can you argue against incestuous marriage?


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

it is?   by whose definition?

what is sodomy?   is there any such thing in your world?


----------



## Redfish (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

you keep dodging,   why do you oppose SSM between sisters and thinks its OK if they aren't related?   whats the difference?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Exactly!

So HOW CAN YOU DENY SAME SEX SIBLINGS FROM THE FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE? 

YOU CAN BE TAUGHT

And it's your argument that supports same sex sibling marriage!


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The "merit" of gay marriage is that all the arguments for it open the door for incest.  Even someone as stupid as you can figure that out.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Sodomy?  You mean like your wedding night blow job?  Dude, have at it.  But stay away from your brother, sicko.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Obvious not. As all the infertile married couples demonstrate. As all the couples that get married and never have kids demonstrate. 

You can have a perfectly valid marriage that has nothing to do with kids or the ability to have them. Procreation is A valid basis of marriage. For your argument to work, it has to be the ONLY valid basis. 

And that's simply not the case. No one is excluded from marriage because they can't procreate. 

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? There is no reason. 



> I realize queers like you will never concede that point.



You don't have to be gay to support gay marriage. Just like you don't to be black to support civil rights, nor Hispanic to support immigration reform.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Or are you a hate filled bigot?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



According to the queers it should be legal.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I keep refusing to follow your fallacy of logic. Incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. You've abandoned all your argument regarding gay marriage and are now trying to change the topic.

If your arguments against same sex marriage are so weak that you need fallacies of logic to support them....let them die.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly!
> ...



You...you realize you're replying to yourself, right?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



^^^ says the hater dupe (I learned that from Franco)


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I fully support gay marriage. You can't say the same. 

Try again.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Gasp, you caught me!

AND your aurgument fully support same sex sibling marriage.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



They demonstrate nothing of the sort.



Skylar said:


> You can have a perfectly valid marriage that has nothing to do with kids or the ability to have them. Procreation is A valid basis of marriage. For your argument to work, it has to be the ONLY valid basis.



Procreation is the reason marriage exists.  I have no idea what this "valid basis" bullshit is supposed to mean.




Skylar said:


> And that's simply not the case. No one is excluded from marriage because they can't procreate.



They are excluded from marriage if they don't have the correct biological equipment, just as you are excluded from getting a driver's license if you don't have eyes that function.



Skylar said:


> Why then would we exclude gays from marriage because they fail to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? There is no reason.



There is a standard:  the ability to procreate.



Skylar said:


> > I realize queers like you will never concede that point.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be gay to support gay marriage. Just like you don't to be black to support civil rights, nor Hispanic to support immigration reform.



No, queers will never concede a point, no matter how obvious it is.  Hence, the reason we know you're a queer.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I blame beer (and Obama)


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I suggest , but then again, I always suggest


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Your obsession with homos is creepy.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal. 

You make no sense


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 9, 2015)

REDFISH SAID:

“Is sister/sister a SSM or not?”

Not.

Marriage law can accommodate only persons not related to each other.

Indeed, there is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate two consenting, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Your obsession in caring what "homos:" do probably makes you a "homo wannabe."


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Your protest against comparing incestuous marriages with gay marriages sound rather hysterical.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Of course they do. The marriages of the infertile as as valid, legal and enforcible as those of the fertile. No state requires that a couple be able to procreate in order to get married.

Simply obliterating your claim that the only valid basis of marriage is procreation. There's obvious a valid basis t*hat has nothing to do with kids or the ability to have them.* Else no infertile couple could get married, nor a childless couple stay married.

They can and they do. Killing your argument.





> They are excluded from marriage if they don't have the correct biological equipment, just as you are excluded from getting a driver's license if you don't have eyes that function.



Not in 37 of 50 States they aren't.

*And in no state is anyone required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to get married or stay married. N*ot one state. Not the reddest of the red nor the bluest of the blue.

None.



> There is a standard:  the ability to procreate.



Show us a single state law that requires that a couple be able to procreate in order to get married. Any state of your choice. You'll find that no such standard exists.

Even hypothetically if you exclude gays on the basis that they can't procreate *but allow infertile straight couples to marry*......then you've got a massive 14th amendment violation on your hands. Either the standard applies to both gays and straights....or it applies to neither.

And it applies to neither.



> No, queers will never concede a point, no matter how obvious it is.  Hence, the reason we know you're a queer.



Is this the same stunning logic you used when you told us Obama had been in office for 8 years?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Classic queer propaganda technique.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What does incest have to do with homosexuality?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. Are you too going to abandon the gay marriage debate and double down on an obsession with incest? 

I promise to point and laugh only a little.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


All those fags with their butt sex in shower houses...


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Classic "I don't have anything else to see" rebuttal.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> REDFISH SAID:
> 
> “Is sister/sister a SSM or not?”
> 
> ...



Yet the arguments for inclusion of same sex marriage ALL seem to be what a same sex sibling couple would argue. 

A paradox indeed


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Propaganda? Like when you insisted that 44 of 46 federal rulings dismissed arguments like yours as utterly insufficient because 'most judges were liberal'.

But when I challenged you to back that bullshit up......you fled with your tail between your legs. Fire and forget accusations you can't possibly back up are classic propaganda techniques.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> REDFISH SAID:
> 
> “Is sister/sister a SSM or not?”
> 
> ...



Really?  Why is that, especially if as the queers claim marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, there is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate two consenting, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.



Marriage laws on the books only consider opposite sex couples.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > REDFISH SAID:
> ...



Says who? Again, none of the questions that the Supreme Court are being asked have a thing with incest. Nor does incest have a thing to do with gay marriage. 

You obvious have no rational reason to deny gay marriage. So you're trying to change the subject to, bizarrely, incest. 

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Hey, if that's what keeps you up at night..go for it.

Wait...are you saying that's your obsession and in a really angry way?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You're sounding desperate, skylar.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > REDFISH SAID:
> ...



You seem confused. 37 of 50 States recognize gay marriage. And the last 3 states to vote on it have approved it. 

Making your claim wrong twice.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It has to do with the reason people get married, numskull.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Fucking your sister/brother has to do with why you got married?  What?  Explain that.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Smiling.....says the fella who still can't back up his claim about 'most judges being liberal'. There's a much simpler explanation: your argument is utterly inadequate. 

A record of 44 of 46 isn't even close. The record of failure of your arguments in federal court are very nearly perfect.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Only because some judge overruled the laws on the books, numskull.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I won't assume you are pretending to be this stupid.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Desperately trying to change the topic is your best argument. 

You've already conceded the gay marriage debate. You've already abandoned all your arguments against it. 

Remember that.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The brothers and wives are okay, but not legal in most cases.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So, are you saying that a couple in their 50s should be legally barred from getting married because they can't bare children?  Is that where you are headed?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



In some cases. And in others they voted it in. In either case, in 37 of 50 States, gay marriage is as legally valid as any straight marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



So what's the compelling reason the government has to deny same sex siblings from marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Marriage has never been about children, they are a byproduct, sometimes.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Or worse......your marriage license is only valid as long as you're fertile. Menopause hits....and you're no longer married. 

I mean, if procreation is the only valid basis of marriage.....then no procreation, no marriage. 

Thankfully, procreation is merely A valid basis of marriage. There's a valid basis that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. You're throwing up another red herring, trying to change the topic. 

When you're ready to discuss gay marriage...I'll be about.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



I don't, they do.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



No, I just pointed out your use of classic queer propaganda techniques.  The first thing any queer does in an argument about gay marriage is accuse his opponent of being a closet queer.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Oh they can bare them, but not bear them.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with my arguments. I'm discussing gay marriage. You know, the topic where your ass was paddled so badly that you now refuse to even discuss it?

Keep running, Mr. Red Herring.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




ROFL!  Your Komrades said the queer marriage supporters have never claimed reproduction isn't a reason for marriage.  You just did!


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Our argument is that every argument you use for gay marriage opens up so many fucked up things that fall under the same umbrella. If you can't see that then you are a moron. Basically to put it simply, gay marriage is a disgusting thing.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, look. The slippery slope fallacy. You've gone retro.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They seem to be getting frantic, especially that queer skylar.  The problem with arguing with these drones is that they are immune to logic.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It's called "the slippery slope argument."  It's not a fallacy.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Don't give a fuck what they say, marriage has never been about children.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That is an infantile deliberate misconstruction of what people mean why the say marriage exists for the purpose of reproduction.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I doubt/hope you can't reproduce yet here you are free to marry anyone that you pay enough money to.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Slippery slope is a fallacy, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...




ROFL! 

Thanks again for saying that, PMH.  

You're positively a gem of liberal logic.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Laughing......notice the moment I ask you to back up your nonsense claims, suddenly I've gone 'frantic'.

Yet another dodge for why you've got nothing to back your 'most judges are liberal' bullshit. We've got 44 of 46 rulings finding your arguments are invalid on one hand. And your imagination about 'liberal judges' on the other. And even you can't back your imagination up. 

Why then would any rational person ignore the 44 court rulings contradicting you and your abysmal arguments?

Obviously they wouldn't. And with a solid majority supporting gay marriage, obviously they haven't.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you're free to insert your head up your ass.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Gay marriage is about to be the law of the land, get over it.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Only clueless dumbass believe that.  You probably also believe that appeals to authority are logically valid.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Awesome, I think it's Ok for you to marry someone who is sterile (and I'd prefer you do) and I'm free to stick my head up her cooch.

Other than that, your comment means nothing.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Look up fallacies, dumbass.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> REDFISH SAID:
> 
> “Is sister/sister a SSM or not?”
> 
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Based upon WHAT?  



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, there is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate two consenting, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.



Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 9, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> No. But both parties are going to focus on it, and the GOP more so. Till either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush takes back the Republican party from Ted Cruz.



I disagree.  The Republican Party is going to focus on the economy and government overreach, and the leftist media is going to focus on homosexuals and abortion and bring it up in each and every interview and press conference with a GOP candidate, and then pretend that their campaigns are all about those issues.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



Sorry, sweetheart, this isn't 2008 anymore.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...


Ignorant fool


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > REDFISH SAID:
> ...



And in 37 of 50 States, its also one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman.

Marriage is what we say it is.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



It is still 2010 and nothing on this front has happened?  Fuck off.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


HJ is exactly right, dummy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...



Yeah, that's true, The Homosexual Lobby had SIGNIFICANTLY MORE REPRESENTATION IN GOVERNMENT IN 2010.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Both cases are fallacies my little infant.


----------



## danielpalos (May 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I disagree.  The Republican Party is going to focus on the economy and government overreach, and the leftist media is going to focus on homosexuals and abortion and bring it up in each and every interview and press conference with a GOP candidate, and then pretend that their campaigns are all about those issues.


Ok; then, the left may focus on ending our Drug War and "blame the Right" for not taking the lead and initiative in ending that form of _government overreach_ and being just "big chickens".


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



That's bullshit. Republican in the house and senate have improved their numbers and yet gay marriage has increased in approval.  But, if it makes you feel good to say it...it's still wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 9, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree.  The Republican Party is going to focus on the economy and government overreach, and the leftist media is going to focus on homosexuals and abortion and bring it up in each and every interview and press conference with a GOP candidate, and then pretend that their campaigns are all about those issues.
> ...



Yes, because the Democrats have always been such big champions for the cause of smaller, less-intrusive government.    Oh, and the illegalization of drugs has always been solely the Republicans.  

Christ, can you be any more childishly simplistic in your thinking?


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Keyes still denies that the public supports gay marriage. Or that there has been any significant change in public attitudes toward gay marriage since 2010. 

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I still don't understand their fascination with the subject.  

If they were simply upset with having to bake gay cakes and left it at that, I could understand the feeling.  I wouldn't agree with them but at least it involves a third party.


----------



## danielpalos (May 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > No. But both parties are going to focus on it, and the GOP more so. Till either Rand Paul or Jeb Bush takes back the Republican party from Ted Cruz.
> ...





Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


No; it needs to be that simple for the Right, even though they still get it wrong anyway.  In any case, it is about smaller and less intrusive government.  

Ok; then, the left may focus on ending our Drug War and "blame the Right" for not taking the lead and initiative in ending that form of _government overreach_ and being just "big chickens".


----------



## Seawytch (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



A little? Pops left creepy in the dust eons ago.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Most of it is rooted in a general rejection of their religious tenets as having any objective value. A couple of generations ago judges could literally cite God's will as the reason and justification of their ruling. Look at judge Leon Bazille's ruling in his conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving:



> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
> 
> Leon Bazille



This was perfectly legit back in the day. A judge spewing this blatantly subjective jiggery pokery in a ruling today would likely be disbarred. Society today is far more critical of generic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacies. "God said so'' just doesn't cut it. Not because folks don't believe in God. But because they don't believe the guy who is claiming to speak for Him. 

The net result is a dramatic reduction of religious authority. Even as a mode of thinking, religion has lost ground and science has gained it. We laugh as the Kansas school boards try to fit creationism into science text books. We look back at the Scopes monkey trial and shake our heads in beweliderment that anyone could be that fucking stupid. Yet in their day, religious reasoning and appeals to authority were accepted as perfectly valid.

With this, we see a synergy of deep seeded homophobia fueling a general animosity toward gays. And reactionary belligerence to not having their religious tenets taken seriously as the basis of law or common sense any more. It comes together to create an almost obsessive focus on gay marriage. Many have invested in this emotionally. And those emotions are fueled by a low, ugly animus toward gays. 

Not in every case. I've met the occasional constitutionalist who has a genuine federal v state beef. And I have met some religious folks who frame the issue more with their relationship with god. But I'd say most do.

I can show you some really choice posts from Keyes when he talks about how if gays don't sit down and shut the fuck up they're going to be subject to violence that will make 'a hate crime look like christmas dinner'. Or talking about how gays will be slaughtered if they don't back down.

The hate is real. The desire to hurt people is real. Thankfully, the chickenshit is stronger. As they don't want to bleed.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



That.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Yes!  I agree people should suspend all reason and accept that the consistent landslide election victories in local, state and federal representation of those who recognize the natural standards of marriage, clearly shows that the popularity of the normalization of sexual deviancy is growing like crazy. 

I mean come ON MAN!  That's why the left needs the Federal Judiciary to overturn state laws which defend the natural standard; which is the same reason that when that is pointed out the Left runs to the lie that Two deviants playing house is legal in 37 of 50 states... When such is not true.  Because the normalization of sexual deviancy is SO popular.

LOL!  you people are helpless


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



The judiciary is in place in part to protect minority rights.  However we are lucky in this sense that a majority of Americans have no problem with legalized gay marriage.  I don't think you have any realistic argument here.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



There are no 'natural standard' of marriage. Nature doesn't have marriage. Nature  has fucking. You keep getting the two confused.

Second, the public overwhelmingly supports gay marriage. With support leading opposition by 12 to 19 points. 








With 2010 being the last year where gay marriage opposition had strong support. The numbers today are almost a perfect mirror of them.



> I mean come ON MAN!  That's why the left needs the Federal Judiciary to overturn state laws which defend the natural standard; which is the same reason that when that is pointed out the Left runs to the lie that Two deviants playing house is legal in 37 of 50 states... When such is not true.  Because the normalization of sexual deviancy is SO popular.



You do realize that the last 3 times that gay marriage was voted on...it was passed, right? 

Meh, I'm sure you've got some conspiracy for that too. I can't use evidence to dilute batshit. There's always more batshit.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



They don't. Which is why they're doubling down on 'incest' of all things. Its the last brown stain left as their argument circles the bowl.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Have they completely explored bestiality yet?  I mean in debate.


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Its on the menu. Its third string, JV shit now. They've got nothing else.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



LOL! Wow... So in two consequitive sentences... The sexual deviants need the judiciary to give them rights, immediately shifting to claim the majority opinion.

Lmao...  Now THAT is brilliant!

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And that, Happy.....is Keyes looking to run from the debate. Its his tell. Whenever his argument is folding around him, he starts summarily declaring victory.

Just before he tucks his tail between his legs and runs.

Oh, and Keyes....the majority doesn't have the authority to strip the minority of rights. Oh, I know you want to. But that's why we have a constitution. To protect the rights of the individual from folks like yourself who wish to abrogate them. 

The 9th amendment trumps the 10th.....much to the chagrin of many a conservative.


----------



## bodecea (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


You sound just like some people I knew in the 60s...as the courts shot down segregation law after segregation law.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And will lead to same sex sibling marriage v


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Not in our lifetimes, if ever.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Yeah, wait until the masses realize it opens the door to SSSM. That should be fun


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And the compelling argument for the government to deny that?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Your incest fetish is making you into a total loon.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The dust is where your argument lays, and yes, I did leave it there


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Incest is still illegal.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



^^^ he said loon^^^

Oh the irony


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Key word "still"


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Another argument backing same sex sibling marriage. 

You can't make this shit up folks!


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Sure, watch


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yep.  That's a big first step, much bigger than gay unrelated adults, much.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



But make it up you will.  I'm not backing sibling anything,


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says the guy who penned the acronym SSSM.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Next


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The beauty is you don't get a choice. The arguments either stand on their merits of fail. 

You just keep giving us arguments with merit!

Good job, keep it up


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Fucking your best friend isn't illegal in the country, while fucking your mommy or your little sister is.  Best of luck.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Thanks, but I can't take all the glory, your arguments just lead down that path. 

I'll make sure to mention you at the awards ceremony.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why do you want to ban infertile couples from getting married?  That is so big government of you.

Specifically the guy in your avatar...he's not impregnating anyone soon.  Why do you want to kill his happiness?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Mommies and lil sisters would neither be my same sex sibling. 

I'm a dude

And what's with the incest fascination?

You realize that two heterosexual same sex partners will be able to marry purely for financial benefits. You knew that? Right?


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Oh, I don't lil fella, see same sex siblings are by nature, infertile. 

Try to keep up will ya


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Any two adults, can't say it clearly enough, but that will be a while yet, if ever.


----------



## Pop23 (May 9, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



So you agree

Thanks


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Pop thinks gay marriage means incest marriage, only incest is illegal here, not to mention incest marriage.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Oh, Ok.  So you don't have any problem with not defining marriage by fertility.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I agree you can use the argument, but it won't go anywhere.  Incest is still a crime here, mostly.


----------



## Seawytch (May 10, 2015)

Pops gets a lunatic idea and glams on it like a pit bull. His previous bone was procreation. You'll notice he's completely abandoned that one.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pops gets a lunatic idea and glams on it like a pit bull. His previous bone was procreation. You'll notice he's completely abandoned that one.


He seems to be a well, one idiot in 100,000 might fall off this bridge, so let's not build it.

A dog that won't hunt, with a bone.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Marriage is a right.  Life is a right and marriage is a part of life.  This is old established law. 

What you are talking about is pissing on gays cause, well cause you are in the Majority vote.  That's called tyranny of the Majority.  We do not live in a country where people are arbitrarily punished by majority vote.  We live in a constitutional republic where even minority groups of one are protected from angry authoritarian jerks like you.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You are both idiots.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



And 15 years ago same sex marriage was illegal. 

Your arguments that changed one, might change both

Still curious why you run from creating such tranforming arguments


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


No, you did not invent marriage.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


NO.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Listen fool,   the rights that you rant about were put in place by MAJORITY vote,  our constitution was ratified by majority vote,  every law in this land was passed by majority vote.

but what you assholes want is minority rule.   why not move to north korea where that is how they do things?


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

We, meaning human beings, you fricken idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Liar.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Liar.  No one is asking for minority rule, WTF kind of drugs are you on?


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

remind us,  which constitutional amendment makes gay marriage a right,  must have missed that one.

yes, we live in a constitutional republic and representative democracy.   We elect our representatives by majority vote and they pass laws by majority vote.   The majority view does prevail in this country,  minority rights are established by majority vote


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > REDFISH SAID:
> ...


Nonsense.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


14th due process clause.  

No, you lying piece of shit.  Minority rights are not established by vote.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Not a single argument showing that once same sex marriage is legal that would deny same sex siblings from marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

That is exactly what you are asking for.   The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Point them out instead of your constant running.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

please quote where the words "gay marriage" show up in the 14th.


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


merely showing that appealing to the masses is still a fallacy.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 

they can't because it would.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Interpretation for the left: he can't answer the argument


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


What are you five years old? Can you or can you not understand the difference between a "requirement" of reproduction and a "possibility" of reproduction?  Then show us all where there is some supposed requirement of reproduction in marriage law that you keep claiming.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

not yet, but if we allow libs to control, it will be.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pops gets a lunatic idea and glams on it like a pit bull. His previous bone was procreation. You'll notice he's completely abandoned that one.



Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage. 

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument. 

The paradox continues


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


What argument?  Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings?  Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.  You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals.  The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And so, the paradox continues and the responsibilty of SSSM remains theirs no matter how long they whine


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's your proposal big fella. 

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM. 

Such a brilliant debater you are. 


NOT


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


there is no appeal to ignorance of the law (in theory) regardless of any appeal to the masses.


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


some on the left don't have a problem with Individual Liberty; only the Right lays claim to communism in the name of the Socialism of Religion.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Plural marriage yes the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.  Incest... no.  The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest.  Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages.  Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence.  Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family.  The opportunity to raise children if they so desire.  Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children.  A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...?  That's sick.  There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex.  That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.


----------



## Seawytch (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Relax Chickenfish, a majority of the SCOTUS will decide.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And you are a LYING PIECE OF DOG DOO.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Why don't you come make me move, ya internet tough guy.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You're having reading problems again?  Why don't you go back to school and have someone explain the 14th Amendment to you.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I really don't give a shit where you live.   Just suggesting that north korea might be more to you liking since they have a socialist dictatorship like you seem to want here.

and for the record, I am quite sure I could kick your sorry liberal ass very easily.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Ooooh internet tough guy's gonna kick my liberal ass.  HEY DUMB SHIT I'M NOT LIBERAL.  HEY DUMB SHIT, I DON'T WANT A DICTATORSHIP OF ANY KIND.  YOU ARE THE ONE DEMANDING SOCIAL RULE VIA GOVERNMENT YOU DUMB ASS.  I'm the one arguing for liberty not you, you dumb ass.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.  Isn't that what you just said?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If you're not liberal, then why are you always arguing the liberal side of every issue.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


There  is  no  REQUIREMENT for reproduction when you get married.
DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?  No one is gonna make you get a divorce if you can't have children.  No one is gonna stop you from getting married if you can't have children.  Having children is not a requirement of marriage.  DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?  ARE YOU DENSE?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I argue for liberty.  When you are for liberty, you will find me on your side.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children. 

Then you ramble on about TRADITIONS. 

The argument failed in the courts the first time, then must fail in future hearings. 

I'll give you credit though. 

You tried


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Works equally well for same sex siblings.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry. 

I know you must be frustrated. 

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ignoring my argument(s) is not the same as overcoming them.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them.  As I stated the issue of incest is not solely based on risk of birth defects.  See my other arguments above.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yup, codifying the arguments for same sex sibling marriage.


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and _Individual_ _Liberty _


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I answered your argument, which wasn't tough because your argument for SSM is the same as for SSSM.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Your buddy PMH just said it twice.


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and _Individual_ _Liberty _


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Liar.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?



Wrong.

The District Court ruling was at a judge bench trial.

That ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court and upheld. (3 Judge panel)

The proponents then requested an en banc review which was denied by the appeals court.  (A majority vote against by the 29 Judges on the Appeals court.)

That ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS who accepted the case and then ruled on standing, BUT - they vacated the Circuit Court ruling but left the District Court ruling in place.  They could have ordered a retrial by the District Court.  Since the original District Court Judge had retired by this time it would have been with a different Judge. (9 Justices of the Supreme Court.)



That means a majority of the 42 Judges/Justices heard or reviewed the case with a majority vote in each case being that Prop 8 was unconstitutional or that the District Court ruling was left in place.

Saying "One Judge" making the decision is wrong.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


And you are a LYING PIECE OF SHIT.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No.


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

There is no appeal to to ignorance of _State_ equivalents to Article 4, Section 2: _The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states._


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.
> 
> If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.
> 
> The paradox continues




Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before.  This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples.  However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption.  When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child.  No adoption needed.  Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.

Incest... no.

The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages.  (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners.  However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children.  Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE.  Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage.  Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks.  But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children.  This argument is LUDICROUS on face.  It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2)  Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence.  Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family.  The opportunity to raise children if they so desire.  Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children.  A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...?  That's sick.  There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex.  That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1.  FYI 2 comes after 1.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Oh, and Keyes....the majority doesn't have the authority to strip the minority of rights.



True... because 'right' comes from God.  And as such are intrinsic to the being, thus are inseparable from  the being.

Of course, you're using the word 'right', where there is no potential for such.

Ya see scamp, there is no right to claim that deceit, is truth.  And that is what the claim that Homosexuality is normal sexuality: IS.  When in truth, homosexuality is a mental disorder presenting through sexual deviancy. 

And it is through that disordered mind that you claim a right to advance that which is not true, as truth.  In simple terms you and your besties, suffer from  a severe form of subjectivism, OKA: Relativism.  A profound species of Sociopathy, the _*"ITS ALL ABOUT ME!" *_disease.  And that's why you felt that your rights trump the responsibilities of the normal people.  Responsibilities which sustain their real, thus very true: GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.
> 
> Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.
> 
> Incest... no. ...



Based upon WHAT? 

Meaning that you're claiming to possess a sound justification to preclude incest, even as you authorize other variations of the same mental disorder; presenting as sexual deviancy.

What, Pray Tell... is that justification?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.
> ...


Editing my post by deleting out what I said is not the same as debating what I said.  You do know it is against forum rules to edit someone's post right?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?
> ...



So you've come to argue the monumental distinction, wherein Redfish claimed that the Laws voted by the Majority of the those elected by the majority of Californians, were overturned, by an infinitesimal minority... claiming that the minority was NOT ONLY ONE PERSON, BUT IS IN REALITY, THUS IN TRUTH!: _*THREE *PEOPLE!; OKA: *AN INFINITESIMAL MINORITY.

ROFLMNAO!  

You people are HELPLESS!*_


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.
> ...



something similar could be said of any marriage _Contract_.

_No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Meaning, that you are incapable of stating the basis for the justification you're claiming.

LOL!  Classic... 

The Reader should notice the trend, wherein the Left claims a right, absent any responsibility... and sense of reality.  Understand, the reason I asked the would-be _'contributor' _to state her justification, was to establish that she has no justification, which is not already rinsed by the addled, subjective reasoning justifying the Normalization of Sexual Deviancy.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 10, 2015)

By what right does a minority of perverse people to circumvent the Constitution?  Because it is up to the states to make and enforce marriage laws. Also it is not in their power to stop a person's peaceful religious practice


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?
> ...


 

OK,   I stand corrected.  a 42 judge minority vs how many million people in Cal?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Your only argument that I did not address because it has zero relevance once SSM is codified is that couples should be able to raise children. 

That is simply false since a same sex sibling couple could raise children the same way that SSM couples could. 

EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.
> ...



The basis for your argument is the tradition based on procreation and the need to establish a "new" unit so that defective gene pools are not sanctioned by the state. 

When same sex marriage is codified that argument is moot with same sex siblings.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and _Individual_ _Liberty _



Only the right has morals.  Forcing businesses to serve you is the opposite of individual liberty. BTW.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 

and with mother/daughter, father/son, and multiple person "marriages".    The libs and gay mafia have no idea what they are opening up


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?
> ...



So a bunch of liberal judges overturned it.  Yeah, that makes a difference.  NOT.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Note that the strongest arguments that they have against SSSM is traditional values and procreation. 

It is a paradox.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Why does the Right have so little Faith along so little clue and so little Cause?  Is Individual Liberty too much of a moral challenge for the Right.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


 
Individual liberty includes the freedom to believe that gay marriage is wrong and bad for society as a whole.    Why should we allow 2% of the population to change our morals?

you in the gay mafia what government to dictate societal acceptance of something that a majority of humans on planet earth find morally and biologically wrong.   you want minority dictate as a form of government.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

Based on 90 pages so far,  I have to conclude that gay marriage is the one issue that divides americans like no other.  

There seems to be no middle ground, no room for compromise from the left. 

Could it be that this issue is representative of the kind of change progressives and liberals want and conservatives believe will damage our civilization?

As I have said several times,   let the people of each state vote, or try to pass a constitutional amendment.   Otherwise this will go on for generations and we will waste huge amounts of time and money on this,.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It seems the "individual" you so ardently want to defend end with those the libs created the arguments for. Same sex includes siblings. 

Please state the compelling goverment interest in denying them the right to marry. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Keyes....the majority doesn't have the authority to strip the minority of rights.
> ...


Rights come from your god for YOU...rights come from my gods for ME....we are not all tied to YOUR god no matter how much you want that to be.  Get it?


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> By what right does a minority of perverse people to circumvent the Constitution?  Because it is up to the states to make and enforce marriage laws. Also it is not in their power to stop a person's peaceful religious practice


So...why do all states recognize the marriage of underaged people from one state where it's acceptable?  Why did all states recognize divorces from Nevada even when their divorce laws were more stringent?


----------



## rdean (May 10, 2015)

*Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*

To families with children, taking care of children is their most important issue.

To a straight couple where one of them is sick, insurance is the most important issue.  So they get married.

For gays with children.  For gays who have a sick partner, marriage is certainly their most important issue.

Many, if not the majority of Republicans want gays dead, so for those that want gays dead, gay marriage is also the most important issue.  They want gays to suffer, so they want to stop anything that could help gay people.

I hope I cleared that up.


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and _Individual_ _Liberty _
> ...


Well, you sure are a clear thinking soul.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

rdean said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> To families with children, taking care of children is their most important issue.
> 
> ...



So you favor marriage rights to same sex siblings I take it?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.



 Do you agree then that those "civil rights should extend to same sex sibling marriage?


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted.  When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted.  When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted.  When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted.  When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?



I have a feeling that when same sex siblings want "civil rights" you will resist.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> ...


Quite trying to piggy back on our civil rights cause.  Work on your own court cases.....and if they are as solid as our gay marriage cases, then good luck to you.


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.
> ...


is that the subject of the OP?  and how did you come up w/ that?


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted.  When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted.  When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?
> ...


You have a feeling.  Well, that sure is solid.  If you go thru the legal processes like we gays have and can show the Constitutionality, then more power to you.   I sure as hell won't be quoting christian scripture as if it has some kind of legal standing.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


What a lying piece of shit you are.  You dumb asses have nothing left but wallowing in your own bile.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes they could.  Yet there is a risk nonetheless of them doing it the old fashioned way, no?  Additionally you ignored my 2nd argument, you know, the one with the number 2 on it.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Adding monkeys to your post won't make it right.


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted.  When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted.  When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?


It's all Obama's fault.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Pop can't argue against gay marriage....so he keeps trying to slide the discussion to incest.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're a lying POS.  There are as many people on the left that piss on gays as there are on the right.  The only difference is the left needed the votes in 2008 and some folks on the right are stubborn as hell.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



What you're struggling with Karl, is the inability to show any element of the Constituion which defends a right to marry anything you want.


But in fairness to you, ya have a good reason for it... Given that there is no potential for a right to marry anything ya like.  And that's because Marriage is defined by nature, through the human physiological design, as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


 

the OP asks if gay marriage is the most important issue facing our nation today.   Some of you apparently think it is.   the next question is why do you think that?

The discussion has migrated to the what will happen if gay marriage is federally sanctioned,  several have made the logical next step to same sex sibling marriage,  which would become legal is SSM became legal.

Sibling marriage could be done to reduce income taxes and inheritence taxes.   Sex is not a prerequisite to marriage as many of you on the left have pointed out.  

So, legally, SSM will lead to legal sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, and multiple person marriage.   Because the legal arguments for those will be EXACTLY the same as the legal arguments being made for SSM/


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That's what I said.  Gay sex is legal, so now gay marriage is legal.  Since incest sex is illegal, what's the first step to incest marriage?  Even you should be able to figure that out.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

so, what you are saying is that the dem/libs patronized the gays in order to get their votes and they really don't give a shit about gay marriage.   Do the gays know that?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Karl?  fuck you... I'm the opposite of marxist you piece of shit.

The elements of the constitution that defend the right to life including marriage have most certainly been explained in gory detail.  You chose to ignore the evidence.  Why?  Ignorance?

Marriage defined by nature?  ROFL omfg what an idiot.  Did your mommy tell you that line of crap?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


So, who gives a fuck?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes, they do.  They also know that the libertarian conservatives are on their side.  And they know that most republicans are also on their side.  The only people who are not on their side are authoritarian dinosaurs on the left and right who were told by their parents that gays were the devil.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


There's nothing to run from because why would I give a fuck?

Tell us Pop, if a man and a woman can marry why can't a brother and a sister?  There should be tons of them right, if your theory is correct.  They are Man and Woman after all.  Do explain?


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

you are simply wrong,  but thats OK, its a free country, you can believe whatever you want.


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


 I assume that you are the nail.


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


"next logical step"?  Maybe in an eXtreme rw'ers mind. No, your thread title names the subject. Stop projecting 

rw'ers/socons moving the goal posts when they're losing the debate  'twas ever thus. lol


----------



## Redfish (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


 

If SSM is legally sanctioned,  what legal argument will you bring to prohibit same sex sibling marriage?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


If I wanted to, I don't, the same arguments that keep a brother and sister apart.  Incest is mostly illegal here.


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


why don't you start a thread on that hmmm? The subject of this thread is clear. Moving the goal posts won't help you. lol


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Incest isn't a sexual orientation north of the mason dixon.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Actually allowing SSSM would be far easier than OSSM, since SSSM can't reproduce from the sexual relations they have and the potentially damaged children, and the icky factor, is why we ban incest in the first place.  Pop needs to be fighting for OSSM, he likes tradition and fucking your little sister would count.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Finding your spouse, at a family reunion...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Go get 'em Pop, fighter for the oppressed: Teen dad s marriage plan spurs N.J. incest ban effort


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


More posts on a gay thread, Red Minnow?  Can't quit the topic?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



That would make someone a redneck.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yes... The error was I legalizing sexual deviancy.  

Noted. 

And you feel that by allowing homosexuals to legally have sex... So that they could be accepted as people... And not have to live in the shadows, that this; in your feelings, authorized the perverse among us to define the most critical of all cultural institutions?

ROFLMNAO.

Now isn't that precious? 

LOL!  How adorable is THAT?

(The reader should understand that what you see in the addled notions of the mentally disordered is the reason that homosexuals have spent 99.9999% of human existence in the closet.

Without exception, every time that they've been mainstreamed, they have taken to completely screwing things up.  

And the reason for that, is that homosexuality is a presentation of mental disorder; think of it as a bad operating system that produces severely flawed reasoning... The ancillary flaw and the most dangerous property of such is that the Homo- OS is a virus, spreading flawed reasoning like the flu... . 

This, as you might imagine, doesn't take long before the culture itself, in its entirety its inevitably collapsed from the effects of a severe case of the Dumbass.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




There are quite a few fish who display homosexual behavior in nature.


Amazon molly[48]
Bennett
Blackstripe topminnow[49]
Bluegill sunfish[49]
Char[47]
Grayling[47]
European bitterling[50]
Green swordtail[50]
Guiana leaffish[51]
Houting whitefish[47]
Jewel fish[52]
Least darter (_Microperca punctulata_)[50]
Mouthbreeding fish sp.[49]
Salmon spp.[53]
Southern platyfish[50]
Ten-spined stickleback[50]


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Imagine the depths of delusion wherein those who come to advocate for men having sex and marrying other men... Denigrating others.

ROFLMNAO!  

You can't make this crap up!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> And you feel that by allowing homosexuals to legally have sex... So that they could be accepted as people... And not have to live in the shadows, that this; in your feelings, authorized the perverse among us to define the most critical of all cultural institutions?


Marriage isn't critical.  An argument for children can be made, a good one, and monogamy, but not marriage.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Have you ever had a blow job?  I suggest you get one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Incest is not related to marriage equality.  To suggest such is a fallacy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Ok OP...  We have another Leftist coming to propose that humanity regress and devolve into a lower base animal species.

(Reader... Remember that homosexuality is a
Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.  The call for humanity to devolve into  lower animal species, as. a means to help them feel "legitimate " is part and parcel of that mental disorder.)


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > And you feel that by allowing homosexuals to legally have sex... So that they could be accepted as people... And not have to live in the shadows, that this; in your feelings, authorized the perverse among us to define the most critical of all cultural institutions?
> ...


No. Committed couple's need to receive the same civil rights afforded those married under the auspices of a sky pixie such as hospital visitation, inheritance, etc...


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Incest is not related to marriage equality.  To suggest such is a fallacy.


yep, seems he lost the intial debate so he's doing the only thing he can do  changing the subject


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted_.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> No. Committed couple's need to receive the same civil rights afforded those married under the auspices of a sky pixie such as hospital visitation, inheritance, etc...


That can be done without marriage, just as society can be fine without marriage.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Straight sex occurs in nature too...so, there must be something wrong with it using your argument.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



So, the answer is no?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Hey Pop, time to fight for tradition, OSSM.  I wonder if OSSM.ORG is available?

"The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD (Thierfelder 1960; Sidler 1971; Hopkins 1980; Shaw 1992; Scheidel 1996a). At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters (Bagnall and Frier 1994). The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family. At that level, this custom must have assumed the function of a cultural norm (Scheidel 1995). Mazdaean (‘Zoroastrian’) religious doctrine, originating from Iran, not only legitimized but encouraged and extolled sexual relations between parents and children and between siblings. The very substantial corpus of pertinent evidence combines prescriptive Zoroastrian texts (mostly from the early Middle Ages) and descriptive accounts by outsiders, ranging from the 5th century BC to the Middle Ages and from western Europe to Tibet and China (West 1882; Spooner 1966; Sidler 1971; Bucci 1978; Frye 1985; Herrenschmidt 1994; Mitterauer 1994; Frandsen 2009). Half-sibling unions are also attested for a number of other societies but have so far eluded systematic investigation (Modrzejewski 1964; Goggin & Sturtevant 1964)."
References


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is not related to marriage equality.  To suggest such is a fallacy.
> ...


Incest is EVERYBIT as related to marriage as race is related to behavior.

The only problem in trying to communicate with the
Mentally disordered, is that they use a lot of words that don't mean what they're saying.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


oh! A Re-concession.  How sweet...

Your re-comcession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Incest is EVERYBIT as related to marriage as race is related to behavior.



Come again?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Your re-comcession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



Oh look, your other crutch.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Hey Pop, time to fight for tradition, OSSM.  I wonder if OSSM.ORG is available?
> 
> "The census returns of Roman Egypt, preserved on papyrus, provide quantifiable documentary evidence of brother-sister marriage, mostly for the 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD (Thierfelder 1960; Sidler 1971; Hopkins 1980; Shaw 1992; Scheidel 1996a). At that time, one in five attested couples in Middle Egypt consisted of brothers and sisters (Bagnall and Frier 1994). The incidence of incest in the city of Arsinoe in the Fayum was higher still, indicating that virtually every man with a living younger sister married her instead of someone from outside the family. At that level, this custom must have assumed the function of a cultural norm (Scheidel 1995). Mazdaean (‘Zoroastrian’) religious doctrine, originating from Iran, not only legitimized but encouraged and extolled sexual relations between parents and children and between siblings. The very substantial corpus of pertinent evidence combines prescriptive Zoroastrian texts (mostly from the early Middle Ages) and descriptive accounts by outsiders, ranging from the 5th century BC to the Middle Ages and from western Europe to Tibet and China (West 1882; Spooner 1966; Sidler 1971; Bucci 1978; Frye 1985; Herrenschmidt 1994; Mitterauer 1994; Frandsen 2009). Half-sibling unions are also attested for a number of other societies but have so far eluded systematic investigation (Modrzejewski 1964; Goggin & Sturtevant 1964)."
> References


OP you've got another Leftist on record advocating for humanity regressing back to the understanding common to the 5th century BC.

Proving once again that Progressives are regressive.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Animals have no means to know the difference between what is right and wrong.  Not at all district from the sub-human element comprising the Ideologic left.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Either homosexuality is deviant or it is a natural act demonstrated repeatedly among humans and animals. There is no mainstream organization that condemns homosexuality as being deviant.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

The foolish assertion "Incest is EVERYBIT as related to marriage as race is related to behavior" has no quantification and fails alone by lack of common sense.

"Remember that" heterofascism, which ipso facto discounts homosexuality, is carried to the extreme a  Mental Disorder.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 10, 2015)

A sin is a lie and homosexuality is a sin then homosexual love is a lie


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they don't have morals however your morals are made up, like your God, so, which one is more valid, their behavior, which is true to their nature, or your behavior, which isn't?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> A sin is a lie and homosexuality is a sin then homosexual love is a lie


Charging interest was a sin once.  I wouldn't go there if I were you.  The sins we now call normal day to day life is a very long list.

This BTW, a sin:


----------



## Seawytch (May 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> A sin is a lie and homosexuality is a sin then homosexual love is a lie



Hey there cafeteria Christian...are you evenly remotely aware of the "sins" in the NT alone?


The Complete List of SINS New Testament 

I wonder how many you've violated...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > A sin is a lie and homosexuality is a sin then homosexual love is a lie
> ...


Damn, didn't make it past number one.  Think I'll number one while I wait for his response.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



True, then the real paradox happens. 

Since there is no compelling governmental interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage, but there remains one for opposite sex siblings, our Supreme Court is about to open the door to granting gay Americans greater access to the benefits of marriage than heterosexuals. 

A true paradox of epic proportions.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


You must fix that Pops.  Millions of men waiting to marry, and then fuck, their little sisters are counting on you.

OSSM must be legal, now...


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Go get 'em Pop, fighter for the oppressed: Teen dad s marriage plan spurs N.J. incest ban effort





PaintMyHouse said:


> Go get 'em Pop, fighter for the oppressed: Teen dad s marriage plan spurs N.J. incest ban effort



Are fathers and daughters siblings?

Your deflecting

Please clean up when you're done


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Go get 'em Pop, fighter for the oppressed: Teen dad s marriage plan spurs N.J. incest ban effort
> ...


Incest marriage is incest marriage Pops.  You must fix this, it's a grave injustice.  You supporting only the faggots who are brothers is simply unfair.  Don't all people deserve to marry their close relatives?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Try to stay on topic, there will CONTINUE to be a compelling governmental interest in denial of opposing sex, closely related from marriage. 

Do you actually want to discuss this legal paradox?

Of course you don't.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then why does your side argue for it?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What is this compelling government reason?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Keys and Pop and the rest keep stumbling over each others' feet and arguments.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The ability to create defective children, just ask world watcher.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It is you that is arguing for it.  If any two can marry then that means any two eh?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys and Pop and the rest keep stumbling over each others' feet and arguments.



And your argument is. 

You're a poop head AND

That's icky


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Marriage has nothing to do with that, that's fucking.  If no children could be produce by the union then there is no problem.  Do continue to try and find a compelling reason.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yep, no compelling government interest in denying them. 

Go ahead, express the compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage. 

You won't, you can't.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I see, so it's you supporting incest

Got it


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed?  There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see.  You got one, or not?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop is babbling an _slippery slope_ fallacy about incest since he lost the pro-creation argument.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My support isn't required, it's why should it be illegal?  Two adults fucking was legal the last time I checked.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


So, you don't think  sodomy should be legal.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Life without sodomy?  What a bore that would be.  Remember ladies, blowjobs are like flowers, for men.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> A sin is a lie and homosexuality is a sin then homosexual love is a lie


A sin?  We set our laws by someone's 1000's of years old definition of sin?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

You guys are a bunch of sickos. Stick with straight missionary sex. That should be the only legal sex.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Well, you have to make incest itself legal first.


----------



## Seawytch (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> You guys are a bunch of sickos. Stick with straight missionary sex. That should be the only legal sex.



Really? No BJs for the guys?  good luck with that.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are a bunch of sickos. Stick with straight missionary sex. That should be the only legal sex.
> ...


Worthy of another civil war that one...


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights 

Or

B. Legalizing incest.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Only partially true


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I can't. The Supremes may


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why should such a thing be restricted?  Why do you hate freedom?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So, you got no reason?  Okay.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop is babbling an _slippery slope_ fallacy about incest since he lost the pro-creation argument.



Lol, it is you that created the argument but can't back it up. 

One more time then. 

State the compelling government interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage. 

Or keep sniveling. 

I'm betting it's that you'll keep sniveling. 

It's what you do best.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> State the compelling government interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.


There isn't one, so therefore you approve?  It would be irrational not to and we wouldn't want that now would we?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And you've not supplied the compelling state interest.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 10, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and _Individual_ _Liberty _


 
Well, for the left to be morally challenged, they'd first have to acquire some morals.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > State the compelling government interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.
> ...



Same sex sibling marriage will be forced on me whether I approve or not.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're supposed to be doing that.  I've already said there isn't one.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


But surely you're okay with it, since no compelling reason against it can be found?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And the paradox continues. According to PMH, to support SSM one must admit that incest must follow (in his opinion)


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Oh no, it is Same sex marriage that opens the door, I oppose it also.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, not what I said, but what does it matter if it did?  What is the compelling state interest not to allow such a thing?  There's no reason that I can think of and you haven't been able to find one either.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


My only compelling reason is that I don't want homos to be happy so then they will go to a different country.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


For what reason?  You don't seem to have one.  It can't be tradition since gay marriage and incest marriage have both existed.  Give us a compelling reason?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Homos are icky won't make it in courts.  It seems as though you are the one who should move eh?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



And you're an idiot.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Nah. I don't care enough to move. I just won't live in San Diego or any of the other homo capitals.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Sodomy was also illegal in most states just a few years ago.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Works for me.  Try the flyover, they deserve you.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



How does a fish display homosexual behavior?

Some babies are born with two heads.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Fine, but no one paid any attention since that's mostly a heterosexual thing.


----------



## Seawytch (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Like Salt Lake City, UT?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Again... this would-be ... _'short-sightedness'_, is part and parcel of the *mental disorder* _that presents as sexual deviancy.

LOL!  _People seem to feel that the words _mental disorder_ mean nothing... there's a reason that sexual deviancy was classified as a mental disorder, and that reason is being spread, liberally, throughout this thread in the form of absurd rationalizations... the likes of which set Judicial decisions regarding race, as precedent that requires BEHAVIOR to be exactly the same thing... . Then there's the simultaneous claim that a sexual deviancy which enjoys a degree of separation from homosexuality will... _'in no way'_ enjoy precedent by providing separate but equal deviancies OK for marriage.

Ya see, it turns out that voting to declassify a mental disorder, does not alleviate the disorder which stems from those whose operating system, produce it.
_
_


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



If no one paid any attention, then why did they have laws against it, and why did queers work so hard to get the laws overturned?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The Paradox continues


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Still no reason eh Pops?  I guess you are just irrational.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Stupid law, since nearly everyone does it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Maybe, maybe not, but soon we'll not only have same sex marriage, followed by same sex sibling marriage and the states will start scrambling to create legislation to stop it and all sibling marriage. 

Truth


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Gay marriage is a done deal.  Nothing they can do about that.  As for incest marriage, it's traditional so they'll have to fight that out in the courts.  Either way, you have no rational reason against gay marriage, which means your opposition is irrational.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

rdean said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> To families with children, taking care of children is their most important issue.
> 
> To a straight couple where one of them is sick, insurance is the most important issue.  So they get married.



Now folks... the same mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, also _'advised' _us that Marriage is an archaic construct, which bears no importance to civilization... further attacking Fathers, in their non-stop assault on patriarchy. 

WELL ... it turns out that a couple of generations after that pearl of wisdom was accepted,_ 'straight couples, where one of them is sick, insurance is the most important issue.  *So they get married.'*_

The coolest part is that the demented would-be 'contributor' who offered that drivel, has no clue, how pitiful it literally is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

No one has demonstrated marriage is an archaic construct.  Only foolish people would suggest that.

Marriage is a construct that has changed in the last three millenniums, yes, but, that is a different matter.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Oh I do, it leads to a legal paradox that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage, and since that discriminates againt heterosexuals (based on their ability to procreate) a good chance that all sibling marriage become legal. 

Nope, don't like it. 

Oh and by the way, should SSM become law, the arguments for it would be EXACTLY the same all along the line.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.  No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No paradox exists.
> 
> No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.
> 
> Until that happens, all the talks is just slobbering.



The argument for legalization of same sex marriage is EXACTLY the same argument for same sex sibling marrige.

Either it works for both or it works for neither.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Homosexual Behavior Among Fish Increases Attractiveness to Females - SciTech Daily

In many species, females are attracted to large, conspicuous males. But among animals that mate with many partners, males that manage to mate with more than one female can increases their chances of attracting others, even if they aren’t as conspicuous.

The scientists published their findings in the journal _Biology Letters_. In some species of fish, smaller, less flashy males can win over females by flirting with larger males. Researchers worked with the tropical freshwater fish _Poecilia mexicana_. Females were shown video footage of small, drab-colored males nipping the genital openings of larger, brightly colored males, an action which precedes mating in opposite-sex fish pairs.

After witnessing this behavior, the female fish indicated their newly awakened interest by spending more time swimming near the images of the less impressive males. The finding suggests that homosexual behavior can enhance a male’s ability to pass on his genes by attracting females that wouldn’t be interested in him otherwise.

Mollies aren’t the only fish that exhibit homosexual behavior. There are documented cases of at least 15 different species doing the same. Whether all of these species do so in an effort to attract more females hasn’t yet been determined.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one has demonstrated marriage is an archaic construct.  Only foolish people would suggest that.
> 
> Marriage is a construct that has changed in the last three millenniums, yes, but, that is a different matter.


That's the problem with you liberals. You only want rights for special interest groups. You don't fight for everyone who is discriminated against... Racist fucks


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...


Go nibble on males genitals and see if it attracts females. I'm not going to. lol


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So, your only reason is, I Don't Like It?  Well, not enough for the courts or society at large.  Guess that puts you out in the cold my friend.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



As concessions go, that was suitably lame for you, but you've consistently turned from the point, your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Like you felt the need to point that out?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No paradox exists.
> ...


No, it's not, and you can't demonstrate that it is is.  And you can't give an argument that the state does not have a compelling interest to continue to prevent it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No paradox exists.
> ...


Yet again, so?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one has demonstrated marriage is an archaic construct.  Only foolish people would suggest that.
> ...


One, learn the definitions of the terms you use.  Two, I have made no argument for a special interest group.  Three, and you conclude the statement with an assertion that has no basis.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Opposition to SSM is irrational, period.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You're a homo lover therefore you are liberal. Liberals only care about homos rights. They don't care about people who want to marry their mothers even though they believe in that kind of sick shit. Conclusion: you are a fag


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


  You don't like marriage equality or LGBT.  OK.  Move to Iran, because it is not going to return to the old, bad ways.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Guess you missed my any two can marry part eh?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


He's going to try Fargo ND, same difference only the faggots will be able to marry there as well.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one has demonstrated marriage is an archaic construct.  Only foolish people would suggest that.
> ...



OH! Now Supe... that's not entirely true.

Besides standing steadfastly for the 'rights' of Woman and sexual deviants, the aged and the physically challenged, they are also full time advocates of the rights of Islam... who FTR: are full-time mass-murderers of those people, including the Woman "Pam Geller", who recently held a contest to help others exercise their rights, which offended Islam... and sure enough, as if by cue... The Ideological Left came RUSHING IN... to support Islam's right to murder, and* not* just the Woman GELLER... but all of those people exercising their Rights, inside that contest.

Because, if nothing else, never let it be said that the Ideological Left has ever met a principle that it didn't reject.

But hey... 

In fairness to the Left... That is the nature of Evil, and who could expect them to be anything but what they are...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

How _adorable_.  Keys continues to give a melting mess of degeneracy in his pursuit of a national government run by his version of the Bible.

How the far right goes on about marriage equality as if it is the most important issue ev-ah.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Have fun with all the married butt sex you want. I won't participate. Liberals are a joke though. They engage in far more racism than the right ever has. Liberals are a bunch of racist, sexist, and even worse.. self hating homos I've ever talked to. They like everyone but the cis gendered white male who they discriminate against.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  

But only because that is how Nature designed human physiology.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> How _adorable_.  Keys continues to give a melting mess of degeneracy in his pursuit of a national government run by his version of the Bible.
> 
> How the far right goes on about marriage equality as if it is the most important issue ev-ah.


Ever since the left has taken over the education system with in the US they have continued to degrade it to teaching immoral principles and worse that's what they spend half their time doing therefore making us get behind in technology and things that matter.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


I've enjoyed married butt since the wife let me do her, about 20 years ago.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Lies. You're a kissless virgin.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


What was nature's design for jerking off, or oral sex?  Following nature means nearly all fucking leads to nothing like babies, and was never meant to.  I wouldn't go there if I were you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Sweetcheeks, I've been doing it longer than you've been alive.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > How _adorable_.  Keys continues to give a melting mess of degeneracy in his pursuit of a national government run by his version of the Bible.
> ...


The reason we are behind is because we don't respect teachers or education in this country.  It's filled with people like you...


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's a big deal to those not in favor of incest, since you are.......


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you?  Oh right, none.  You should learn to be rational and objective.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Not until SSM is legal. Once it is, then the state must come up with a compelling reason to deny same sex siblings the right to the benefits to marriage. 

Same sex siblings cannot procreate, so the state has no compelling reason. 

If so, please be so kind as to stop whining and state what that might be.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


What difference does it make if people have orgies in the street?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Nuff said ^^^^ the guys a head case


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't have to be in favor or not.  To be rational means there has to be a good reason to oppose something, and you can't find one besides you don't like it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's no longer LGBT, it's LGBTQSSS

Get with the times dude


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It blocks traffic.  I hate gawkers.  But, if the city will issue the permit, fuck yourselves blind for all I care.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



^^^^ and you are a head case ^^^^


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, I'm rational.  You're the headcase that wants laws to reflect what you feel.  You don't even have valid arguments for said laws.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Sorry dude, not going there with a delusional head case.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You want legal incest, by any rational reasoning, that makes you a head case.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You already have gone there, and lost, utterly.  You have nothing but your irrational opposition to something you don't even have valid reasons against.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Wrong. Teacher is a highly respected job. It's the curriculum designed for social brainwashing rather than science, math, basic English....


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I don't want it, don't even have to approve of it, but the state better have a compelling reason against it, and you can't find one so far.  The best you have is bad offspring, which if not possible with such a coupling means even that even that reason fails to stand up.  What the state can be opposed to is offspring of incest, in which it has an interest, nothing more.  Who you fuck is frankly none of their business, or mine, or yours.  That's being rational.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Teachers are treated like shit here.  Just ask them.

And educated people are ignored, just eggheads.  That is why this country is getting its ass handed to it.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Oh c'mon...you're not fooling anyone, you want to be B.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Yes... and of the two competing Ideologies, which one is it that rejects the principles of 'respect' for authority?


LOL!  

A point made all the more hysterical, by the longstanding disrespect for the laws forbidding the behavior that entailed men having sex with other men.  Recall the heady days when assless-chap wearing boy-toys were prancing proudly down main street, declaring that they were sexual deviants and would be staying and that we should get used to the idea.  Despite, of course... that deviant behavior was illegal.

Imagine the deceit so profound that those same tools are here decrying their undying devotion to 'The LAW!' and the unstated authority of the Teacher and 'Education' itself.

Of course, the problem is not a lack of respect for the teacher, or education.  

The Problem is a lack of respect for the sexual intercourse the mind-bending responsibilities that such represents.  

You know... that whole thing back in the 60s which attacked the Patriarch.  The Feminist line which established "Person-hood" as separate and inequitable, above humanity; promising women a new world which did not require 'a man' to validate her, which two generation later has single parent families dependent upon the government, wherein schools are effectively day care, which decidedly DO NOT enjoy any power to punish children who fail to respect the teacher and which is quite sufficiently empowered to punish the teacher who demands her pupils to respect her.

Proving once again, that where evil is tolerated, what ever it does will result in chaos, calamity and catastrophe.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Wrong. Education fails because most educators are liberal.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Soon people will be saying laws against incest are stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



The paper itself says the behavior described is heterosexual.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Democrats mostly represent the poor and stupid or the super wealthy that don't know what middle class life is like. Here's my evidence.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.  No paradox exists.
> 
> Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.



According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex."  That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why don't YOU go to a different country.....like Iran.  Or Russia?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...




Support for SSM is irrational, period.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.  No paradox exists.
> ...


One doesn't have to procreate or even have sex to get married.

One doesn't have to be married to procreate or to even have sex. 

Oh look, they're right.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



We both know why you won't go to Iran or Russia, don't we?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So you have no problem then with making it legal for a man to marry his sister?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


I've already stated that I don't care enough about it to move. I'll let all the homos fuck monkeys until they infect themselves with AIDS.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



We really don't want to know anything about your private life.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No paradox exists.
> ...


No it is not.   Nice try trying to slip your desires into our court cases tho.


----------



## Londoner (May 10, 2015)

Here is the problem with getting rid of the "Gay Marriage Issue".

It is crucial to mobilizing a key segment of [mostly] religious conservatives, many of whom don't understand economic issues or foreign policy _beyond_ talking points about socialism and terrorism.

While I commend Redfish for wanting to get beyond these pointless wedge issues, he might be underestimating the strategic genius of the Reagan Revolution, which was the engine behind the Think Tank and Talk Radio revolution (designed to convince Americans that their country had been stolen by immoral, God-hating communists). *Point is: morality/religion was the Right's populist answer to the Left, which attempted to attract poor voters with working class issues and social justice. *

*Most Republicans don't understand that conservatism was more of an outreach tool to attract voters. It was conducted by Plutocrats who wanted to buy the government and redesign policies so as to exclude the middle and lower classes from both the political process and the distribution chain.*

To achieve their goal of taking over Washington, the plutocrats needed a spokesperson - enter populist firebrand Ronald Reagan who, it should be noted, rarely went to church prior to his campaign for president. As governor of California, he passed the most liberal abortion law the nation had ever seen. However, in order for the new corporatist plutocracy to capture the presidency, they needed to break the Left's New Deal Coalition , which united the deeply conservative South and Heartland since 1932 (see the "Solid South"). They needed to reach average voters. *The primary tool for capturing average voters (mainly comprised of Dixiecrats and Bible-Belt-Conservatives) was conservatism, i.e., religion and tradition*. This strategy took advantage of the Left's 60's-pivot from traditional working class issues to lifestyle issues (which waged war on the nuclear family).

*Interestingly, Reagan grew up as a New Deal Democrat. He campaigned for Truman*. However, the money of corporate America (mostly from Big Oil who was afraid of Carter's alternative energy agenda) gave Reagan a path to the presidency, and that path was through a partnership with Pat Robertson and conservatism. Reagan's partnership with the Moral Majority was not some genuine political movement, it was a brilliant strategy for scaring conservatives into the voting booth using wedge issues like gay marriage.

*Even though gay marriage is a distraction from the most pressing issues of our time, it is absolutely necessary for the Republican Movement, which uses conservatism to fool poor people into voting for the narrow special interests of the plutocrats who fund the GOP Machine. Men like Dick Chaney are not against gay marriage, but he understands the need for conservative voters.

Psst: Reagan wasn't stupid. He was paid handsomely to switch parties and "discover" religion. *Thankfully for the GOP leadership most conservative voters don't know the real history of their greatest hero. This collective ignorance about the true motives of the Republican Movement was the goal behind the Think Tank/Talk Radio/Fox News Revolution. You gotta hand it to the Right. They realized in the 70s that to attract voters, they needed to create their own media bubble based largely on fabricated demons, fake patriotism and religious bromides. Reagan was a brilliant spokesperson for the new conservative movement. Let's just say that he was paid handsomely to switch teams.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why is it that you have to: a) try to piggy back onto the gay marriage argument for your incest, and b) have to misrepresent what others say in order to make your "argument" at all?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Londoner said:


> Here is the problem with getting rid of the "Gay Marriage Issue".
> 
> It is crucial to mobilizing a key segment of [mostly] religious conservatives, many of whom don't understand economic issues or foreign policy _beyond_ talking points about socialism and terrorism.
> 
> ...


Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Feel better now?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Marriage is a social construct that has evolved over time, and now culture and science has developed so that marriage equality can be incorporated in law and society.  That some don't like it or disagree is just too bad.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Because you say so.   There is no compelling interest for anyone to do as you say.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Then point out the argument that does not work for SSSM once an affirmative ruling has been given for SSM. 

Come now, quit being coy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.  No paradox exists.  Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.
> ...


None of which has anything to do with incestuous marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



OMG, the amazing Jakey admits his fail!

One more down!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No one has to.  It is not an argument.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Then end it by showing the states compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry. 

You do realize one exists now, but cannot after SSM. RIGHT?


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



More deflection with no reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And you lied . . . again.  No one has a compelling interest to do as you say, Pop.  You have so failed in this thread.  Nothing new.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes, you are deflecting because your argument is not reasonable


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> The ability to create defective children, just ask world watcher.



Link to the post Pop where I made that argument.

If not, please don't make things up about what I post.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Go butt fuck your brothers.


Such an utterly stupid, worthless comment.  Who cares what _you think_ about it, bub?  What of worth can you say about the OP.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The ability to create defective children, just ask world watcher.
> ...


Pop is making it personal because he cannot make a worthy argument.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > The ability to create defective children, just ask world watcher.
> ...



I stand corrected.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The interest belongs to the Government


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Good Lord, from you?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Go butt fuck your brothers.
> ...


It's disgusting and it shouldn't be allowed. A good comparison for gay marriage would be allowing people to shit in our streets. Just a gross.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No, someone has to convince the government it has no compelling interest.  To link Marriage Equality with incestuous marriage makes Reason Stare.  You can't do it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Good Lord, from you?


Correcting you so easily, Pop, demonstrates it is not personal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Now your senseless comments simply make you look simple.  What _you think_ does not matter in the sum of things about Marriage Equality.


----------



## Seawytch (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You seem a tad obsessed with anal sex.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




WHAT?

This is nuts. 

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights". 

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I like it how libs use the term "Marriage Equality" whenever marriage is between a man and a woman. The truth is giving homo fags tax breaks. That's what they want and that's how they should present it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Pop23, having lost the OP and the Marriage Equality discussion, now, along with Superman, do what losers do: throw mudballs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


All people of good will use Marriage Equality for all marriages, straight or gay.  That you can't accept that this is happening means nothing at all.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


What exists now?  Oh right, nothing.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It's not marriage unless it's between a man and woman. That's the fact and the way it was forever up until very recent history where liberal fags decided to attempt to redefine it. If you deny that then you're a fag.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




SUPERMAN1929

Are you really saying that anal sex "should not be allowed"?

First, what consenting adults do together is none of your business.

Second, besides peeking in other people's windows, how would you suggest enforcing any law against this act? 

What is "disgusting" is that anyone would believe they should have control over the private lives of others. 

Do you also believe that I should be able to control YOUR private acts?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Neither for nor against, but there is only one valid argument against, potential defective children, which isn't saying much.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Education is a Liberal thing.  We invented it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...




Why are gays held responsible for the acts of others?

Why are they held to a higher standard of behavior than straights?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Smart or stupid, they are mostly irrational, and go against human history where it's been common.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Your _feelings _define nothing, kid.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I don't think the government should condone fags fucking each other and recognize it as anything sacred.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal.  No paradox exists.
> ...


Again, marriage is not about children or the ability of either party to have them.  Never has been.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It's not feelings. It's fact. Find gay marriages a long time ago. They didn't exist because no one ever thought that culture would become this immoral. It's so disgusting that no one even thought about it or considered it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


That is incorrect, entirely.  Marriage is a contract and in this case a contract signed by two and only two adults.  Any two adults should be able to sign.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Your _feelings_ are not fact and have nothing to do with the debate on this issue.  How you feel is only how you feel.  No one cares.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Simply wrong. Saying liberals or conservatives invented education is just stupid. Shows your level of education.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the government should condone fags fucking each other and recognize it as anything sacred.
> ...


The fact is that marriage has always been defined as between man and woman and now liberals change the definition in order to accommodate for their faggish ways.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


But how will you have something to think about on those lonely nites then?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Lucky for them, your opinion matters not a fucking damn.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Nope...not true.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


People can have all the gay butt sex they want but don't recognize it as marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The fact is that marriage has always been defined as between man and woman...


Simply untrue.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Liberals did invent education.  Look it up.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

You are simply yelling, Superman, because Marriage Equality is a fact.

Throw all the mud you want, doesn't matter.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Have fun learning history: History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


The fucking is not the marriage.  It isn't for breeders either.  No sex at all is still just as much a marriage.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Wrong. Claiming someone invented it is ignorant. It was developed over a loooonnnggg time. Give me a link or make a decent argument.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


While it is a* relatively new* practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world

That's my point.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


More education for you: Trivium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liberals teach because liberals invented the idea.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are simply yelling, Superman, because Marriage Equality is a fact.
> 
> Throw all the mud you want, doesn't matter.


Yelling would be bold or caps.

I agree it is happening but that doesn't mean it is right. Just because most people think homos should be able to get married means nothing to me.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


It's not new.  Neither is marrying, and fucking, your little sister.  It's human history.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


You have been asked to do so and have failed.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are simply yelling, Superman, because Marriage Equality is a fact.
> ...


You can yell without bold or caps.  Continued trolling is similar to trolling.  What you feel or like does not matter.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Only effects opposite sex couples, never same sex.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That is your challenge to get the government to recognize that no compelling argument exists.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


It actually does matter. It would be a liberal's idea to restrict freedom of speech...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.


So you don't know what is a liberal or liberalism, obviously.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


No one is restricting your speech to utter feelings that absolutely do not matter.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


They do. I can vote and lobby.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.
> ...


I do know. Liberals want freedom and equality. Democrats/modern liberals want to take people's money and redistribute it. They also want to restrict religious freedom and really kill religion as a whole.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



That would be the same sex siblings challenge, not mine at all and since the arguments that pushed same sex marriage would have equal validity, they have equal merit. 

That is unless you can come up with an argument that weakens their case. 

The question remains

Can you


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Jeeez but you DO come up with some weird OPINIONS and then call them facts.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.


----------



## Kondor3 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Well, maybe the _second_ time, anyway...


----------



## Londoner (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.



*The GOP doesn't need all the poor & working class voters that were once a part of the New Deal Coalition - they just need to capture enough of those voters in key regions, mainly in the South and Heartland*. As I said, they use conservatism to convince certain voters in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky that Republican nominees care about religion, tradition and patriotism (rather than the narrow interests of the corporations and donors who fund their candidates and draft policy through lobbying pressure).

But obviously, to win the presidency you need more than outreach programs to rural conservatives, which is why Republicans have different communication patterns for wealthy libertarians (who are more concerned with tax, trade & regulatory policy than with the construction of a Big Moral Government which puts a bureaucrat at every bedside to save the souls of consenting adults who refuse to love each other in government sanctioned ways).

*Please pay attention this time*.
*
Both parties market themselves to their rich & poor constituencies*, but the GOP's strategic use of conservatism (which went into overdrive w/Reagan & the Moral Majority) allowed them to attract _enough_ poor working voters in the South and Heartland to tip the scales. Many of the poor working class voters who defected from FDRs original New Deal Coalition were and are functioning members of society. Do you remember the Reagan Democrats, many of whom were northern catholic union workers in the rust belt? These were hard working people who were "turned off" by the Left's 60s anti-war, bra-burning, secularist, collectivist hippiedom. [The problem with discussin

Your point about the Left's support amongst welfare recipients is well taken, but you need to credit the Reagan Revolution's brilliance in _using_ conservatism to peel off a huge number of disaffected working class democrats. These are not just "Red State Takers" who want government's hands off their medicare, but include a broader coalition of white lower income religious voters who supported the Left prior to its sixties transformation.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you?  Oh right, none.  You should learn to be rational and objective.



ROFL!

Words mean things...  and how PERFECT does the above demonstration get; in the science of reading Left-think, wherein the would-be 'contributor', prefaces its conclusion, by asking what difference does the subject make, to YOU or THEM?  Which is the GEOMETRICAL CENTER of: SUBJECTIVE REASONING... only to close by implying that it's reasoning is the OPPOSITE OF THAT?

I'm all about the learnin'... so allow me to offer the Intellectually Less Fortunate, a lesson in perspective...  When you are worried about how something will affect YOU... the species of reasoning you're applying in that consideration is *SUBJECTIVE.
*
This, by way of comparison, to the circumstance wherein you are wondering 'How will this affect something BIGGER THAN JUST YOU...  It may be your family... it may be your neighborhood, your company, Town, County, State of Nation.  When you're considering THAT perspective, you are applying *OBJECTIVE *Reasoning.

Objective reasoning is what the Founders of the United States used, when they were designing our governance, it was what was being applied, when the Founders who framed and ratified the US Constitution.

Objectivism is what was being applied when the Founders explicitly rejected Socialism... choosing instead, the  Constitutional Republic, which applied democratic representation. 

And Objective reasoning is what was being applied, when the law was debated and passed, in every respective state, to forbid sodomy... ergo: to outlaw homosexuality.  Because doing so precluded the normalization of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy... and in so doing it precluded the normalization of reasoning which describes its subjective nature in painful detail, while claiming such is the GEOMETRIC OPPOSITE OF THAT.  
_
See how that that works?_


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You know of a same sex couple that, by way of incest had a child born with a birth defect, or born at all

Do tell


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Not what I said at all. 

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest. 

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest. 

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres. 

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


*Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.*


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms. 

Got it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


So you now agree that no one is restricting your freedom of speech on marriage equality or anything else, only calling you out on it.


----------



## bodecea (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Incest is YOUR argument.   But, I guess you're too lazy to start your own thread on it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Not that it will, it must, at least as it persons to same sex siblings. 

Again, if the USSC rules in favor of SSM, what compelling goverental interest is there in denying a same sex sibling couple the right to marry?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Kondor3 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




And most certainly from the time we discovered what caused pregnancy.

Anal sex is popular among hetero couples for a lot of reasons. This is just one.

Apparently popular with young people as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You want government in the bedroom, then.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Londoner said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.
> ...


The fact is that conservative ideology appeals most to the actual working class. That's why most of them choose it. Poor people vote for welfare or because they're black and they think republicans hate them even though many are conservative. The people who have to deal with the increase in taxes and all the stupid shit the government does vote for the right party... The poor are going to stay poor regardless and the rich will stay rich but the middle is easier to change their lives.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Goin with the flow


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


I read the title and that was enough to realize that the article means nothing for your cause. It says that some historians believe that the unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. Then it proceeds to say one guy theorizes that it was sexual. Enough said.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Londoner said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.
> ...



Now sure what the advocacy was in all of that.

Suffice it to say, that there is an honest position to be found in considering the positions of the people who make the most jobs, who have the most to lose and to gain in government regulations.

But there is only ONE species of reasoning which seeks to incorporate business, with government.  And THAT... is PROGRESSIVISM... and it does so, to capture those individuals who comprise the aforementioned: DO'ers.  To use their money, to promote the acquisition of THEIR POWER.

Americans have power... because we are endowed by our creator with certain, inalienable rights.  Meaning God is our power.  And where God is with us, who can be against us that possess the means to injure us?   Meaning we enjoy the authority of the Creator of the Universe and in that is awesome power.

What Americans crave is to be left alone.  We have business to do, a living to make, children to raise and there's not a lot of time to concern ourselves with the addle-minded notions of the Ideological Left, wherein you invert every point of reasoning, flipping logic on its head, using the language as if it belongs exclusively to you, demanding; for instance that you're patriots, even as you advocate for issues that undermine the viability of the very nation you just claimed to _'vigorously support'.

So, what was your point?_


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




This is very typical among very stupid liars:

First they ADMIT they're making it up = _"I guess"_. 

Then he says its fact. 

I was very clear. I wrote _"And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not yours."_

And yes, IF between consenting adults, get Big Government out of our bedrooms and out of our private lives.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




You said same sex marriage never existed before. 

I proved they did. 

FACT: there is no such thing as "traditional", one man, one woman marriage. 

Marriage has changed many times through history and it change many more times.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Reagan's economics provided for the fascistic union of government and business, which is certainly a form of Social Market Democracy.  Of course, Keys may prefer unregulated (non-progressive) capitalism that would exploit children as well as all workers.  Very relativistic and unChristian of Keys.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do. You're a moron who compares apples to oranges.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Keys needs to follow someone's well made statement: "What Americans crave is to be left alone."  Keys, leave others sexual ways and marriages to themselves.  Son, it is not your business.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




Wow. You really ARE ignorant. 

The middle class is dying out. Its being killed by very stupid voters who insist on voting against their own best interests, the best interests of their children and of their country.

Republicans DO hate you. You are nothing more than a beast of burden and your job is to work for the 1%.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




Since you say you know everything, educate me. 

How were the old same sex marriages that you first said did not exist but now say were just "different" ...

Now you say _"It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do"._

How? In what ways? What differences? 

Prove it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.
> 
> 
> *Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
> Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.*



So, you're saying that there was a period where same sex unions were tolerated... but because the individuals joined through these unions, were unable to live up to the non-sexual paradigms associated with such... likely making greater and more intrusive and destructive demands upon the culture, with regard to orienting these unions towards a homosexual _lifestyle, _such unions were banned and the homosexuals again, relegated to the closet?

Huh...

Once again... objective reasoning tells the story.  I say it HERE and it comes out *THERE!*

Now the would-be 'contributor', did not offer those 'facts' in evidence, because the subjective nature of it's reasoning, required that it could not discern the truth, wherein the would-be unions were NOT sexual in nature, wherein the culture was perhaps making a means by which certain individuals might 'incorporate'... without the formal acceptance of marriage.  Which is to say that such was likely established as a means to offer an Alternative... but, as we see happening before our very eyes today, the Homo-lobby was incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE and likely went out of their way to voice the 14th century Equivalent of "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER: GET USED TO IT... and given the logical consequences of such, at some point the adults had to shut that crap down.

Again, the would-be contributor merely wanted to point out that people in the 14th century allowed homosexuals to marry, thus our generation SHOULD do the same thing... as if they didn't have a mother who did her best to teach then the _"IF Johnny jumped off the cliff, would you?"_ lesson.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


You are a child, nothing like a Liberal.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


I read it in the same link you showed me.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> ... marriage equality ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



When you use the word liberal... you're referring to Leftists.  Which is the Anti-thesis of the word Liberal, which conveys the advocacy for *liberty*.

The Former is a deceptive hijacking of a term, so that such conveys to the listener or reader, something about them which is not true, in much the same way as the use fo the word 'gay' to describe the sexual deviant conveys a false impression.  Sexual deviants are not happy, merry or sportive, they're sexual deviants, who are ashamed of their deviant sexuality and who crave legitimacy; and the use of the word 'gay' demonstrates that perfectly, wherein the user seeks to convey that they're not what they are, but something else... which they feel is legitimate.

All of it is a demonstration of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.  Meaning that such requires deceit, which it fraudulently advances as a means to influence the ignorant.  

Thus the Leftist that claims to themselves the word liberal, does so KNOWING that they oppose the liberty which they advertise as representing them... because like a child, they reject the responsibility that is intrinsic to liberty, thus that which can never be separated from it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The fact is that conservative ideology ...




Not to put too fine a point on it... but Conservatism, is not an 'ideology', per se.  
Conservatism is respect for, defense of and adherence to the immutable laws of nature, which have been verifiably observed over thousands of years of human history.

This in distinct contrast to the Ideology which says: '_We believe that this is true and that is true, based upon this being in alignment with our needs, wants and desires.'
_
The Former is objectively reasoned and true... while the latter is subjectively reasoned and false.

Thus the former has a long track record of an efficacy, that the latter can never hope to accomplish, because the former works, every time, in every place it is tried.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.
> ...




No, that's not what I said at all. 

But now that you mention it, its no more logical or realistic to say 'marriage has always been between one man and woman so we should keep it that way'.

My post was pointing out that THAT is not true.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.



#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Bodey, why aren't you asking Luddy to stay with the OP?

Curious


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



So incestuous marriage between consenting adults is OK with you. 

Ok, got it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> No, that's not what I said at all.



So the quote you offered and to which I responded, _precisely as you offered it_, was not something which you sought to convey?

How is that my responsibility? 

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, it was what you said... as the record reflects.  What you do not like, is what I said about what you said and you're inability to contest it.

And yes... I can only imagine that _THAT SUCKS_ for you.  But in fairness to you, my comments were not designed to make you feel better about yourself.

So perhaps knowing that will help you through this dark and humiliating period.



Luddly Neddite said:


> But now that you mention it, its no more logical or realistic to say 'marriage has always been between one man and woman so we should keep it that way'.



Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman, because that is how Nature designed the human species... You know, with two distinct, but complimenting genders, the bodies of each specifically designed to join together, forming one body... as marriage joins the two, forming one legal entity.





Luddly Neddite said:


> My post was pointing out that THAT is not true.



You post was pointing out what was not true... which is as close to the truth as a Relativist is likely to get... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> So incestuous marriage between consenting adults is OK with you.
> 
> Ok, got it.



Of course it is, because the would-be 'rights' of the incestuous, cannot be disregarded, once the idiots accept the ludicrous would-be 'rights' inherent to any other sexual deviancy, an in particular IT'S RIGHTS... which is all it is concerned with.  It doesn't give a red rat's ass about the rights of anyone but itself and it cares even LESS about the responsibilities that are otherwise inherent in rights... the the relativist, a right is a right with NO RESPONSIBILITY for such being associated to THEM. 

Sadly, for their perspective; in reality, thus in truth, there is no potential for a right, absent a correlating responsibility.  No responsibility, no right.  And it's truly no more complex than THAT.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Its not a question of what is "okay with me". 

Unlike nanny state RWs who want the govt to hold their hand and control every single thing they do, I believe what I wrote, but which you are just too damn stupid to read and understand. 

To help you find it, I have *bolded* it above.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ... marriage equality ...
> ...


Only in weak heads and hearts and souls.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Now you are whining when you are dealt with as you have tried to deal with others.

Take what you dish, or shut up.


----------



## Genevieve (May 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Gay marriage is important to those who want to marry within their own gender, I suppose.  But it has been made a hot political topic because of its ability to separate people into groups and place people into slots of belief.  

For some reason, what is MOST important in this country is being able to put everyone into a neat little pigeon hole.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ... marriage equality ...
> ...




Well, it certainly can be but there's no reason why there can't be other combinations.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Wrong. Show me one time I did that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan's ...
> ...



Where R My Keys is violating board rules in taking a word out of context to play a riff that has nothing to do with the OP.

Keys used the Ignore function for a while because he simply could not then or now compete with me.  He kept looking foolish.

Keys does not have the choice to violate the Board rules and not expect appropriate action because of his foolish actions.

Keys may refuse to consider what I say but he may not take it out of context.

His above words reveal that he is a person who hides behind the Bible as he does weave his evil to deceive.

What I find so amusing is that he thinks his silliness, his imbecility, is somehow pontification.  He demonstrates well that he is here for only grins and chuckles. 

The misshapen gremlin is _adorable_ when he kicks his little feet and waves his little fists and pouts.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Its not a question of what is "okay with me".
> 
> Unlike nanny state RWs who want the govt to hold their hand and control every single thing they do, ...



More spurious claptrap from the Ignore Barn.

Please... let's be honest for a moment, as no doubt a moment of honesty is all you're even potentially capable of enduring.

The Americans, which is to say _"The Right",_ are not asking anyone for anything.  We are stating, categorically and unapologetically, that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

There are no exceptions and there are no potential 'equal' options.  Marriage IS... The Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And that is because NATURE... the force that created the Universe... which is a force that does NOT have a judiciary to decide what it does is right or wrong, because what it does IS what it does and THAT IS FINAL, without regard to who doesn't like it.

So Marriage being what it is, is not affected by the whimsy of popular opinion, or the lofty prose of a Supreme Court Decision.

Either a culture recognizes, respects, defends and adhere to the laws of nature, wherein that culture will thrive and enjoy the bounty of viability, existing in relative prosperity, or a culture will reject the laws of nature and die... .
_
See how that works?_


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

"Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman, because that is how Nature designed the human species" is best written *Procreation *". . .  is the joining of One Man and One Woman, because that is how Nature designed the human species."

*See how that works*.

Now Keys will cry and sigh and deny and lie and use the Ignore function because he cannot function in an adult discussion.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Genevieve said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



Hmm... Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman. 

Contesting those who claim otherwise, is important because Marriage is the nucleus of civilization.  And screwing with it, provides for the potential to cripple that which DEPENDS UPON IT.

So... if that groups people, then it must be pretty dam' important to be so grouped.  Like when the Left was marching across Europe killing anyone who disagreed with their governance... and another, objectively reasoned group formed, specifically to destroy that mass-murderin' self-centered, thus highly subjective group. 


Which is a good thing, because it stopped an unspeakable evil... .  

Which of course invites another group thing... the old time tested oppositional groups, OKA: Good -v- Evil.

Tell me, which group would you say you 'fit' into?

Edit: Noted Gen.  And _thank YOU!_


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

This assertion follows with no proof, no evidence: "Contesting those who claim otherwise, is important because Marriage is the nucleus of civilization. And screwing with it, provides for the potential to cripple that which DEPENDS UPON IT."  However, I do agree that Marriage Equality only strengthens the unsupported claim.


----------



## Genevieve (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Genevieve said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Of course I am in the "good" group.
But why must we be in cute little slots?
I have strong beliefs and I live in a country where I am free to express those beliefs.  But I allow others their beliefs too. I reserve  my disdain is for those gay people who would force someone to make them a wedding cake.... not for the gay people who just quietly go about their personal business.  I will stand up for a church that chooses not to allow gay marriages within their doors.  It's their right.  And if militant gay people try to force that issue, I will stand with the church.  

And I adamantly disagree with anyone who wants to march around killing anyone who doesn't agree with their view of things.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

I commend reading the words of Genevieve to you folks on the far left and far right that are not thinking clearly.

"From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth — O God of truth, deliver us."

Hugh B Brown


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I have no idea what "Piggy back" is supposed to mean.  Any fool can see the two issues are closely related.  As many have said countless times, all the arguments queers use to justify gay marriage can also be used to justify incestuous marriage.  I know queers don't want anyone pointing that out.  Nevertheless, it's simply a fact. 

I also haven't misrepresented a thing.  You just said incest shouldn't be a concern for anyone.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Of course it does.   If marriage has nothing to do with procreation, then there isn't a reason in the world to make such marriages illegal.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



The would imply that marriage has something to do with reproduction, a claim you just denied.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


I did not say marriage had nothing to do with procreation, I said procreation had to do with Nature's dictate.  You need to repeat what others say honestly.  Seventy year olds who marry are not doing for procreation, son.


----------



## Londoner (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you?  Oh right, none.  You should learn to be rational and objective.
> ...



I appreciate your desire to introduce terms like "Objectivism", "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".

On another note... I can't help but see a certain irony when the Right uses the term Objectivism.

Ayn Rand is credited with turning the term Objectivism into a specific political philosophy. Her movement was built around the notion of objectivity (which refers to "external" facts discoverable by the light of Reason. This is in contrast to subjectivity, which is more tied to internal feelings/perceptions).

What  I find interesting is that Ayn Rand - the scion of U.S. Libertarians -  was notoriously anti-religious and anti-conservative. She had a famous battle with William F Buckley, who rightly saw her as dangerous to the Conservative movement. Of course, Reagan settled this dispute by offering himself as the franchise of both. Reagan's ability to appeal to both Libertarians and Conservatives has lead to serious intellectual confusion on the Right, where people confuse these two very different philosophies.

Keep in mind that "Objective" and "Subjective" are fairly technical philosophical terms. "Objective Reality" is often referred to as the "external world" as it exists apart from the _limitations_ of human consciousness and bias. Whereas Subjective Reality often refers to what the subject perceives, e.g., subjective impression.

Subjective impressions can be infected by human perception, e.g., I can have a subjective impression of a curved stick, but in reality the stick is straight but submerged in water and only _appears_ curved. In this case there is a difference between the external world of facts and the subjective world of impressions. Subjectivity can also be infected by time or history, e.g., our intellectual predecessors thought the world was flat, and they treated this as a fact. The history of science is filled with intellectual revolutions that discard "objective facts" that people once took seriously.

The Enlightenment Philosophers, lead by Descartes and Kant, have spilled a lot of ink on the difference between objective facts and subjective impressions or feelings. Also, please note that post Enlightenment philosophers, like Nietzsche or Heidegger, have spilled a lot of ink deconstructing the objectivity/subjectivity divide, claiming that "objective" findings are not universal truths floating above the vagaries of time and space (history and culture), but infected by an embedded self whose relationship to the "external" world is irreducibly mediated by a particular time and place. Meaning: what people accept as true is very much dependent on their historical era and geographic location. For instance, we in the intellectually advanced West used to think that women were irrational and therefore incapable of meeting the demands of civic function. This is why they were excluded form voting and holding office. Indeed, female inferiority was seen as a fact because it was supported by science and the medical community. However, the social world evolved and the supposed fact of female inferiority turned out to be little more than a bias. I mention this only to show the potential pitfalls with using terms like objectivity.

You might read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to see how "objective reality" is not as solid and universal as we take it to be. Indeed, we use to think it was a fact that the earth was the center of the solar system (which fact supported the Biblical cosmology and the power of the Church). This fact (called "geocentrism") is where our rational, objective reasoning lead us. But then our knowledge changed and we realized that the earth rotated around the sun (heliocentrism). History is filled with cultures who take their version of objectivity too seriously, and use it as a basis to kill, torture or, thinking of Galileo, imprison.

Also, I'm not sure the divide you sketch between objective and subjective makes sense the way you've laid it out. I see your point, but I'm a little confused by how you are using objectivity and subjectivity. For instance, a subject using rational self-interest can unwittingly further the general or national good. That is, because I selfishly or subjectively care about my children, I want my neighborhood, town and nation to be set up correctly, so it maximizes the freedom and rights of citizens. In this way my concern for self implies a concern for the larger world beyond my subjective impressions and selfish concerns. Which is to say, I'm not entirely convinced by your dichotomy, though I think I understand your general point.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


ROLF!    Aside from ignoring 10,000 years of human history, that pretty much shoots down any argument against incestuous marriages.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




IF those two issues are closely related, so in heterosexual marriage related to any and all other forms of marriage. 

Why are gays being held responsible for every configuration throughout the history of human kind? Why is it all on them when it has been straights who were actually doing the doing?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




Nope.

How many times does the proof have to be posted? 

Marriage has changed many times and will continue to change.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> I commend reading the words of Genevieve to you folks on the far left and far right that are not thinking clearly.
> 
> "From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all truth — O God of truth, deliver us."
> 
> Hugh B Brown




She's certainly welcome to her opinions but the last thing we need is yet another far right winger condemning people for things that are no one's business but theirs.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Londoner said:


> I appreciate your desire to introduce terms like "Objectivism", "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".



I doubt it, but I'll take your word for it, you seem like an honest gal.



Londoner said:


> On another note... I can't help but see a certain irony when the Right uses the term Objectivism.



Oh, how sad... for you I mean.

It turns out that you're not honest.  And subsequently, ya have no credibility.  Therefore, the balance of your screed is disqualified from consideration.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



No, the fish are going down on their own sex.  The purpose may be that it helps those male fish to become more popular with the ladies, it's still a gay act.  Technically it's sodomy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

So, in order to make marriage suitable for the Sexually Deviant... the Left has simply defined marriage down to: 

_*MEANINGLESS.*_
​Which I suppose is to be expected... they have to do the same thing when they try to claim that they're "Americans".


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



PMH said marriage has nothing to do with procreation, and so did Skylar, for that matter.  You didn't dispute it when I pointed it out.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Londoner said:
> 
> 
> > I appreciate your desire to introduce terms like "Objectivism", "Objectivity" and "Subjectivity".
> ...


Here is an excellent self description by Keys.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



It's just part of their heterosexual mating behavior.  No male fish ever fertilized the "eggs" of another male fish.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Then how do you tell 70 year olds they can't marry because they can't have babies.  Think.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Simple.  Gays claim that marriage is purely an arbitrary social institution, that it has nothing to do with procreation.  If that's the case, then they have no argument against any voluntary arrangement anyone cares to make.  

You can't go around saying "make this one exception for us."  The rest of humanity doesn't matter.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> ... the last thing we need is yet another far right winger condemning people for things that are no one's business but theirs.



So Redefining public policy is none of a citizens business?

ROFLMNAO!

You people are helpless.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Do we take a person's driver's license away if they don't own a car?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > ... the last thing we need is yet another far right winger condemning people for things that are no one's business but theirs.
> ...



It's hilarious watching these idiots tie themselves into rhetorical knots, isn't it?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Interestingly enough, the science says it is homosexual behavior. 

Ever go to a strip club?  And two of the dancers are exceptionally close to each other?  Skin on skin, lips on skin, tits on skin, ass to ass, Vejay to vejay...maybe even more going on?  Yeah, that's a lesbian act being performed for the sake of it's heterosexual male clientele.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You just lowered the bar for a meaningless comparison.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

"Gays claim that marriage is purely an arbitrary social institution, that it has nothing to do with procreation."  What marriage equality proponents says is not being able to procreate is not a bar to marriage.

Keys has trouble repeating his opponents' comments honestly.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Hmmm, no.  Ideological cranks say that.



HappyJoy said:


> Ever go to a strip club?  And two of the dancers are exceptionally close to each other?  Skin on skin, lips on skin, tits on skin, ass to ass, Vejay to vejay...maybe even more going on?  Yeah, that's a lesbian act being performed for the sake of it's heterosexual male clientele.



No, that's just an attempt to bilk the suckers of their cash.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

bripat gets bilked of his cash all the time.


----------



## jillian (May 10, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



it's always funny when morons like you call their betters ignorant.


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Well said


----------



## jillian (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



quiet, loony toon


----------



## Pop23 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



In this country it's always been between males and females b


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Gays claim that marriage is purely an arbitrary social institution, that it has nothing to do with procreation."  What marriage equality proponents says is not being able to procreate is not a bar to marriage.
> 
> Keys has trouble repeating his opponents' comments honestly.



Of course they say that.  How could they defend their moronic claims otherwise?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

jillian said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Been hearing a lot of laughter at your expense lately?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually the title of the fucking thing is:

*Homosexual behaviour increases male attractiveness to females*

Stop lying.


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Ever go to a strip club?  And two of the dancers are exceptionally close to each other?  Skin on skin, lips on skin, tits on skin, ass to ass, Vejay to vejay...maybe even more going on?  Yeah, that's a lesbian act being performed for the sake of it's heterosexual male clientele.
> ...



Of course it is, that's why I used the word "clientele" rather than "mate" or "partner".  Are you going to tell me that lesbian acts are not committed on and off stage at a strip club?  Pshaw.


----------



## jillian (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



no moron.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Some queer biologist calls fish behavior "homosexual" and you think we're all just supposed to fall down and believe it without question?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

jillian said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Yeah, sure you haven't:


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Oh, I didn't realize you had relations with the biologist.

But what a flagellant disgusting way to throw out a source.  A source that at first you claimed to understand, then realized you didn't so of course they must be gay and that somehow give you an out.  Idiot.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Once again, you resort to the classic queer propaganda technique of accusing your critics of being homosexuals.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Actually that's just what you did to the biologist who wrote the paper because you disagreed with him, I'm simply making fun of you doing that.  Isn't it obvious?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Nothing is more common the homosexual so-called "scientists" abusing their profession to advance their agenda.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Prove it.  Take my source, figure out who wrote it and if you can all the organizations they belong to.  Then find another reputable source to counter mine with.  You will do none of this because we both know you will fail. 

I'd hate to have you debate on any topic where we both agree as you are as dishonest as they come and I wouldn't want my opinion to be tainted by you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Humans aren't fish.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



True, so why would anyone bring up the mating habits of fish to prove that homosexuality is normal?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




So now marriages should be required to crank out children or be made "illegal"?


----------



## HappyJoy (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It was a joke aimed at "Redfish" you moron.

That being said it's also a demonstration that homosexual behavior is common in nature and not unnatural.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...




The human animal is not the only animal that includes homosexuality. 

But none of this is germane to the basic question of rights. 

You rabid RWs are always wanting bigger and bigger government. IMO, the state should not have control or any say over our private lives. RWs disagree. But ... 

If you are an adult and  you choose to marry another consenting adult, that is and should be ONLY your business.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 10, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



HEY!  That's GREAT!   ANOTHER LEFTIST COME TO ADVOCATE THAT HUMANITY BE AT EQUITY WITH LOWER SPECIES.   

LOL!  


Progressive ... INDEED!


----------



## Dot Com (May 10, 2015)




----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 10, 2015)

Dot Com said:


>


Yeppers.  They didn't want another Row vs. Wade.  This issue solved itself, it was just a matter of time.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 10, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No, you're supposed to accept as a fact of law that whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of birth or choice is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

You must also accept as a fact of law that your unwarranted hatred of gay Americans is not justification to deny them their civil rights.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Not when you require a governmental issued license. TWO CONSENTING ADULTS takes us to a place where most people don't want government to take us.


----------



## Seawytch (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



The only people it "takes there" are rabid anti gay bigots clinging to a slippery slope fallacy...or in your case, shifting from slippery slope fallacy to slippery slope fallacy. 

You've abandoned your previous procreation spam for incest spam.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Gay marriage, or even traditional marriage for that matter, shouldn't even come up as a Presidential issue during a debate. Why would anyone choose the issue of "gay marriage" as their TOP priority for who they want to vote for anyways?

 Unless they are afraid the next President will follow suit after Obama, and issue executive decisions that totally leaves Congress out of the loop of any established law that forces change through the power of one man and one branch of government, which is unconstitutional to begin with.  There is a reason why the Constitution is set up with checks and balances through very defined separate branches of government, each with very specific roles and defined authority.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



And yet you again deflect from the issue Luddy brought forward. See post above.

Is there a compelling governmental interest in denying any two CONSENTING ADULTS the benefits of a marriage license?

If so, what is it?

That is a bit different then my question which is:

Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.

If so, what is it?

Proceed


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



ShaklesOfBigGov

Yeah. No other president has ever ever ever signed Executive Orders. Obviously, Obama is operating outside the laws of the United States. 

Yes, that's sarcasm. Educate yourself as to what is "constitutional" and what is not. 

You might also want to look up how many EOs Obama has signed, compared to other presidents. 

Or, alternatively, you could keep saying really stupid stuff like this this post of yours.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Wrong about what?  You seem confused.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Says the piece of shit troll.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments?  Cause you lost?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...




Wrong again. 


*Has marriage always had the same definition?*
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

Read the rest at the link and please, do feel free to post proof that this link is incorrect. Pleas also feel free to prove this graphic is not true.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.
> ...


Hey, ya dumb ass.  In this case the dems are FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY NOT SOCIALISM.  You are the assholes fighting against liberty and for social control by government.  You are the ones using Alinsky's rules.. duh!!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.


No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck?  If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Liberty for themselves, not others.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


What others? Plural marriage advocates?  Sure bring that on too.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Any others.  As long as it's white and Christian on top, fuck everyone else is their attitude.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Keys is a far right wing progressive Alinksy model: he wants Big Government to defeat Marriage Equality.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Not all of them but many, yes.  Funny how they scream for liberty for themselves, huh?


----------



## danielpalos (May 11, 2015)

Is bearing True Witness to Article 4, Section 2 too much of a moral challenge for the Right?

Should we ask Judge Moore.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why Do You Care?  Why Are You Being Irrational?  What Does Gay Incest Or Marriage Have To Do With You?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.
> ...



Thanks for the honesty in your answer


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You've answered the question. Thanks


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I've said such a thing many times.  Now answer the question?  Why is this any of your business?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I have but you haven't.  Why Do You Care?  What Is It To You?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business. 

I've answered your question.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What part of these laws is a a problem for you?  What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants?  What is more important to you, tradition or equality?


----------



## danielpalos (May 11, 2015)

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA; only when the Right has no Thing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I already provided a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.  It was argument number two (2).  You ignored it.  Which tells me you lost and just want to ask the question, not listen to the answer.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Vile doesn't mean illegal.  It's vile to piss on someone for sexual pleasure but it's not illegal, nor should it be, it's just fucking disgusting but that is not a basis for laws.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 11, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


Nonsense.

A president hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans will likely appoint judges to the Federal courts hostile to the 14th Amendment rights of all Americans; it's a perfectly appropriate criterion.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





> Plural marriage yes the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages. Incest... no. The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest. Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.



This?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop23

_"...you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate..."_

You apparently think they can't. 

In this age of easily accessible information, its just astounding to see how ignorant some people are.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce. 

It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US. 

OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.
> 
> Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.
> 
> ...


This one Pop23


----------



## danielpalos (May 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


only the Right is morally challenged when it comes to _natural rights_ and_ Individual Liberty_ and any potential shadow of any of valley of any abstractions or even their slippery slopes.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Incest is not related to marriage equality.  To suggest such is a fallacy.


 

two sisters marrying is not incest.   its same sex marriage.   Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Bullshit.  You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is not related to marriage equality.  To suggest such is a fallacy.
> ...


You are so screwed up in the head.  How long have you been having sex with your sister?


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 
a troll calling someone else a troll


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

I don't have a sister.   it was your sister I was screwing.   

a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex,  does it?


----------



## danielpalos (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


i call bullshit on Your bullshit, bullshitter.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Either way, nobody's business but theirs.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Are you claiming Clinton is on the right?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Link


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

the gay mafia has already started that revolution.   If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Incest is not related to marriage equality.  To suggest such is a fallacy.
> ...


And your nonsense continues.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Bullshit.  You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.


a troll calling someone else a troll


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

nope the nonsense is yours.   once again what will you tell sisters who want to marry once SSM is legal? 

what legal argument will you make to prevent them from marrying?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Complete nonsense.  What are you 5years old?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Read yourself.  Concerning the OP, there are far greater matters to worry about than marriage equality.  Let it go, far right.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

why is it nonsense?   If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying.   Please answer the question.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.
> ...



You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress. 

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage. 

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do". 

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

LOL  "marriage equality"  the new left wing buzzword.    You lefties are so full of shit.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Deflection noted: blood must be running into your head from being upside down to long.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

you can expect to be called a name rather than receive a response to your very logical queston.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

define incest.   is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses?   Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money,  why would you discriminate against them?


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

you keep dodging the basic question.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I provided answers to his question.  Why can't you two read?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Liar. I provided two direct answers to the basic question.  Why can't you read them?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You did provide answers to a question not asked. 

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Exactly, these folks seem hung up on sex


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement."  ROFL  It's the dumbest argument yet.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It's now LGBTSSS


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



HUH? Will gays have to get a divorce if they don't have sex?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You understand that's an argument used against SSM.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I'm not sure why this is going over your head.  You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?"  I have provided two compelling governmental reasons.  They are labeled (1) and (2).  Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages.  (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners.  However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children.  Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE.  Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage.  Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks.  But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children.  This argument is LUDICROUS on face.  It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2)  Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence.  Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family.  The opportunity to raise children if they so desire.  Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children.  A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...?  That's sick.  There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex.  That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person. ** this one applies to SSSM whatever the hell that means where you come from.  Can't believe you are actually pushing for same sex sibling marriage.  Nutz.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I've successfully rebutted each, ignore the rebuttle if you want, or answer.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Wow, deep answer


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Nope, its you on the left who have redefined it.   Do you think two gay men living together is not a "living arrangement" ?   Now, when does the arrangement become a marriage in your small mind?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Incorrect.  You overcame (1) by moving the goal posts from incest to same sex sisters and brothers getting married.  You have completely ignored argument (2) other than to agree with me that it's sick.  Number (2) applies to same sex sisters and brothers.  Try again.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect again you lying piece of shit.  I'm on the right. I'm more conservative than you are.

All marriages may or may not include a living arrangement, as is taking a dog home from the pound.  Marriage is not "just" a living arrangement.  OMFG  you don't know what a marriage is?  WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2015)

It's fun to watch the circular firing squad that is the GOP.

Meanwhile...when one of the two political parties wants to deny Americans who have violated no specific law of their rights, this is a large issue.  Would the right wing idiot who started this thread feel the same way if his party wanted to deny blacks the chance to raise children, get married, enjoy survivor benefits, or even freaking visit one another in the hospital if they got sick...in other words, if it were based on skin color you may (or may not) find abhorrent is it any different than behavior you may (or may not) find abhorrent?  If so...tell us how.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh no, same sex siblings have been my concern from the start, if we could discuss that, then we could still down, but regardless, same sex siblings is an incestuous relationship, only when sex is involved (in the classical sense). 

You then assume that all such relationships would be based on other than love or financial benefit. 

I pointed out that duress cannot be a part of a valid contract. 

You however want to butt into their business and additionally want the government in their business. 

Why now? It may be too late.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

candycorn said:


> It's fun to watch the circular firing squad that is the GOP.
> 
> Meanwhile...when one of the two political parties wants to deny Americans who have violated no specific law of their rights, this is a large issue.  Would the right wing idiot who started this thread feel the same way if his party wanted to deny blacks the chance to raise children, get married, enjoy survivor benefits, or even freaking visit one another in the hospital if they got sick...in other words, if it were based on skin color you may (or may not) find abhorrent is it any different than behavior you may (or may not) find abhorrent?  If so...tell us how.



Ever heard of wills and powers of attorney?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...




I skipped over it because, just like your posts, he said stupid things. 

Many opposite sex couples divorce because of financial benefits. 

And, for Pete's sake, sisters marrying would be incest. And, IF THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS, none of your business. Nor the business of Big Government RWs.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Pointing out that I'm correct in so far as duress not being part of a valid contract, is agreeing with argument (2) not disagreeing with argument (2).

I don't want to "butt" into anyone's business.  I'm answering your question, which is what is the government interest.  

Why now, what?  You are the one asking for same sex marriages for sisters and brothers.  You and the other people crying in your milk about gays getting the right to marry.


----------



## Lakhota (May 11, 2015)

*'The HuffPost Show' Explains: The Rise Of Ass Play (NSFW)*

Tossing salad, backdoor action, rim job, anal, taking a trip to brown town... whatever you call it, ass play is certainly having a cultural moment. Whether on "Girls", "The Mindy Project", or even as the subject of a Harvard course , butt play popped up everywhere in the last year. So how did we come to this ass-centric state of affairs? "The HuffPost Show" presents the official explainer on the rise of ass play.

VIDEO: The HuffPost Show Explains: The Rise Of Ass Play (NSFW)

Wow, everyone's getting into ass play.  Be there or be square.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You seem to agree then, that same sex siblings cam marry thanks, since shotgun weddings are illegal.

Why do you feel you have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?

They must attest that they FREELY wish to join. I know "join" has a different meaning now, but joining because you simply want the financial benefit of such unions today seems to be acceptable. 

In the good old days, those doing that were considered gold diggers, today?

Not so much.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Of course you don't like your 'logic' turned against you- but if 'gay marriage' is a legally binding precedent(which it isn't) then mixed race marriage would be also(which it isn't)

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

 Reasons for approving mixed race marraige
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will be made for all forms of marriage, using mixed race marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

If the courts allow mixed race marriages- then the court is opening the door to incest.......

(paraphrasing the arguments of the State of Virginia- 1967)


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Loving in no way set a precedent for same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage in no way sets a precedent for polygamy

If you favor mixed race marriage- on what grounds do you oppose polygamy?


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.



You appear to be the one wanting a 'big public orgy with animals'- not anyone else.

Sigh- another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No- no more than the argument for opposite sex marriage is the same for opposite sibling marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yet you keep arguing about the right or wrong of gay marriage.

You are the one keeping this thread going about the 'right or wrong of gay marriage'

Stop arguing about why gay marriage is wrong and you will stop getting responses to that argument.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female. 

And this gets to SSM how?


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oddly enough- that has been your concern- but not opposite sex siblings.

You appear to be okay with a brother and sister marrying- but opposed to a brother marrying a brother.

Do you have any argument against sibling marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I was pretty clear. The court in Loving found that the Loving's had a Constitutional right to marriage- and that the State could not deny that right based upon race

Of course you don't like your 'logic' turned against you- but if 'gay marriage' is a legally binding precedent(which it isn't) then mixed race marriage would be also(which it isn't)

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

Reasons for approving mixed race marraige
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will be made for all forms of marriage, using mixed race marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

If the courts allow mixed race marriages- then the court is opening the door to incest.......

(paraphrasing the arguments of the State of Virginia- 1967)


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Ahhhh, opposite sex siblings have been denied marriage because of a compelling governmental interest in denial of those benefits. 

The same us not true of same sex sibling marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Sorry, you're making a leap. Gender and race are two completely different concepts.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.  As hundreds of people, including me, have told you.  Incest is illegal.  Thus, because it's illegal siblings can't marry.  It does not matter whether they are sisters or brothers or parents and children.

Shot gun weddings have nothing to do with gay weddings or incest.  That is nothing but another deflection of yours.

Why make up so many GD LIES?  Not only did I never say I feel that I "have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?"  I said THE OPPOSITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.  You are just making shit up.

You say, "They must attest that they FREELY wish to join. I know "join" has a different meaning now, but joining because you simply want the financial benefit of such unions today seems to be acceptable."  This is just another deflection of yours, now to financial benefits of marriage.  Your arguments are ludicrous.   There has never been a law against there being a financial benefit of getting married.  Just because gays are getting married it's all about the money?  Is that why you got married for the money?  If not why do you insist gays are just wanting to get married for the money?

People who get married for money are gold diggers.  People who get tax breaks when married are married citizens.  Getting a tax break is not gold digging.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



After the USSC rules on SSM, and if SSM is legalized nationwide, the same arguments work for SSSM as do for SSM. Of course we would have to wait on a successful SSSM case, which is inevitable, before we can address OSSM.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As are sexual orientation and incest.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Good lord, first paragraph. SSM is illegal ........


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Wrong.   You don't even know that?


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > It's fun to watch the circular firing squad that is the GOP.
> ...



Ever heard of wanting to hold the hand of your loved one as they are in pain?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Incorrect.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



But out, I'm trying to have an actual discussion


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Only in some states.  Get over it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



YES. 

I can't go into the hospital and do that with anybody I claim to love.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You're an idiot then.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

The far right heterofascists are, metaphorically, getting their salads tossed.  Are they enjoying it?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Admitting defeat?


----------



## bodecea (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right heterofascists are, metaphorically, getting their salads tossed.  Are they enjoying it?


Oh....this is where they cry that we are "shoving gay marriage down their throats"?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Last sentence. 

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > It's fun to watch the circular firing squad that is the GOP.
> ...


Such cannot subvert family law that gives such powers to family members when one is incapacitated.

You are, knowingly, telling a lie, and, secondly, quite hypocritically, suggest a back door to civil unions.  Too late, loser.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I already provided my answer.  It's (2) above.  You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

2) Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Me? You just said anything illegal MUST stay illegal.

You're an idiot for admitting you lost all ability to actually think!

You: it's illegal, that's why.......

Good lord, call the USSC and tell them to go home cuz RK says their wasting their time.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Those who late for the last minute?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Liar.  I did not say "anything illegal MUST stay illegal."  Why do you keep making up dumb ass lies out of left field?

I'm not the idiot in this conversation.

Yes, incest is illegal.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You think incest is silly?  WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's as repulsive as your answer


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Make up your mind.  You either agree with my answer (2) or disagree.  You can't have both.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



AS IS SAME SEX MARRIAGE DUMBASS.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You want to rebutt my answer, I refuse to debate myself (although it would probably accomplish more than a conversation with you)


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




No you can't.

In the event of a catastrophic illness/accident, and in the absence of a medical directive from the individual (which for young people probably isn't in place in the case of accidents) - you need to be an immediate family member to go into ICU.  Civil Marriage establishes a legal family member status.

Just walking up the reception desk in the hospital, saying "I'm Pop23 and I live John Doe (or Jane Doe) and I want access to his (her) room cause I love him" ain't going to hack it.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Incorrect, same sex marriage is not illegal, not in all states.  Why are you making shit up?  Please cite federal law banning same sex marriage.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Is that a yes or no?  Do you or do you not agree with my answer (2) above?

Yes or no Pop23  The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is: 2) Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Actually you cannot if the doctor orders otherwise.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That is your affirmation to prove, no one else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Pop knows that but will deny it, WW.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You do realize it's before the USSC right


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Are medical directives impossible to obtain?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



They seem to fall right in line with those that you claim for SSM.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Actually I can't with most people I love.


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You lost me.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I love a lotttttt of people. And yes, they allllll love me back


----------



## candycorn (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I wouldn't be surprised by that.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Are medical directives impossible to obtain?





Who said anything about being "impossible".  You claimed you would walk up and gain access to a patients room by claiming that you loved him or her - you were wrong.

You trying to move the goalposts now?

A Civilly Married couple establishes a next-of-kin relationship by default, they don't have to get a special medical directive.  In every state I can think of the spouse is the first next-of-kin for medical decisions involving critically ill patients that may not be able to communicate with medical staff.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Of course I do.  You do realize why it's before the USSC right?  You think the SC is weighing on legality of same sex marriage?  heh.. no it's not.  What they are weighing in on is the constitutionality of states banning SSM.   There is no federal law banning same sex marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Are medical directives impossible to obtain?
> ...



I actually said the opposite. Actually I said i can't with most people I love. 

Now, are they impossible to get.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



And banned means?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> I actually said the opposite. Actually I said i can't with most people I love.



You are correct, I missed the "n't".




Pop23 said:


> Now, are they impossible to get.



Of course they are not impossible.

That's an irrelevant question though since default medical authority over medical decisions for a spouse is inherent in Civil Marriage in every state.  The spouse is the legal next-of-kin in the event of an accident or medical catastrophe rendering a person unable to communicate their medical wishes to the doctors. 

Civilly Married spouses don't need a medical directive.


>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > I actually said the opposite. Actually I said i can't with most people I love.
> ...



We should create a law then. 

You realize a marriage license isn't free. There is a cost involved in everything. 

Not making lite of the argument. But it's not a difficult fix.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, and I guess that' makes us even on the mis quotes.


----------



## Londoner (May 11, 2015)

The biggest threat to traditional marriage is not gays but a divorce rate of over 50%.

If marriage is so sacred, why did the father of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, get divorced?

Conservatives have no problem making sacred marriage promises in a church before Jesus... "Until death do us part", and then tearing up that supposedly sacred contract like it was a fucking grocery store receipt.

Fucking morons. 

(The government's job is merely to hand out contracts to consenting adults. Just because a gay couple has a stupid fucking government contract, it doesn't make your marriage any less sacred. You morons are giving too much power to Big Government, which should only be providing a minimalist stipulation of rights/obligations. 

Only conservatives would believe that government can make something like marriage sacred. They don't understand that it is only the individual couple who can make marriage sacred.)

If you are letting your marriage be destroyed by the fact that two gay people have a stupid fucking legal contract, than you are turning to the wrong God for meaning. 

(Wow, just wow. When are Republicans going to stop being such easy dupes for their cynical leadership, who are always trying to scare them into the voting booth with images of gay, terrorist, commie, islamo blah blah. It's just a silly wedge issue that plays with morons.)


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Oh, and I guess that' makes us even on the mis quotes.




And we both acknowledged the error.  That's the way it should work.

>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Londoner said:


> The biggest threat to traditional marriage is not gays but a divorce rate of over 50%.
> 
> If marriage is so sacred, why did the father of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, get divorced?
> 
> ...



Who the hell you addressing?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> We should create a law then.



Make what law?

Make spouses the legal next-of-kin?  Don’t need one Civil Marriage already does that.

Or do you mean make more laws and bigger government by requiring every adult over the age of 18 is mandated by law to have on file with the country clerk a notarized medical directive on file?



Pop23 said:


> You realize a marriage license isn't free. There is a cost involved in everything.



Didn’t say anything about cost, I said Civil Marriage provides for emergency medical decision making power by the spouse by default.

Spouses don’t have to jump through additional hoops.



Pop23 said:


> Not making lite of the argument. But it's not a difficult fix.



You are right, same-sex Civil Marriage fixes it just fine.



>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > We should create a law then.
> ...



It also opens the door to same sex sibling marriage. How many laws new laws will be needed then?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > We should create a law then.
> ...



 that is the same right to establish a "legal next of kin" as for millions of unmarried people.

Or

That I'm advocating everybody MUST establish same.

I don't. And I don't care if anyone opts out of establishing same, just like I don't care if one opts out of male/female marriage.

Neither is my business

I edited the above to more accurately reflect the conversation.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

total horseshit.

interracial marriage, and all the court cases on it, involve opposite sex couples.  Its not the same as SSM

But you have yet to tell us why you would prohibit same sex sibling marriage.   You say incest,  but is it incest if sisters or brothers marry for financial reasons?    Does a marriage require sexual activity?   If so, who peeks in the windows to see if the "married" people are having sex?

SSM will lead to SSSM.    Legally and logically.   It will happen.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Duh,  two people vs multiple people.


----------



## Seawytch (May 11, 2015)

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:
> 
> Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers
> 
> ...



And, is there a point?

Note: there are millions of unmarried couples that must have a medical directive if they want their partner given the right to make medical decisions on their behalf, AND

A hospital does not automatically know I am my wifes spouse, believe it or not, at request I MUST PROVE IT.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop23 is going to find out that "life pays itself out" when SCOTUS rules against the far right next month.


----------



## Seawytch (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:
> ...



You are arguing for a legal familial relationship that already exists within the law. This is not true for gay couples. Civil Marriage provides this to non familial couples.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Then you have yout answer regarding the precedent not set by either same gender marriage or mixed raced marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

they may rule as you want, but that will be a ruling for the far left, not against the far right.   It will also be a ruling against the majority of americans, and a majority of the world.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

No it just validates the point that pop and I have been making.   SSM will lead to SSSM.   It will happen, count on it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


SCOTUS will rule for all Americans, and certainly the majority of Americans agree with marriage equality.  Your rump minority of the minority matters not.

Go try to marry your sister, be denied, sue, and lose.  Finis.  Count on it.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL- I know when you start swearing you have realized you have no argument.

Your 'argument' such as it was- applies equally to mixed race marriage as it does to same gender marriage.

Your only argument so far is- 'no it doesn't- and once again- neither mixed race marriage no same gender marriage have anything to do with- nor will they be precedent for marriage between siblings or polygamy.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



The relationship becomes hubby hubby from bro bro. A new family is formed. 

You realize your arguing traditions, correct. 

There is no compelling governmental interest in denying this new familial group, unless of course you only want to deny them the benefit of marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yeah- as if you and pop have been making any 'point'- you have just been making spurious claims.

Just like opposite sex marriage(OSM) has lead to opposite sex sibling marriage.

You bigots are all the same- fear mongers.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If that is what you believe, you can make that argument right now for marrying your opposite gender sibling anywhere in the United States.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Sooooo compelling. 

Must be that throwing the baby out with the bath water is best for the bath water?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



No, same sex sibling marriage must come first. See it's a process, you know that, Right?

Now, there IS A Compelling governmental reason to deny, after SSM, then SSSM, then.......

It's a crap shoot.


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

for one final time.   If SSM is sanctioned by the SC.   What legal arguments will you bring to deny sibling marriage,  parent/child marriage, and multiple person marriage?

What will you say when those people demand "marriage equality"  as you are now doing?

if you have no answer, just admit it.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Just pointing out- 12 days after Redfish says he was done arguing about gay marriage- here he is in his own thread- still arguing about gay marriage.

LOL


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You're really quite simple aren't you?

Opposite sex sexual incest can cause defective children. The state finds that icky.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The same legal arguments I would have used after mixed race marriages bans were outlawed by the Supreme Court.

Mixed race marriage
same gender marriage
sibling marriage- parent/child marriage
multiple person marriage

All legally separate issues- all made illegal in different portions of the law.

And if you can't think of a reason to ban parent/child marriage- that has nothing to do with same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I have to keep my arguments simple and type slow for people like you.

So you think that opposite sex incest would be okay if both siblings were sterile?


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I am pretty confident that will turn out not to be true......


----------



## Redfish (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Ok,  real slow.   If a same sex sibling couple asks for marriage equality why will you deny it to them?   Why would you discriminate against them and not a same sex unrelated couple?   neither can have kids so the incest argument fails,  what will you tell them?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And "ALL" MEANS?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It won't be against the majority of Americans, not even close, and, even if it was, who gives a fuck?  We are not a democracy, for the 108th time.


----------



## Syriusly (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I would say exactly what I would say today- and what I would have said after the Loving decision and what I would have said before the Loving decision.

The argument remains the same- regardless of whether or not mixed race marriages are banned or legal, or whether same gender marriages are banned or illegal.

So I ask you- do you think that any sibling couple that is unable to reproduce should be able to marry?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Nice deflection, how did I know that would happen?

You contend that same sex sibling marriage won't happen because after millenia of only opposite sex marriage, opposite sex sibling marriage has never happened:

Opposite sex sibling marriage has been banned because marriage was ONLY BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES THEREFOR INCEST WITHIN MARRIAGE COULD ONLY BE MALE/FEMALE and THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST TO DENY THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE TO THEM..

SSM changes this. Two heterosexual brothers, simply wanting to marry for the financial benefits that marriage brings are equally likely to CREATE A DEFECTIVE CHILD AS ANY SAME SEX COUPLE WOULD. 

What is the STATES COMPELLING INTEREST to deny marriage benefits to a HETEROSEXUAL SAME SEX COUPLE OF SIBLINGS?

It's a paradox, ain't it?


----------



## Seawytch (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Arguing tradition is such a yesterday thing to do. 

What is the compelling state interest in allowing a same sex sibling couple the benefit of starting a new familial unit?

Answer? None I can think of, except tradition of course.


----------



## Seawytch (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It has already been pointed out to you that Constitutionally you cannot grant civil marriage only to same sex siblings. It has been pointed out to you that gay couples seek the legal protections of a family, granted by a civil marriage license and that those protections already exist within familial relationships like siblings.

If you think you still have valid legal grounds for a challenge, go for it, but you're spamming because you're a bigot. We all know it, you should just own it.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop23

"same sex siblings have been my concern from the start"

Really?

How many do you think there are? 

Maybe a tenth of one percent? 

Why would that concern you?


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Can't until the ruling of the court. Then there is no compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage. 

I love the traditional familial status argument. Like the traditional family = Husband and Wife at a minimum, the upcoming ruling blows that sucker OUT OF THE WATER!

Gonna be fun


----------



## Lilah (May 11, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Not to most people. The fags and the progessives want it real bad though because changing society is what rocks their world and gives them a reason for living.



Ellen DeGeneres and Portia di Rossi, a gay couple, are married.  How does their love for one another and their marital union affect you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


 
Once would be nice.  I have yet to see anyone "prove" - or even specifically, categorically state - that marriage has ever been anything except male/female.  Even in the rare exceptions that have had polygamous marriage, the configuration has still been male/female.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
Or millions once the financial benefit to those entering them come to light!

Marriage could become simply a lucrative financial tool!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Please provide a link to the same sex sibling marriage case that the SCOTUS is reviewing.  Or are you a liar?


----------



## Rexx Taylor (May 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


How about women who want to marry their dogs, horses and trees? thats something Hillary can run on.


----------



## Gracie (May 11, 2015)

*Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*


No. Folks need to keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves and the public needs to stop trying to see what is going on in the bedroom. People are starving right here in the usa. They are homeless. Our vets are dying from lack of medical care. Weather is a major issure right now. Race relations are at an all time low.

Enough already with the LGBT's. Live and let live.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



It's been legal for years now in some states, we are beyond this now.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




That's really very funny cuz that's all you've been doing. 

And you consistently got it wrong. 

Carry on.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2015)

Gracie said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> 
> No. Folks need to keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves and the public needs to stop trying to see what is going on in the bedroom. People are starving right here in the usa. They are homeless. Our vets are dying from lack of medical care. Weather is a major issure right now. Race relations are at an all time low.
> ...



As I posted in a new thread, they really are less than 5% of our population.

WHat they do does not touch anyone else.

Live and let live is right.

Edited to add - What's important is that all Americans have the very same rights.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Gracie said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> 
> No. Folks need to keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves and the public needs to stop trying to see what is going on in the bedroom. People are starving right here in the usa. They are homeless. Our vets are dying from lack of medical care. Weather is a major issure right now. Race relations are at an all time low.
> ...


Where are people starving?  Why don't they get a job? 

Where are veterans dying from lack of medical care?  We spend more on veteran medical care than any other segment of the population.  

Where is weather an issue?  Huh?

Race relations are where the democrats want them to be... in the gutter. 

Enough with gays?  Why are you against gays getting married?   Live and let live...? The republicans won't let the gays get married, marriage is a part of life, can't live to the fullest if you are in a republican dominated state that hates gays.  It's not the most important issue... people getting off their lazy asses and working for a living vs. living off the sweat of others is.  But that does not excuse what the republicans are doing to the gays, nor what the democrats were doing to the gays just 7years ago.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Can't. Same sex sibling cases can't become eligible until after SSM is codified. It is, after all, the opening act to this multi act play. 

This is gonna be interesting.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You and I both will be long gone and buried before the incest laws are thrown out with the bath water.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Oh, I hope you aren't ill. 

You are relying on the traditional meaning of incest. In this world we are redefining ancient concepts. 

Can you imagine a couple stripper or porn types:

Sister wifes do Dallas!

And there is no compelling state interest to deny them the benefits of marriage!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As I said, I provided you the compelling state interest.  Why do you keep ignoring the argument?


----------



## Gracie (May 11, 2015)

What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 11, 2015)

Gracie said:


> What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?


The argument was...

Yes or no Pop23 The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is: 2) Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (May 11, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


We're not an oligarchy either.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?
> ...



I did, you need to rebutt, but you won't. 

The basis of your argument just doesn't work unless you want to use ancient moral norms. You just want to redefine ideas that fit your need. 

Tell me RK, how does two sibling heterosexual males marrying fit into your definition of incest. 

1. They're heterosexual which means they do not have sex with males. 

2. They only want the financial benefits that come with marrige, nothing physical involved. Lower income tax rates, married partner insurance benefits, multi car insurance discount and possibly, by combining income, better mortgage terms. 

Explain to everyone the compelling interest the state would have in denying this couple the benefits that come with marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

Gracie said:


> What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?



Why would same sex siblings have to do anything in the bedroom? They might be straight, most are.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 11, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.   

Funny how that works.


----------



## Pop23 (May 11, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Why do they argue against inclusiveness?

They change marriage from male/female to same sex but want to exclude heterosexual same sex siblings from its benefits?

Marriage tradition can change when it serves their purpose, but siblings who won't ever be sexual with each other, cuz they're hetrosexual is still considered incest?

Bizarre


----------



## HappyJoy (May 11, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If we didn't you guys would still be pissing yourselves over mixed race marriages.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You can do whatever you want with your brother.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 11, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Who is "you guys?" 

You're a Nazi asshole.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 11, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I'm a Nazi asshole because you can't figure out who I am referring to?  Overreact much?


----------



## bripat9643 (May 12, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



You're a Nazi asshole because you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist.  

I wanted you to make it explicit who you are accusing of  being racist instead of just alluding to it like a cowardly Nazi asshole normally does.


----------



## HappyJoy (May 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



That's not the definition of a Nazi.  You're not very bright.



> I wanted you to make it explicit who you are accusing of  being racist instead of just alluding to it like a cowardly Nazi asshole normally does.



Hitler was famous for pointing out the racism in others.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 12, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> HappyJoy said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I don't think I much care if fish are gay or not . . . since I'm not a fish.  That would make it . . . what's the word?  Irrelevant.

There are animals, lots of them, who naturally engage in cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure no one advocates us practicing that as natural behavior ourselves.  At least, I hope not.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

HappyJoy said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Thanks to the upcoming USSC decision I guess

That's progress?


----------



## Seawytch (May 12, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > HappyJoy said:
> ...



Sorry bigots, but you don't get to play the "it's not natural" card and then when it is shown to be prevalent in nature, play the "some animals are cannibals" card.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...


And the goal posts are moved yet again.

Now POPs wants the compelling interest in blocking "heterosexual" male "siblings" from marrying just to get tax breaks.  ROFL   Your strawman is full of shit POP why don't you send me a list of people who got married just for tax breaks.  I'll wait.


----------



## danielpalos (May 12, 2015)

Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to _compel_ obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.


----------



## Redfish (May 12, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to _compel_ obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.


 

wrong,  we want the people to decide these kinds of things.  we want the people to be able to vote their beliefs in each state of via a constitutional amendment.

Since the constitution is silent on gay marriage, it is not right that 9 old farts in black robes decide something that affects 300 million people.

Let the people decide.   I will accept the will of the people, will you?


----------



## bodecea (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to _compel_ obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
> ...


Then, submit your constitutional amendment.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to _compel_ obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
> ...


No.  This country is not about harming people by the will of the majority.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



RK, I started this SSSM discussion because it is a troubling issue. 

Check out the thread I just started in current events with my compromise marriage proposal. 

I think, maybe just wishful thinking, that solved this, and many other problems.


----------



## Redfish (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

*minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote.*   No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage.   If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Please provide a link to one same sex sibling couple that is trying to get married or complaining that they are not allowed to get married.


----------



## Seawytch (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Indeed Chickenfish...a majority of the SCOTUS voted for the right of interracial couples to marry...and will soon vote in a majority for the gays.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution.  How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it?  Why not, after-all your are in the minority?  Right?

Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married?  Why not the irish too?  Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again?  Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot.  Let the states decide, right?


----------



## Redfish (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

blind people are a minority too.   is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?

and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments,   race and homosexuality are not analogous.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people? 

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays.  The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.


----------



## danielpalos (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to _compel_ obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
> ...


denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the several and sovereign citizens in the several and sovereign States requires _due process_ or _bills of attainder_.


----------



## danielpalos (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It is about the _communist_ Right wanting to use _socialism_ to _compel_ Persons to obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any any _willful signatories_.  Is it any wonder some on the left are practicing being better poets and know it.


----------



## Redfish (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I said:  is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars?   is your reading comprehension damaged by too much cheap vodka last night?

I am not bigoted against gays,   I want gays to have a way to legally commit to each other in such a way that gives them the same rights as married couples.   But a gay union is not a marriage any more than a legal union of same sex siblings is a marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 12, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

Thats really funny coming from someone who wants the government to mandate what people must believe and think.   You want thought control as long as the govt mandates YOUR thoughts,  you leftists have no idea what you are asking for.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you were not comparing gays to blind people, you were comparing marriage licences to driving licenses? You know the privilege of driving on public roads is not the same as the right to life and marriage right?

You know a civil union is not a marriage right?


----------



## Redfish (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

So you admit that its all about the word and not about equality, rights, discrimination, or anything else.   Its about using govt to force societal change to fit your minority views. 

and you call that democracy?????


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


We don't live in a democracy, thank god, we live in a constitutional republic.

No, civil union is not the same as marriage.  What makes you think civil union means marriage?  There are thousands of different laws regarding marriage.  Civil unions is not the same as marriage, because those thousands of laws regarding marriage do not apply.

The only government force that's been going on around here is majority groups pissing on minorities.  Protecting a minority from a bully is not force, it's defense.  Your argument is akin to saying a cop stopping a rape is force cause the rapist was stronger than his victim, so the victim deserved it.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Guess you can't come up with a compelling governmental interest in blocking same sex sibling couples from the benefits of marriage ( you did realize the the genders come in different sexualities, Right?  Seems to me you should be aware that same sex simply means couples of the same gender.

If that's changing the goalpost, then sad for you.

Oh, unless you can come up with the compelling governmental interest, your question is moot.


----------



## MrMike (May 12, 2015)

Nope...

It's just another (of several) social wedge issues pimped to the max by activists and a nice diversion from the Rome burning down around us.  We are being Balkanized into silos quite effectively.  United, we were really something.  Divided, we're just unfocused noise.  This isn't by accident.

Who benefits from a divided USA?



Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 12, 2015)

MrMike said:


> Who benefits from a divided USA?


The dividers, of course, and most of the rest of the world that we are too busy to fuck with because we are fighting amongst ourselves.  A divided US is good, for everyone but the US.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...





Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability

Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways. 

It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground. 

In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else. 

I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word. 

Amazing really


----------



## Seawytch (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Civil unions would be fine if they applied to all couples. You're advocating for 2nd class citizenship status for gays only. No thanks.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'm honestly curious how a piece of paper with no rights, only obligations makes YOU second class. 

If a opposite sex couple wanted to be both married AND civilly United, the cost would be more and the benefits ONLY EQUAL.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 12, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> MrMike said:
> 
> 
> > Who benefits from a divided USA?
> ...



Obama is the head divider.  Moochelle was doing his work at Tuskeegee.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wow- someone discovered the caps key.

Same gender marriage changes nothing- as I pointed out- a sterile opposite gender brother and sister have exactly the same reproductive capabilties as a same gender sibling couple.

If you cannot figure out any reason to deny marriage to sterile opposite sex siblings, then your problem is that you can't come up with an argument against sibling marriage- when reproduction is not an issue.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Gracie said:


> *Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?*
> 
> 
> No. Folks need to keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves and the public needs to stop trying to see what is going on in the bedroom.e.



So you think that marriage is only about sex?


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Redfish still arguing about gay marriage in the thread he started by announcing he was no longer going to be arguing about gay marriage. 

Yes- couples and families are harmed by states denying them marriage. 

Just as the Lovings were- they could have just moved to a state that allowed mixed race marriages- they actually did that in order to get married- but they wanted to live in their own state- not be chased out by an unconstitutional law.

And yes- I look forward to you whining once again how for the Loving's it was about race- so when the Lovings went to the Federal courts to override the citizens desire to ban mixed race marriage- that is different than gay couples going to the Federal courts asking them to overide the citizen's desire to ban same gender marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So, let's recap. You find that if SSM is codified in the courts, there is no compelling governmental interest in denying either SSSM or opposite sex sibling marriage?

Is the above correct


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe..... 

No so much


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I provided the compelling governmental interests, you just choose to ignore them or move the goal posts.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Saying so don't make it so


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Correct.  Doing so, however, did make it so.


----------



## Seawytch (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Did the same water come out of black and white water fountains?

If YOU don't want gays to have civil MARRIAGE, change it for all couples, not just the gay ones.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


For that matter why do we allow Married people more rights than Singles?  My preference is to remove all marriage laws.  I'm good with civil contracts between groups of people for the purpose of managing shared assets.  But I don't see why we need or want government regulating marriage at all.  Their job should be as an arbiter in the contracts, not as an arbiter of what relationships consenting adults are allowed to form.  

That said, since that's not gonna happen we just tackle the constitutionality of a state singling out gays to not have the right to marriage.  Once we have gays then off to plural marriages since that is a similar problem in my view.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And if the fountain the whites drank from was dry?


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, same sex siblings will likely be next


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Here's an interested bit of trivia for ya. 

Absolutely nobody is forced to get married. 

True story


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Name one case coming up through the courts for same sex siblings.  Or is your prediction that same sex siblings is a huge problem facing this country just something you are making up?


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No- that is your argument.

Do try to keep up.

I am saying that same gender marriage is as unrelated to sibling marriage as is opposite gender marriage, legally, morally and othewise. 

I am saying that if you can't think of a reason why sterile siblings should not marry each other, then you are on your way to your court case to argue you should be able to marry your sibling- irregardless of how the Supreme Court rules on same gender marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes- it is legally justifiable discrimination.

Really a particularly idiotic comparison- since marriage is an actual right recognized by the Supreme Court, while driving is of course a privilage- not a right. 

That being said- blind people are not denied the right to drive just because they are blind- people who cannot pass the vision test are not allowed to drive- just as people who cannot pass the driving test or the written test. 

You still can't come up with an equivelent reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You have every right to go to court right now arguing for your right to marry your sibling.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Repeating is not an argument. 

Could it be you're stumped?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You still stumped by my argument?  I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Can't. The sis is married, the bro's are married and, well, bro's.  

SSM hasnt Ben approved by the USSC yet and that's the first step in a multi part process. 

FYI: I don't want to marry a sibling, just bringing forth the argument that you...........,










RUN FROM


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Lol, you got it several times. AND FAILED IN YOURE ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Deflect from what?  Your only response to my arguments was to point out that heterosexuals would be banned from gay marriage... IOW your argument is retarded.


----------



## MaryL (May 12, 2015)

152 post on the wall, 152 post on the wall. Add one  more, 153 posts on the wall. Gay marriage is up there with  fish rights or Amoeba sex, Nothing. Artificial issue created by people with sexual problems.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 12, 2015)

I actually believe in gay marriage.... I think gay men should be able to marry whoever they want as long is it is a woman and gay women should be able to marry whoever they want as long as it is a man.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You can still go to court to argue for your right to marry your sister or your brothers- and you can argue for polyandry at the same time.

Completely unrelated to same gender marriage- but you can go for it.


----------



## Syriusly (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

The two are completely unrelated.

But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (May 12, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I'm sure you would have no problem stating the specific clause under the executive branch portion of the Constitution, where it states the president has the precise authority to set new legislation WITHOUT the need of the Legislative branch. Let's just see you back up your "knowledge" of the Constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 
Sorry, dipshit, but you don't get to conflate multiple posters and positions and then attribute the resulting mashup to everyone.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, the fact that you can't understand the concept of "it's not natural FOR HUMANS" does not in any way make me responsible for trying to formulate a position that complies with your cockeyed, half-assed viewpoint.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 12, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to _compel_ obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.


 
Only leftists think "trendy morals" are actually a thing.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They died several years ago. 

Interesting folks. 

You should have met them. At their eldest, both could raise some hell and likely kick your ass.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Sorry to hear that.  I lost my mom 2years ago... It's tough.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That was low


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 12, 2015)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


I'm sure you know this, but I thought it important to note that leftists don't need to find those words in the constitution to demand that it's in the Constituion.

LOL.  For Pete's sake WeeCatcher was just in another thread DEMANDING that 2+2 does not necessarily... =4.

Then went on for two pages explaining to everyone how only those with superior minds could recognize that the natural laws of mathematics were wrong.

LOL!  And friend... You can't make that crap UP! 

The ideological Left... Is comprised of people suffering mental disorder... Specifically delusion.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


What's wrong with your parents being married?  Granted they are dead, but I find it odd that you protest your parents being married.


----------



## Pop23 (May 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Or "getting" married......

It's OK, I'm over it,

I want you to note that I do not use words like Fag, fudge packer or the hundreds of other words some use to describe gays. I have far to much respect for those I disagree with to stoop to those lows. I have used homo a time or two, but only with hetro in the same line of thinking.

I do not hate gays.

We can disagree, that's fine, that's the world we live in, and some of the posters I have the greatest respect for are those on your side of this issue.

World Watcher is a helluva human being. SeaWytch and I have had epic battles, and i will defend her right to express her feelings. She's one tough woman. Both them an several others (including you) have EARNED my respect.

I will continue to disagree, but I WILL NEVER HATE YOU, THEM OR ANYONE WHO HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN ME, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT LIFE EXPERIENSES AND OPINIONS THEN I.

Now,

Let's continue the discussion (or war, if you will)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 12, 2015)

Edit: Reposted this because I added a Link to where WeeCatcher literally argued that the Natural Laws of Mathematics were subjective... and subject to _One's Personal Needs... declaring *AS A FACT*: That 2+2 ... *did NOT necessarily equal* 4.
_


ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...


I'm sure you know this, but I thought it important to note that leftists don't need to find those words in the constitution to demand that it's in the Constituion.

LOL.  For Pete's sake (LINK >) WeeCatcher (< LINK) was just in another thread DEMANDING that 2+2 does not necessarily... =4.

Then went on for two pages explaining to everyone how only those with superior minds could recognize that the natural laws of mathematics were wrong.

LOL!  And friend... You can't make that crap UP!

The ideological Left... Is comprised of people suffering mental disorder... Specifically delusion.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 12, 2015)

Hey dickhead faggot-haters, you lost, get over it.


----------



## ninja007 (May 13, 2015)

lib logic. Support muslims. Be killed after they help them come to power. You cant make this stuff up.


----------



## Seawytch (May 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yes, cuntessa, I can. I can respond to a thread with a comment on topic. Oh, that's what I did. 



> Furthermore, shitforbrains, the fact that you can't understand the concept of "it's not natural FOR HUMANS" does not in any way make me responsible for trying to formulate a position that complies with your cockeyed, half-assed viewpoint.



Of course it's natural for humans. Humans have been doing it since they crawled out of the primordial sludge. You bigots really are stupid. Mean and stupid.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 13, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



According to that theory cannibalism is "natural" for humans.  I don't see your ilk endorsing that.


----------



## Seawytch (May 13, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You're wrong. I heartily endorse "eating" each other. 

Stupid bigots.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Ok... my apologies for leaving a sentence up there open for a wide interpretation.  I sort of baited you on that one.  My bad.  I understood that you would "tie" the implication to the subject matter.  But I ask you to understand that I to am "tying" the implication of your statements to the subject matter.  

We as humans have a tendency to form assumptions based on limited data.  For example, when people thought they saw that face on Mars.  Sometimes we make links that just are not there.  

For example, linking gay marriage to incest.  You see a link.. that is just not there.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



All's good now bro. 

I understand your personal involvement in the issue. That can get thing heated. I DON'T HOLD ILL WILL TOWARD YOU OR YOUR FAM!

Now, let's fight.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Cheers...

But incest is still illegal


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'll getcha for that!


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

the laws defining gay civil unions and man/woman marriage should be exactly the same, convey the same rights, and be recognized as equal in every way.  

But thats not what you want is it?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Separate but equal isn't.  You should have figured this out by now.

What matters more, the word marriage or the principle of equality, pick one.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Other than human biology and anatomy.  

Nor can you come up with a valid reason why same sex siblings over the age of majority should not be allowed to marry.   We have been waiting for that answer for several days.  

BTW,  incest is an act, not a method of cohabitation.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incest is a human tradition, look it up.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you think human biology and anatomy is a reason to deny marriage to homosexuals?

Really? 

That is the best you can come up with?

No wonder your side keeps losing in courts.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Exactly the same would either be civil unions regardless of sexual orientation or marriage regardless of sexual orientation.

But thats not what you want- is it?


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So a university allowing gay students to bunk with members of the sex they find most attractive, randomly chosen, while excluding heterosexual students the same, is equality?

That's absurd

Where's the Justice, is that not seperate but equal?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


WTH are you talking about?  Oh right, the voices in your tiny mind.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Seems to work with dorm room assignments


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



And no argument.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Yes, biology, anatomy and over 3000 years of human history.   A union of two people of the same sex is not a marriage.

they should be able to legally commit to each other, but their union is not a marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

they will never get it,  you might as well be talking to a slug in your garden.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


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?"


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Are you saying marriage is nothing but co-habitation?  Who's trying to redefine marriage now?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


What makes you think heteros don't bunk in college?


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

I was responding to your claim that same sex sibling marriage would be incest.    If two sisters marry but never engage in sexual contact how can it be incest?   Even if they did occaisionally engage in a mutual lick fest,  would that be incest?


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


 

bunk or bonk?


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Actually it's the struggle of understanding the implications of our changing world. 

Right or wrong, it creates paradoxes that we may not be prepared to deal with. 

The college dorm. 

Under our current understanding, gender issued dorm assignments make sense. Guys bunk with guys. But when guy = gay then gay guy gets to be housed with the sex he is most attracted too. The heterosexual is prohibited from sleeping in and living with the gender he is most attracted too. 

It's the paradox that's being created


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



They can, but the school doesn't assign that on a random basis.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Why are you such an lying bitch?

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.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Some schools do.  But no, they don't force you to "bunk" with someone that sees you as a sexual conquest.  Co-ed dorms is old news.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Yes.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incest is against the law, not lesbian sex acts.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Dorms yes, rooms, not so much


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Red, RMK has been reduced to a troll

He must know that SSM creates a paradox and is desperate to cast blame elsewhere. Can't blame the guy though. 

And so his deflections continue.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So you agree your argument was wrong.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I'm thinking paradox does not mean what you think it means.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Funny seeing a troll call another poster a troll.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You are welcome to your doomed opinion. 

I will instead argue for actual equality with my wife and I- rather than separate but equal.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yeah- you seem pretty upset about a word.

Matter of fact- you seem to think that gay marriage is one of the most important issues in America- since you keep posting on the issue.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Or a troll defending a troll who's trolling.


----------



## Seawytch (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Could this be SpamPop's new bone? 

The desperation is palatable.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 13, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It doesn't... that's why I really don't care... I just am tired of hearing about this being the hot button topic of the decade... because it isn't.


----------



## Seawytch (May 13, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



It isn't the hot button topic of the decade, but it IS one of the biggest civil rights issues of the decade. To gays and their allies, it is a very big, very important issue. Fortunately, we CAN address more than one issue at one time.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 13, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Fair enough... personally, I don't see it as a civil rights issue.  But whatev... I'd like it though if we could sensibly discuss something like, I dunno, _$60,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities?_


----------



## thanatos144 (May 13, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


The only civil rights being violated is those who believe in the Christ


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Go for it- start a thread on that.

Don't be like Redfish- starting threads about not talking about gay marriage- and then spending days talking about gay marriage.


----------



## Seawytch (May 13, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



By being protected against discrimination in Public Accommodation in all 50 states? How awful for you.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 13, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Fascism is horrible for all you idiot. Go praise your government gods and maybe they won't slaughter you in Thier  utopia


----------



## Seawytch (May 13, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



A lot of words that said nothing. Are you calling your congresscritter to have them get rid of your FEDERAL protections?


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 13, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Being a pervert isn't a constitutional protected right


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

LOL earlier you said that same sex sibling marriage was incest.   Now its not.   make up your mind.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



It's not? What is it then? Specifically


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...




Where does the Constitution say "... except gays ..."


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I am merely trying to understand why this issue gets so much attention.   From this thread it appears that this is one issue where americans are very divided and each side holds very strong opinions on it.  

Much like abortion and race.

We focus on these things and ignore the fact that radical muslim terrorists are trying to kill all of us, that our country is 18 trillion in debt, and that the mid east is a powder keg ready to explode.  

I think our priorities are all fucked up thanks to the left wing media, hollywood, and idiots like obama.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


 

where does the constitution use the words "gay marriage" ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Not only does the US Constitution not provide a right to foment sexual deviancy.   The Founders of the United States would have no more tolerated the normalization of such than they would set themselves on fire.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



That's gay.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


You are not an authority, but you do have a right to your opinion. You are _adorable _when you stamp your feet.  You are so gay.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I notice you duck the question- where does the Constitution say 'except gays'?


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Clearly- Obama and Hollywood are why you spend so much time obsessing over gay marriage.

LOL......such a victim.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Great- so we can use both the words Civil Union and marriage interchangeably- 50% of the couples who want to be united randomly get Civil Unions and the other 50% randomly are assigned marriage.

After all- its just a word.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

13 days after Redfish whined about all the focus on gay marriage and how he was no longer going to post on it- he continues to whine about gay marriage.

LOL......this thread is hilarious.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

what constitutional rights are not given to gays?   answer: none.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Where did I say same sex sibling marriage was not incest?  Seriously, are you severely mentally handicapped in some way that we all need to know about?

Because, no one can be as dumb as you are pretending.  Or am I wrong?


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> 13 days after Redfish whined about all the focus on gay marriage and how he was no longer going to post on it- he continues to whine about gay marriage.
> 
> LOL......this thread is hilarious.


 

You, and the other posters confirmed my hypothesis, that gay marriage is a dividing issue in this country today.   People on both sides have good arguments and feel strongly about them.

We just disagree----------------------

Now, what do people in a representative democracy do when they disagree about a societal issue?   They, or their elected representatives, vote on it and the side getting the most votes prevails.

The will of the people should decide this.  Will you accept the will of the people?    I will, but I want the people to have their say on it.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Please speak in full sentences.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 13 days after Redfish whined about all the focus on gay marriage and how he was no longer going to post on it- he continues to whine about gay marriage.
> ...


No, ya dumb ass.  We live in a constitutional republic, not a representative democracy.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
in red above


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Must be, I offered up a proposal that Marriage was simply a piece of paper that related to the joining of a man to a woman, with no governmental benefits at all, and a seperate civil union that both gay or straights could participate in that had all the benefits of what are currently in marriage. 

Dear Lord, the progressives ate me for lunch........


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

its the same thing, you fricken moron.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


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


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



If you don't know, just say so.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.  It's not the same thing.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Ironic posts are ironic.


----------



## Redfish (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

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


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



"it's not?" with zero context means nothing.  "What is it then?" with zero context means specifically nothing.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


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...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO... Now how precious is THAT?  

They're down to framing their inanities in the negative.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


What do you think this thread is about?  Nothing? ROFL


----------



## GHook93 (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



I would say it's maybe 25th or 26th.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Exactly- homosexuals have the same right to marry one another as we all do- the difference is now they are getting their Constitutional protections.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 13 days after Redfish whined about all the focus on gay marriage and how he was no longer going to post on it- he continues to whine about gay marriage.
> ...



We haven't done that for many issues.

Gun rights? The will of the people in states that want to limit gun rights- we don't rely upon the 'will of the people'- because Constitutional guarantees kick in.

The Right to marry someone regardless of their race? The will of the people that didn't want blacks and whites to marry was ignored- because Constitutional guarantees kick in.

Basically you are arguing that for this issue- and this issue only- we should ignore the right of Americans to go to court and ask for their Constitutional rights to be protected.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

1612 posts in this thread- Redfish has contributed maybe 5%-10% of the posts- in the thread that Redfish said he was no longer going to focus on gay marriage.......

If Redfish actually stopped arguing about gay marriage, maybe then- well he wouldn't be so focused on it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



There is no potential for a right to foment sexual deviance.  

Your claim that sexual deviants have a right to marry because the sexually normal marry, is akin to claiming that the right to speak freely provides the right to use ones speech to mislead people.

Which ironically ... Is what you and your cult are doing.

Do you feel that you have a right to mislead people?

Is it your right to claim that sexual deviancy is sexual normality?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> 1612 posts in this thread- Redfish has contributed maybe 5%-10% of the posts- in the thread that Redfish said he was no longer going to focus on gay marriage.......
> 
> If Redfish actually stopped arguing about gay marriage, maybe then- well he wouldn't be so focused on it.




True that both he and pop are obsessed with taking away basic rights away from less than 5% of the population. 

There's nothing new about same-sex marriage and its still no one's business but the consenting adults involved.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Is it my right to tell you who you can marry?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> 1612 posts in this thread- Redfish has contributed maybe 5%-10% of the posts- in the thread that Redfish said he was no longer going to focus on gay marriage.......
> 
> If Redfish actually stopped arguing about gay marriage, maybe then- well he wouldn't be so focused on it.


Yes... As I said in my first comment.

By not contesting this insanity people erroneously perceive that as acceptance.

Which answers Rush Limbaughs question from Monday:  how can such a tiny minority come to be such a powerfully destructive force?

And that answer is found in the unholy trinity of evil itself:  Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance.

Think about it. 

Mellinials have been repeatedly polled and have consistently reported that they believe that "Homosexuals make up 30-35% of the population". 

When in reality, thus in truth homosexuals make up roughly 1-2% of the population.  An infinitesimal minority...

But millenials get their education from who?  Leftists.

And Leftists are liars. And this without exception...  Because Left-think rests entirely in Relativism and Relativis rejects the objectivity that is essential to recognizing truth.

Who comprises the Media that creates everything from "The News" to entertainment?

Leftists...

Now we know that homosexuality is a mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.  But what we are coming to find is that the disorder is Relativism and it presents in every form of evil.  From sexual deviancy to socialism.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

From the OP 13 days ago

Redfish

_Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

*I have made my last post on a gay thread.* I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

*We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.*_

*yet here Redfish is- still arguing why gays or lesbians should be denied marriage. *


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> From the OP 13 days ago
> 
> Redfish
> 
> ...




Once again comes the cult of sexual deviancy to beg that people stop opposing them so that they can continue to forment deciet In their quest to normalize all forms of sexual deviancy... Most notably the legalization of the pursuit of children for sexual gratification.

Raw... Unadulterated Evil.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And in 37 states, the District of Columbia and many countries- the joining of one man and one man or the joining of one woman and one woman.


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > From the OP 13 days ago
> ...



Yes- every one of your posts is raw unadulterated Evil.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > 1612 posts in this thread- Redfish has contributed maybe 5%-10% of the posts- in the thread that Redfish said he was no longer going to focus on gay marriage.......
> ...




Liars like Lushbo are the reason its in the news. Keeping the phobe fools all up in arms over nothing keeps their flimsy little minds off of being screwed in the butt by the Rs they vote for. 

MYOB

Why the hysteria over only 4-5 of the population US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> And in 37 states, the District of Columbia and many countries- the joining of one man and one man or the joining of one woman and one woman.



Deciet, FRAUD and Ignorance.  

In all but a tiny fraction of those states laws which defend the natural standards of MAREIAGE were overturned through spurious reasoning by members of the homosexual cult who happen to sit upon the federal judiciary.  

An infinitesimal number of people, illicitly using federal power to overturn The Law that was passed through legitimate legislative processes, by elected legislators who openly debated the bills over extending periods, who were elected by the VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE... Bills signed into law by governors who were also elected by the vast majority of the people.

Just look at how the evil that animate that would-be 'contributor' framed her response... 

Implying that the majority of the people in the majority of the states VOTED to Tear away the natural standards of marriage.

It's a lie... Using false information designed to mislead YOU: the members of this August board.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO.  

Deflection and obscurance.  

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 Another attempt to avoid the argument.

The reader should recognize the trend.  They are incapable of debating the reality, this the facts.

Instead all that they are capable of doing is fleeing the debate.

We're winning friends.  This is not the time to let up or otherwise fall victim to the rejection of "social liberalism" .  That too is a lie.  

They can no more defend socialism than they can the normalization of sexual deviancy.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Under our current understanding, gender issued dorm assignments make sense. Guys bunk with guys. But when guy = gay then gay guy gets to be housed with the sex he is most attracted too. The heterosexual is prohibited from sleeping in and living with the gender he is most attracted too.




Hate to break it to you Pops, but gay guys already bunk in the guy dorm and lesbians bunk in the female dorm.  Been like that for years.  And I'm speaking as the father of two college graduates.

That doesn't have anything to do with denying same-sex civil marriage.



Pop23 said:


> They can, but the school doesn't assign that on a random basis.



They sure do.  Most schools have a "matching program", if you don't fine your own roommate and they will randomly assign you to another unassigned person.

My daughter matched up with someone the summer before her freshman year.  However the person she matched with ended up changing to a different school at the last minute.  Therefore they randomly matched her to another unassigned individual.

>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > From the OP 13 days ago
> ...


Which USMB members are you accusing of pedophilia?


----------



## Syriusly (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You have no argument- you just spew raw unadulterated evil.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Yet you are the one that has overtly avoided the argument I advanced... While I have never failed to engage and destroy everything you post which I find.

More Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance from those perpetrating the normalization of perversion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


He tried this before and was warned.  Report him.  Keys needs an enforced vacation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Which USMB members are you accusing of pedophilia?
> ...



This has been reported.  Keys is insinuating all his opponents are for pedophilia.


----------



## bodecea (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > And in 37 states, the District of Columbia and many countries- the joining of one man and one man or the joining of one woman and one woman.
> ...


The "homosexual cult".......


----------



## bodecea (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Which USMB members are you accusing of pedophilia?
> ...


So, you are accusing us of being pedophiles.    Interesting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Just _adorable_, your imitation of Rudolph Hess, sitting in your little room scribbling and scribbling and scribbling for hours and hours, while the world ignores you, and here, well, we are kind enough, to a point, to tolerate your looniness.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


His writing has been reported.  Let's see what happens.  

Silhouette had to learn the hard way, too, I think.  Or was it She Who Cannot Be Named Right Now.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

bodecea said:


> So, you are accusing us of being pedophiles.    Interesting.



I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I am stating as a medical fact that the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy identifies both homosexual and the pedophilia.  Both represent profound sociopathy wherein the subject presents with little control over their perverse sexual cravings... Indicating limited regard or respect for comporting their behavior with boundaries of societal mores, rules and laws.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Which USMB members are you accusing of pedophilia?



Amazing.

I say that Left-think is grounded in evil and PRESTO A Leftist shows up hoping to abuse the rules of the forum upon an innocent, to get rid of a proponent of natural law, so that those who reject natural law will appear more popular.

Much as the Leftist on the Federal Judiciary abused the rules of government, as a means to make it appear that approval for the normalization of sexual deviancy is more popular than it actually is.

Incredible how consistent evil is... Isn't it?

With that said, there is no distinction between the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and that of pedophilia, beyond opportunity and personal preference.

In reality, this in truth... Homosexuality is a result of sexual molestation of a child, which is perpetrated in a fun and enjoyable manner, which induces feelings of pleasure and acceptance.

This imprints the desire for please and acceptance from the same type of person that performed the molestation.

The individual who purpetrates the molestation is a sexual deviant without regard to whether or not they are a male molesting a male or a male molesting a female.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

Where R My Keys is now doubling down on accusing Marriage Equality supporters of being pedophiles or supporters of pedophilia. 

Reported.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where R My Keys is now doubling down on accusing Marriage Equality supporters of being pedophiles or supporters of pedophilia.
> 
> Reported.


  How amazing that the pervert Keys thinks he is an authority on anything.


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Under our current understanding, gender issued dorm assignments make sense. Guys bunk with guys. But when guy = gay then gay guy gets to be housed with the sex he is most attracted too. The heterosexual is prohibited from sleeping in and living with the gender he is most attracted too.
> ...



Hate to break it to you WW. Just because theirs never been a civil suit, doesn't mean it ain't discrimination. 

SSM is going to open up a whole lot of new "victim" doors. 

The victim world could get mighty crowded.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 13, 2015)

Now imagine a delusion SO PROFOUND that there exist a denial that the sexual deviancy presenting as homosexuality is starkly different from other manifestations of sexual deviancy... Even as NAMBLA and the  62 other pedophile advocacy groups are comprised ENTIRELY... SOLEY BY HOMOSEXUALS.

Such is not even remotely deniable by people of reason... representing profound delusion.

Now the unreasonable people may ask "so what?  Who's it harm?  

And for the answer to that one need go NO FARTHER... That the homosexual priests who spent decades molesting thousands of little boys.

A policy which each and everyone of these professed sexual deviants engaged in this discussion wanted to set upon the Boy Scouts of America.

Which is all one really needs to know about these would-be "people"... To know that they are the manifestation of pure fuckin' evil.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What the hell are you talking about?

You make a post implying that same-sex civil marriage will lead to gay guys being able to live in male college dorms.

The fact is that gay guys (along with straight guys) live in male college dorms and lesbians (along with straight women) live in female college dorms.  That's the way it already is and SSCM will have no impact on that.

(As a matter of fact in the college my daughter went to gay guys, straight guys, lesbians, and straight women all lived in the same dorm.  Males lived on the 1st and 3rd floors and women on the 2nd and 4th - all in the same dorm.)


>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (May 13, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Your premise is all wrong. Re read my post


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

you said 'constitutional rights'.    marriage is not a constitutional right.   If you think it is, quote the language from the constitution that uses the word 'marriage'


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


 

what was the STD rate?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish is melting.

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


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

And same sex marriage in society has occurred.

*Is same-sex marriage anything new?

Is same-sex marriage anything new - CNN.com*


----------



## bodecea (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Now imagine a delusion SO PROFOUND that there exist a denial that the sexual deviancy presenting as homosexuality is starkly different from other manifestations of sexual deviancy... Even as NAMBLA and the  62 other pedophile advocacy groups are comprised ENTIRELY... SOLEY BY HOMOSEXUALS.
> 
> Such is not even remotely deniable by people of reason... representing profound delusion.
> 
> ...


Actually those organizations you so meticulously investigated are comprised ENTIRELY....SOLEY by.....MEN.

What do you plan to suggest about that?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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.


----------



## Carla_Danger (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...





And here you are starting another thread about gay marriage.  I'd be willing to bet $100 that this is not your last posting about gay marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> And same sex marriage in society has occurred.
> 
> *Is same-sex marriage anything new?
> 
> Is same-sex marriage anything new - CNN.com*


 

canibalism is nothing new either,  should that be sanctioned?   After all, is it right to discriminate against those who like to eat human flesh?


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And same sex marriage in society has occurred.
> ...


the abomination of hypocrisy seems to be sanctioned; it almost makes some on the left believe the Right prefers to worship Lord Satan over Jesus the Christ.


----------



## bodecea (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


What is wrong with that, with stalls?   And as far as all know all homes have unisex bathrooms......


----------



## Carla_Danger (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And same sex marriage in society has occurred.
> ...




Sigh...


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

I started this thread to try to understand why gay marriage is such a divisive issue in our country.   I think the posts verify that people have very strong beliefs and opinions on this and that there does not seem to be any middle ground or compromise.

What I find very troublesome is the insistence from the left that a gay union be called a marriage.   They claim that the issue is equal treatment under the law and that gay unions do not get the same "cash and prizes" (their words, not mine) that marriage couples get.   Sanctioning gay civil unions would give them those rights and priviledges, but thats not good enough.   They want the govt to mandate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that many consider abnormal or a perversion.

So what do civilized people do when they disagree about a societal norm?    They vote and the majority view prevails.   So lets vote,  either via a referendum in every state or a constitutional amendment.   Settle it once and for all.   Would you accept the will of the people  to settle this?    I would.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

the analogy is valid.   sigh as much as you want.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



On both my ships I shared a head with the guys. Doors have these things called "locks" on them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And same sex marriage in society has occurred.
> ...


Fallacy of false comparison, bub.  SCOTUS has indeed ruled marriage a constitutional right; that you don't like it or deny it is meaningless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Unisex bathrooms are no big deal.  Make sure they have locks.

Redfish is going to have to wrap his head around Marriage Equality, whether he wants to or not.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

NO, that is not what they ruled.  They ruled that state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional. 

I do not expect you to understand the subtle difference, but it was done that way intentionally by the SC.


----------



## bodecea (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


State laws banning gay marriage are unConstitutional.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

Maybe, maybe not.   But either way you and your sister can still marry to get the tax breaks.

If you think same sex sibling marriage will not happen to save taxes,  you are dumber than I thought you were.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish, that is exactly what they ruled.  You are wrong.   Get over it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

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.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish, that is exactly what they ruled.  You are wrong.   Get over it.


 

wrong,  go look it up.  the ruling read as I said.   that state laws banning gay marriage were unconstitutional, NOT THAT GAY MARRIAGE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

I don't expect you to understand the difference, but its significant and it is why they are doing another ruling next month.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Now imagine a delusion SO PROFOUND that there exist a denial that the sexual deviancy presenting as homosexuality is starkly different from other manifestations of sexual deviancy... Even as NAMBLA and the  62 other pedophile advocacy groups are comprised ENTIRELY... SOLEY BY HOMOSEXUALS.
> ...




He forgot the catholic church.

If he's really so concerned about children, then why is he yammering about marriage equality?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish, that is exactly what they ruled.  You are wrong.   Get over it.
> ...


Snap goes the trap.  Been waiting on that.  You wrote "marriage was not a constitutional right" above or words to that extent.

Now you are backing up.  Smart.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous marriages.
> 
> Silly.
> 
> ...


 

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.  

BTW,  the ACLU is already preparing a polygamy marriage case to be brought to the SC.  

Our society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating.


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous marriages.
> ...


why do you care if you don't have to do it and you are not a baker?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


 

there are many millions of catholics in the world,  the Pope has said that gay marriage is wrong and that abortion is murder.  

 I am not catholic,  but most hispanics are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

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


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

because I care about the kind of society that we will leave to our children and grand children,   because I care about what this country stands for.   Because I beleive in God.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


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



I didn't see a link to any polygamy marriage case, did you? Chickenfish saying it is so doesn't make it so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

More Christians approve of marriage equality than don't.

Tough to be a minority, Redfish.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Your grandchildren support gay marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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?

what will you say:    will you say its just not right?    will you say its bad for society?   what will your arguments be when the gay marriage precedent is sitting on the table?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> More Christians approve of marriage equality than don't.
> 
> Tough to be a minority, Redfish.


 

cite?

and we get it, the new buzz words are 'marriage equality'  sounds nicer that gay marriage doesn't it?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

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


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Don't have cite common knowledge, Redfish.  You far right social cons no longer have the votes.  Tough, huh?  Marriage Equality is more accurate.


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


you don't seem to have any problem with the abomination of hypocrisy; and, if a god cannot trust you, why should the left?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ACLU does lots of cases that fail, and this one will also.
> ...




The same could be said of straight marriage. 

Even if that were true, what does it matter? If between consenting adults, its their business. 

Link to the poly marriage ACLU is "preparing"?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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.

A 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.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

what hypocrisy ?    is it hypocrisy to say that one believes that gay marriage is wrong?   is it hypocrisy to not be politically correct?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

wrong, straight marriage is one man and one woman.   that sets the precedent for nothing else.   whereas gay marriage of two people of the same sex sets a valid legal precedent for sibling marriage and multiple person marriage.

as to the ACLU,  look it up,  I am not your teacher.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


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




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.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Nope......lack of funding......


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


It is hypocrisy to try to coerce anyone else to a religious point of view via the coercive use of force of the State.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## bodecea (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Unisex bathrooms are no big deal.  Make sure they have locks.
> 
> Redfish is going to have to wrap his head around Marriage Equality, whether he wants to or not.


It's interesting (and history repeating itself) when Minnowfish envokes the "Potty Principle".  We heard that as an excuse for keeping women off Navy ships.  And I'm sure it was used against integration....and I KNOW it was used against the ERA.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Of course straight marriage set a precedent but why hold gays to a higher standard than straights? 

Your hysteria is unfounded but I ask again, what if related people want to marry? What if poly groups want to marry? So what? 

Consenting adults = none of your business and has no impact on your life.

As for ACLU, why didn't you just say you don't know what you're talking about? If its true, you should be celebrating. Or are you one of those who has no idea why the ACLU exists?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

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.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



5 years? You don't have to wait 5 years. Just look around.

You do know, don't you that same-sex marriage was common until the 1300s? and is still practiced around the world? What has been the effect of that? 

Whether about society or the board, what you "declare" means nothing at all. Get used to it.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


_The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states._--Only _Infidels_, _protestants_, and _renegades_ have a problem with it.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




THank you.

And you lied when you said "all forms of marriage are okay with me".

I've been very clear. I've said it over and over. 

_*CONSENTING ADULTS*_

Get it?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Did you notice the DATE of your big scary case that's you say is being prepared?

But, what do you object to?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

Yes, there have been small enclaves where gay marriage was practiced in history,  but it was never given wide acceptance and was always eventually banned.

If you think what is going on in our society is good, then you have a very strange view of good.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

OK, all forms of marriage involving consenting adults.   I get it.   Now, you and your brother can get married to avoid the inheritence tax when one of you dies.   Yee Haa.


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


 

just one example,  if you want more, google is your friend.

OK,  lets say that Tom, Jack, Jim, Mary, June, and Louise marry.   They have 8 kids amoung them, however no one knows who fathered which kids,  they also have a big house and 6 cars.  

Now, Tom and June decide to divorce the others.    How many lawyers and how much court time will be tied up to sort this out? and how does society benefit from this lunacy?


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


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




Jake...it was from 1999. There is no current challenge to the ban on polygamist marriages. Chickenfish's sky is falling.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

I was addressing jake, not you.   he said that good Christians would approve of gay marriage,  I gave him 3 good Christians who do not.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Oh, if only I had brothers in the 1%. 

But yeah, what do I care if brothers marry?


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You are mistaken; there is nothing but Perfection in the instrument of our Republic.  There is no ambiguity, but only reading comprehension issues on the part of the Posterity.  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; on the Part of the Public Sector.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ACLU does lots of cases that fail, and this one will also.
> ...


Redfish is saying it because it follows.  In reality, this in truth... When the argument suspends all the sound reasons to discourage sexual deviancy, as the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Deviancy has done... It becomes impossible to discourage any form of injurious deviancy.

If you'd like to prove that... You're invited to argue against polygamy using the paradigm used by the cult Advocating to Normalize Sexual Deviancy.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What do "christians" have to do with it? Would they rather people live "in sin"?

If they don't like same sex marriage, they probably shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. Other than, its none of their business.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Are you aware of the job description of the SCOTUS?


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


In other words, the right cannot accept the moral challenge of Individual Liberty and must resort to the communism of Religion for moral support.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> its really marriage equality.
> 
> Equality.



Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > its really marriage equality.
> ...


I make a motion that marriage as the joining of One Man and One Woman be reserved to Religion and a Deaconate.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



See fish, it's another paradox. 

Gay male students are attracted to males, doesn't matter if the other male is straight or gay does it?

Straight male students are attracted to females. A straight male student would much rather see a female romping around in her underware than anothe dude? Agreed? Not true with a gay male student, is it? 

So why can't straight males be randomly chosen to bunk with females in a college dorm. Shouldn't housing be as randomly chosen as a quick pick lottery ticket? After all, the times they are a changing with sexuality being far more important than gender, right?

Why should a gay male get this benefit not granted to straight males. Doesn't seem all that inclusive that they don't, does it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Liberty intrinsically brings RESPONSIBILITY.  For instance... One of those responsibilities is to never exercise one's rights to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their rights.

Claiming or even 'believing' that deviancy is normal ... Which is to say that the human physiological norm  is a suggestion and not a design which defines the highest potential for viability for the individual and by extension, THE SPECIES.  

Advising others that the deciet is truth... Is not a function of liberty.  It is a function of undermining the potential for liberty.

But hey... In fairness to you, as a Relativist insufficiently rigged; intellectually speaking, to recognize truth... There was no way you could have known that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Marriage Equality will become the universal law of the Land and requires no Amendment.

Christians indeed are split on the issue.

Where R My Keys, who pretends to be an authority, is fun to read for his social con silliness.

Pop23, when not being deliberately obtuse because of irkiness, is arguing with some merit.  Good on him

Redfish, thank you for this thread.


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


What metrics and basis are you using for your term, deviancy?


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


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



And there is no COMPELLING state interest in denying gays or for that matter straight same sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage.  Actually I've been chatting with a few others on this board and they can't find a compelling state interest in denying those rights to same sex siblings, rather straight or gay, or opposite sex siblings when one or the other can't procreate.

Strange. Isn't it?


----------



## Judicial review (May 14, 2015)

Gay marriage isn't eve close to the top issue.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Based upon what?  The likelihood that religious people respect the laws of nature?

Looks like we've got another SCIENCE DENIER, kids.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

Jake brought Christians into the discussion, not me.   Ask him.

But lets see, using your logic,  if I approve of murder and you don't, you should just be quiet about it and let me kill because I think its ok and its none of your business?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

Yep, and its not to MAKE law,   that is the job of the legislative branch.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Marriage Equality will become the universal law of the Land and requires no Amendment.
> 
> Christians indeed are split on the issue.
> 
> ...


 

your arrogance is noted.  your attempt at humor is also noted.

What this thread proves is that gay marriage is a very divisive issue in this country.   It also proves that we spend way too much time on social issues and not nearly enough of fiscal issues.

I think is also demonstrates how the left hides the important issues under issues such as gay marriage and abortion.  If they keep us focused on those minor things, then we ignore the real failures of liberalism that are damaging our nation and causing the mess that we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

isnt adorable how the opposition brays incessantly over "says you!" and "you're citing yourself as an authority", even as THEY SAY as they are implying themselves as an authority?

Pitiful...


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

Luddly Neddite said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


To be gay is to be happy....You are not gay you are a homosexual which is a sexual perversion and NO perversions are protected under the constitution. You pathetic need to normalize your perversion has allowed fascism to spread. No one cares that you are sexually sick no one asked.


----------



## danielpalos (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



diversions for your allegedly "gospel Truth" Cause?

I make a motion that marriage as the joining of One Man and One Woman be reserved to Religion and a Deaconate.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


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?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


How many of those states were forced through judicial tyranny to except these laws?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Which USMB members are you accusing of pedophilia?
> ...


So let me be clear.  You are accusing homosexuals (consenting adults) of sexual deviancy that is no different than raping little children.  You are equating consensual sex between adults of the same sex with raping children.    Do I have that right?   If so I assume you want the punishment for being gay to be the death sentence or something similar to coincide with the violence of the rape of little children.  Correct?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


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..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


ROFLMNAO!

Now how precious is THAT?  A Relativist harping that the Framers of the Consitution rejecting RELIGION despite The free exercise of Religion being the FIRST PRIORITY IN RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

LOL!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.  The SCOTUS has already ruled that life is a right guaranteed by the constitution and that marriage is a part of life.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish is melting.
> ...


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


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> incorrect post accreditation said:
> 
> 
> > its really marriage equality.
> ...


I did not say it's really marriage equality.  Luddy said that.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage Equality will become the universal law of the Land and requires no Amendment.
> ...


No.  What this thread proves is that you are a divisive bigoted jerk.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a right- a fundamental right and a Constitutional right.

That you chose to not believe the Supreme Court is just your own personal choice- but legally irrational- since you have prattled on about 'precedent' and the precedent has been established that marriage is a right.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether that right applies to same gender couples. 


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

*Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur


"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"*


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What I find very troublesome is your insistence that a marriage of a gay couple not be called a marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Regardless of how the court rules on same gender marriage, sibling marriage will still be illegal.

However, you have the legal right to go to court to make your case on why you believe you have the Constitutional right to marry your sibling. 

It is as unrelated to 'gay marriage' as is 'mixed race marriage'.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > ACLU does lots of cases that fail, and this one will also.
> ...



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?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


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



ROFLMNAO!

_I *SO* adore the sweeter *ironies.*_


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



#1:  Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

#2:   Uh... Oh *Wait.    #1 Covered it.*


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Except marriage is also the joining of one man and one man or one woman and one woman in 37 of 50 States. 

Ignoring reality doesn't change reality. And same sex marriage is reality.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


#1: Heterosexual Marriage is the Joining of a man and a woman.
#2: Same Sex Marriage is the Joining of two consenting adults of the same sex.
#3: Asshole - Where_r_my_Keys


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now Redfish is babbling about incestuous 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.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am not going to change what I believe because some bozo tells me I have to. .
> ...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Same gender couples have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.  

What you're trying to do is to claim a right, in the absence of a responsibility.  
Be advised: Absent correlating responsibility, there is no potential for a right.

The Law of Nature, requires that to claim the right of marriage, that at the minimum one marry a person of distinct gender.  We know this by virtue of the design intrinsic to human physiology, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct but complimenting genders, with each, respectively, designed to join with the other, at which point to bodies join as one.  Marriage is the legal extension of that design.

That you simply refuse to accept that very real, inarguable natural fact, does not alter reality, or the truth demonstrated by that reality.

Now... does that help in any way, at all?


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



We're still on this red herring?


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Same gender couples have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.
> 
> What you're trying to do is to claim a right, in the absence of a responsibility.
> Be advised: Absent correlating responsibility, there is no potential for a right.



Gays and lesbians have all the responsibilities of marriage as straights in the 37 of 50 States where their marriages are recognized. Nullifying your argument.



> The Law of Nature, requires that to claim the right of marriage, that at the minimum one marry a person of distinct gender.



Nature doesn't have a thing to say about marriage, as there is no marriage in nature. There's fucking in nature. They aren't the same thing. Marriage is our social construct. It means whatever we say it means.

And in 37 of 50 States, it includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.



> We know this by virtue of the design intrinsic to human physiology, wherein nature designed humanity with two distinct but complimenting genders, with each, respectively, designed to join with the other, at which point to bodies join as one.  Marriage is the legal extension of that design.



You are again describing fucking. Not marriage. Marriage doesn't require children nor the ability to have them. Not a single couple is denied marriage because they can not or do not have children. Not in any state.

Making it explicitly irrational to exclude gays based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one.



> That you simply refuse to accept that very real, inarguable natural fact, does not alter reality, or the truth demonstrated by that reality.



Your subjective opinion is neither 'intrinsic' nor 'inarguable'. Its merely your relativistic beliefs based on whatever assumptions you choose to follow. Back in reality, marriage is what we say it is. And nature has not a thing to say on the topic as nature has no marriage.

Ending your irrational and illogical argument yet again.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



OH!  So you're saying that the LAW precludes that Incest is ILLEGAL, specifically to avoid the immorality of such, due to the potential for genetic catastrophe, and the burden that such places upon the culture.

Meaning; that where we use your own stated perverse reasoning, that where the APA takes a _'vote'_ and, through that _vote_ erases the natural certainties of genetic catastrophe inevitable in incest; as the APA did when it _'voted' to erase the mental disorder that presents with sexual deviancy,_ which was used to legalize sodomy... _that you'll have no choice but to fully support Marriage between Blood Relatives.
_
Which can only mean that when the APA determines that _'some children may actually benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult'_, that you'll fully support the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, when the_ 'vote'_ of the APA is used to legalize pedophilia, as did the 'vote' of the APA, where it was used to legalize the pursuit of sexual gratification with individuals of the same gender.

OH!  Now _that's fascinating._


----------



## hazlnut (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...




Penis and anus get the conservative base ginned up.


Sex sells.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> 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.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish is melting.
> ...


Nope, because as you have been shown up, your argument fails.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

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.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

hazlnut said:


> Penis and anus get the conservative base ginned up. ...



Oh now THAT is SUCH a WONDERFUL demonstration of the innate shame common to sexual deviancy; wherein the advocate of the normalization of sexual deviancy comes to shame those who stand in contest of that idiocy, by claiming them affiliated with their advocacy, thus draping its opposition in the shame for that which it advises the readers on this board, represents no shame at all.

Understand, that it's the INSTINCT, which drove it to make the above cited comment.  Much as is the case in adolescents when the subject of homosexuality comes up, they instinctively recognize such as being _WRONG._


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Well you have just made the start of the case against polygamous marriage. 

And as you so well point out- has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

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.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

And Redfish and Keys gleefully continue air hammering in the sand box.

No, Marriage Equality is not the most important issue in America.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?
> 
> To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:
> 
> ...


This is _adorably _ironic.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> 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 (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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 (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Gays and lesbians have all the responsibilities of marriage as straights
> ...



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 fucking 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 (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?
> 
> To defeat a Leftist in debate, one merely need adhere to two fundamental points:
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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 (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Obsession?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



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 (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Reader, do you SEE how easy this is?
> ...


With himself as the Authority.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> 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 (May 14, 2015)

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 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

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


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

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


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

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 (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> 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 (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


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


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> 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 (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


That is your opinion and has no force of law.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Pretty much every small restaurant I go to has a 'unisex restroom'- heck we have one in our own home. 

Somehow we survive that indignity.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

The indignity of it all!


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I would  not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals,   would you?  

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.  

Gay marriage:   the union of two people of the same sex
sibling marriage:  the union of two people of the same sex

exactly what is the difference in your small mind?


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Always. And regardless of the topic. I've seen Keyes ignore the dictionary on the meaning of words. Or the Supreme Court on issues of constitutionality. Hell, Keyes will ignore nature on nature if its inconvenient to his argument. 

Its the same silly fallacy every time. And as consistently invalid each time Keyes clings to it.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

do you go in one at a time or all together?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Why would you do such a thing, you pervert?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Keys' is Silhouette's minion, nothing more.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

great, thats what you support,   are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

duh, you were advocating unisex restrooms,  I guess you are the pervert.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> 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.



And you're basing that upon what?  SPECIFICALLY?

It's already been established that the cult which claims such has demanded their RIGHT to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.  

What evidence do you have that you will not at some point find yourself in a contest with one of these individuals advancing their perverse understanding which set YOU as _'inconvenient', *thus worthy of destruction?*_

Or are you telling the board, that you recognize in the cult, the right to destroy YOU, when should you become inconvenient?

Please be specific in your response.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


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



More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young. Would then predation on the sick, elderly or children by 'natural law'? Of course not. You don't like the idea so you reject it. As you do any aspect of nature you don't like. *Any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already belief is dismissed. *

Demonstrating elegantly that its not nature that is your basis of 'the laws of nature'.  What you already believe is your basis. *And that's just plain old confirmation bias. *Where you ignore what you don't believe and only acknowledge what you agree with. . And then conclude that since you ignored everything that contradicts you, nothing contradicts you.

If only reality worked that way. Your process is an illogical, self contradictory mess. Where you keep arguing your subjective personal opinion is objective truth. And it isn't.

* Subjective is not objective.* Nor does cherry picking 'observations of nature' translate into 'the laws of nature'. Its merely cherry picking based on what you already believe. And your belief establishes no laws. Nor defines anything but your relativistic personal opinion.

Destroying your 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy even hypothetically.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Reader, let the Record reflect that the would-be _'contributor', Skylar... _has finally attempted to sustain her feelings from the post cited below, _for your convenience:_



Skylar said:


> 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.



Skylar said:



			More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young.
		
Click to expand...

_
Reader, note that as a means to deflect from the laws of nature governing HUMAN BEHAVIOR... the Relativist has run to note the laws of nature governing the lower species, specifically with regard to culling the sick and otherwise disadvantaged from the herd and sustaining themselves, through the sustenance designed for them... by nature.

Therein AGAIN rejecting those laws.  Even as it unwittingly cites such... in its own argument.

Of course, in having deflected from the point, it fails to sustain her, now finally refuted argument, wherein she demanded that a fallacious construct was present in the argument which she opposed *SPECIFICALLY *_ON THAT GROUND_.
_
And in so doing she has conceded that argument to me.

Thus the concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Reader, let the Record reflect that the would-be _'contributor', Skylar... _has yet to find the means to sustain her feelings from the post cited below, for your convenience:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've already started spamming? Next comes your bizarre summary declatations of victory as you run. And then abandoning the topic.

You're nothing if not predictable. And for your convenience, here's better logic and better reasoning that decimates both your confirmation bias, your cherry picking, and your appeal to authority fallacies:

"_More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young. Would then predation on the sick, elderly or children by 'natural law'? Of course not. You don't like the idea so you reject it. As you do any aspect of nature you don't like. *Any portion of nature that doesn't match what you already belief is dismissed. *

Demonstrating elegantly that its not nature that is your basis of 'the laws of nature'.  What you already believe is your basis. *And that's just plain old confirmation bias. *Where you ignore what you don't believe and only acknowledge what you agree with. . And then conclude that since you ignored everything that contradicts you, nothing contradicts you.

If only reality worked that way. Your process is an illogical, self contradictory mess. Where you keep arguing your subjective personal opinion is objective truth. And it isn't.

* Subjective is not objective.* Nor does cherry picking 'observations of nature' translate into 'the laws of nature'. Its merely cherry picking based on what you already believe. And your belief establishes no laws. Nor defines anything but your relativistic personal opinion.

Destroying your 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy even hypothetically."_

Ignore as you will. But the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Silo will offer us pseudo-legal gibberish or hallucinations he claims are from studies. But at least he's giving lip service to the law, lip service to studies. 

Keyes just cites himself. He claims to speak for nature, god, the English language, the dictionary, 'objective truth', or any other appeal to authority fallacy he can imagine. And each time its just his own subjective personal opinion.

Subjective is not objective. This simple axiom obliterates virtually every fallacy Keyes offers.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Fallacy of _keys' fabula_


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Prima Feces?


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You seem oddly curious as to bathroom habits. 

Do you have separate gender specific bathrooms at your house?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> You've already started spamming? Next comes your bizarre summary declatations of victory as you run. And then abandoning the topic.[sic]



And as the planet must rotate, the Relativist must reject the argument, through the pretense that such simply does not exist... turning instead to pretense that the argument exists only in the individual bringing the argument, as such is meets their own shallow, which is to say their subjective needs, offering, quite by default, the lowly RE-Concession to the points it sought to contest, but which continue to stand, wholly unscathed.

I republish those point below, for the benefit of the reader: 



Skylar said:


> 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.



Skylar said:



			More accurately, I reject you as the authoritative arbiter of the 'laws of nature'. As you don't actually use nature as the basis of your argument. You use yourself. Let me demonstrate:

You claim that observations of nature are the basis of your 'laws of nature'. In nature, there's rampant predation of the sick, the elderly, the young.
		
Click to expand...

_
Reader, note that as a means to deflect from the laws of nature governing HUMAN BEHAVIOR... the Relativist has run to note the laws of nature governing the lower species, specifically with regard to culling the sick and otherwise disadvantaged from the herd and sustaining themselves, through the sustenance designed for them... by nature.

Therein AGAIN rejecting those laws.  Even as it unwittingly cites such... in its own argument.

Of course, in having deflected from the point, it fails to sustain her, now finally refuted argument, wherein she demanded that a fallacious construct was present in the argument which she opposed *SPECIFICALLY *_ON THAT GROUND_.
_
And in so doing she has conceded that argument to me.

Thus the concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Oh, to the quick.   Key's Fabula Pro Prima Feces.

The dodo must be a pastor/instructor at some bubble gum bible college.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



My guess is that Redfish does not.  Because bathrooms in one's home, are to be used within the strict purpose of the rules of the household require; which in this instance is a home that does not recognize gender neutrality and does respect the natural distinctions, which establish the natural boundaries, regarding gender.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people. 

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL......so many weird things about your posts. I can only assume you have never been a parent.

What do you think fathers do when their 3 year old girls need to use the bathroom? Do you think that the father's take their girls into the women's room- or that they take their girls into the men's room?

Little boys get taken into women's restrooms and little girls get taken into men's restrooms all the time. Somehow civilization survives. 

And really- have you never been in a ladies restroom? They actually have stalls......

Why this obsession with bathrooms now, I don't know....but your thread about no longer talking about gay marriage is getting more and more bizarre.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

of course, we were taliking about public restrooms, not the ones in your home.  and not the small ones in small restaurants.  

come on libs,   remember restrooms in schools, airports, shopping centers.   Do you really want them to be unisex?


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

first,  go fuck yourself.

I am a parent to two fine upstanding, successful adults.  But thats none of your business.

yes, when my kids were little we had to sometimes take them to the opposite sex restroom,  but only when they were too small go go on their own.

as to why this thread got off track onto restrooms,   ask your libtardian friends,   they started that line of discussion, not me.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I recognize your point, but I should be noted that the Left is not expressing anything remotely AKIN to 'rule by Minority dictate... it is fraudulently advancing the deceit that Sexual Deviancy is widely ENDORSED by the majority.

We know this as fact, by their incessant desire to prop up the judicial fiat, stripping the legislatively passed law, by a tiny judicial minority, SPECIFICALLY AND WHOLLY DECEITFULLY representing such as THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THOSE HALLOWED *'37 States'. 

Rest assured, that where they were to find power, they would assume the power of the majority, without regard to the enumeration of their support... and they will have no concern for the will of those who oppose them, OKA: The Minority.

As such is the nature of Relativism; which is to say that such is the nature of evil.

And this due to it's own nature to reject the objectivity that is otherwise essential to the recognition of, the truth.*


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL.....

Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?

The 'right' are not anymore willing to let the 'people' decide when they disagree with the people than the left.

The 'right' are just as quick to go to court to fight laws they disagree with(gun laws, campaign finance laws) as the 'left' are.
The 'right' are just as quick to ignore the 'will' of the people when they disagree with it(see the Right's reaction to State laws legalizing marijuana)

Both sides believe in Freedom, Democracy, and the Constitution- and both sides fight for what they believe is Freedom, Democracy and the Constitution. 

Both sides claim to represent the people- and generally ignore the people when they disagree with them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Is Keys' allowed in public?  Is all of this nonsense coming out of the basement or the closet?


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

So gay marriage will now lead to people peeing together...

Do these nut cases listen to themselves?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> So gay marriage will now lead to people peeing together...
> 
> Do these nut cases listen to themselves?


It's part of _Keys' Fabula Prop Prime Feces_ argument into which Redfish has swallowed hook and sinker.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> So gay marriage...



*Marriage*, _is the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > You've already started spamming? Next comes your bizarre summary declatations of victory as you run. And then abandoning the topic.[sic]
> ...



Well at least you finally addressed the shredding of your fallacy rather than simply repeating it. That's progress of a sort, I guess.

And there is no marriage in nature. What you're describing is fucking. You falsely equate them. Fucking is not marriage. Nor marriage fucking. Marriage is a social construct and means what we say it means.

*In 37 of 50 state it includes a man and a man. And a woman and a woman.* Marriage doesn't require children, nor the ability to have them. As no one is excluded from marriage for being unable to have kids. Not one person.

Why then would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? Obviously, we wouldn't. And in 37 of 50 States, we don't.



> Therein AGAIN rejecting those laws.



There is no 'law of nature of marriage'. You've made it up, citing only yourself. Nature doesn't have marriage. Thus, you're not citing nature nor any observation of nature. You're citing your personal opinion.

And you citing yourself establishes no 'laws' nor anything objective. Merely your subjective beliefs.

Subjective is not objective, Keyes. You can't get around that.



> Of course, in having deflected from the point, it fails to sustain her, now finally refuted argument, wherein she demanded that a fallacious construct was present in the argument which she opposed *SPECIFICALLY *_ON THAT GROUND_.



The lack of marriage in nature destroys your entire argument. And your dismissal of any portion of nature that doesn't affirm your beliefs destroys your appeal to authority. As your version of the 'laws of nature' are nothing but generic Confirmation Bias.

Yet another fallacy of logic. If not for fallacies, your posts would be little more than a date stamp.



> _And in so doing she has conceded that argument to me.
> 
> Thus the concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._



And exactly as predicted....first comes the spamming. Then comes the bizarre summary declarations of victory. Next is the scrambling rout as you flee the topic with your tail between your legs, refusing to discuss your claims or the fallacies they're based on.

The reader should note I could set my watch to his routs.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No- once again- it was you who brought up restrooms


_Poster:
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... 

Redfish:
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._


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state)  voted against gay marriage twice.   why were those people not allowed to decide?  why was the will of the people ignored?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > So gay marriage...
> ...


It's one form of it, yes.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > So gay marriage...
> ...



And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

I was using that as an analogy.   sorry if it was over your head.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Because SCOTUS decided the people of California violated the Constitution.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL.....
> 
> Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?



Define: The -far- right.

I asked, because, in reality, thus in truth... there is no such thing as a 'far' right.  And this is because one either recognizes, respects, defends and adheres to, the laws of nature governing human behavior, or one does not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Keys, once again, you are no more an authority on these issues than is Howdy Doody.  You have your say, and that is yhe extent of it.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state)  voted against gay marriage twice.   why were those people not allowed to decide?  why was the will of the people ignored?



Nope. As rights aren't up to a vote. And same sex marriage bans violated the 14th amendment's equal protectio clause. Read up on Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Rights trump state power.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


 

it may be, and our society will have to live with that decision and accept the consequences of it.  

Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm.    reducing the tax burden is a valid reason to get married.

you libs have made your case that marriage does not have to involve sex,  so there ya go.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state)  voted against gay marriage twice.   why were those people not allowed to decide?  why was the will of the people ignored?
> ...


 

Rights were, and are,  established by votes, ya dumb shit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Because SCOTUS decided the people of California violated the Constitution.



ROFLMNAO!

Sweet mother... The ignorance is strong in this one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

"Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm" is a fallacy of defective comparison.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.....
> ...



Your opinion doesn't define the 'laws of nature governing human behavior'. But merely your subjective beliefs.

Sorry, keyes....but doubling down on the Appeal to Authority fallacy doesn't magically make it something other than a fallacy.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys, once again, you are no more an authority on these issues than is Howdy Doody.  You have your say, and that is yhe extent of it.


 

and your  authority comes from ---------------------  clarabell  or Mr green jeans?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Because SCOTUS decided the people of California violated the Constitution.
> ...


Oh sweet irony! 

And CA would pass it today.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> "Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm" is a fallacy of defective comparison.


 

watch and learn.    people will do almost anything to reduce their tax bills.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Keys, once again, you are no more an authority on these issues than is Howdy Doody.  You have your say, and that is yhe extent of it.
> ...


See, you are back to personal opinion as authority.  There is no way you or Clarabell Keys is going wiggle out of this.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

if you think that,  let them vote.     lets let the people speak.    lets vote in every state.    I would accepth that,   would you?


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. As sibling marriage is illegal regardless of the court's ruling, being pristinely irrelevant to it. 

If your argument against same sex marriage had merit you wouldn't have had to abandon discussion of same sex marriage and cling to your red herring. 

Remember that.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

both sides are expressing opinions,     WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And there is no marriage in nature. ...




LOL!  

Reader, do you follow this whiplash laden screed, wherein the would-be 'contributor' simultaneously rejects the laws of nature, cites the laws of nature, but only as such governs the lower animals... then comes to inform you that Humanity does not exist in nature.

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this stuff up!

Can you IMAGINE the braying of discontent had I advanced the idea that The Ideological Left rejected the reality that humanity existed in nature?

LMAO!

Yet, there it is... demanding precisely that, all as a means to escape the unenviable consequences of its own fatally flawed, wholly perverse reasoning.


----------



## Redfish (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

why would you make same sex sibling marriage illegal?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. ...



ROFLMNAO! 

Reader, recognize the perversion of reasoning which brought us: _"National Socialism is not socialism."_



Skylar said:


> ... Same sex sibling marriage ...



*Marriage*,_ is the Joining of One Man and One Woman._


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And there is no marriage in nature. ...
> ...



And yet despite that manic orgy of caps lock and exclamation points, there is still no marriage in nature. 

Destroying your entire 'natural law' argument regarding marriage.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Your opinion doesn't define the 'laws of nature governing human behavior'.



Did anyone see me claim that my opinion defined the laws of nature?

.

.

.


Anyone?

.

.

.

_Anyone at all?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And yet despite that manic orgy of caps lock and exclamation points, there is still no marriage in nature.



LOL!

Once again the would-be 'contributor', a Relativist, must remove humanity from nature, to have any hope of sustaining it's fatally flawed rationalization.

ROFL!  _Adorable..._


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. ...
> ...



....and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman.

Again, you can deny reality. But reality doesn't actually change. And same sex marriage is a reality in 37 of 50 States.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why do you ask? 

You were the one who brought up restrooms.

You were the one who was horrified by the idea of taking little girls into men's restrooms- until you admitted you had done the same thing.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And yet despite that manic orgy of caps lock and exclamation points, there is still no marriage in nature.
> ...



And once again, you don't even disagree with me. There is no marriage in nature. Making a natural law of marriage an impossibility. 

You're stuck, Keyes. We invented marriage. And it is whatever we say it is.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Homosexuals are sinners.  That is a fact.  Whether that bugs you is your issue not Christians. Unlike Muslims Christians don't kill homosexuals. They just don't support sin. Stop acting like a child and suck it up.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Let me get this straight.  Only 2 percent of potential sibling couples are gay... 98 percent of all potential sibling couples are heterosexual.  Heterosexual couples have been allowed to get married.  Now gays will be allowed to get married.  If the 98 percent of marriages that are heterosexual did not lead to incest, why is the 2 percent of marriages that are same sex going to lead to incest?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


ROFL Who made you god?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



False.

You see, Nature defines Marriage through its design of the human species.  Wherein Nature designed the human physiology with two distinct, but complimenting genders; with each respectively designed to join with the other.

In this we know the purpose of the genders, thus the purpose for the legal joining of two individuals, one male, one female, in legal terms, so as to provide the highest of probabilities that the offspring intrinsic to such, will be well rounded, sound and capable of repeating the process, thus assuring the viability of the species.

It is through the obtuse deceit intrinsic to your perverse reasoning, that we can know that your would-be _'design', will assure inviability for the species.  

But to be perfectly honest, _there are no notions which have been cultivated by Relativism, which have not resulted in chaos, calamity and catastrophe... thus assuring us, that Relativism is... the means by which evil is advanced.

Of course you're invited to offer some examples of what you feel Relativism; which is to say subjectivism of every stripe: from Left-think on the whole to it's countless facets among which are 'liberalism, progressivism, socialism, communism... etc...,  has grown, which has not lead to individual and collective disaster.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Funny, cuz my arguments are those used by same sex marriage proponents. 

Ya know what that means, right?

Who's side are you on anyway?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No.  Incest is not the same as gay marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What's incest?  Two people not having sex?

What are you, 106?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Maybe you should read the word of God instead of sucking penis and you might learn something


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


They are both perverse and sins against nature.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



ROFLMNAO!  

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

The would-be 'contributor' NEEDS to maintain its addled 'belief' that humanity does NOT EXIST: _*IN NATURE!*_

LOL!   This drivel rests upon the same intellectual ground as 'WeeCatcher' recently advised us... _"2+2 does not always equal 4". 
_
Proving once again that the key to defeating Leftists in debate, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a leftist.

2- Get them to speak.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You don't know what incest is?  

Here:

Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry.  (Websters)

Here's the "legal" definition:
Laws vary by state, but generally, a person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately: His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood.  In some states incest also includes copulation or cohabitation between first cousins, but the majority of jurisdictions permit marriage between such cousins. Incest is a crime in all states, even if consensual by both parties. However, it is often related to sexual abuse since usually the younger person is a victim of the predatory sexual activities of an older relative. Statutes generally do not require the perpetrator to be a certain number of years older than the victim. Victims of incest and sexual abuse are strongly encouraged to talk to an adult they trust to protect themselves and others from further abuse and take advantage of the many resources available to help them heal. (Incest Law Legal Definition


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Who's this nature person?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


You think you're clever.  You are not .


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


I'm a heterosexual christian. I've read the bible many times over.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Yes, I am.  I have an IQ that would give you a nose bleed if you could only fathom it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Friend, it would serve no purpose for these creatures to read the word of God, as they do not possess the spirit which is essential to seeing truth.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Obviously you didn't comprehend it


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Sure I did.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Says you. See, Keyes....you just keep citing yourself as some sort of authority. And you're nobody.* I'm citing the situation as it is. And you keep denying reality.* Pretending that if you deny hard enough, that gays won't be getting married in 37 of 50 States.

Alas, reality is gloriously independent of your wants or desires. And same sex marriages are being performed hundreds, if not thousands of times a day.

And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's how irrelevant you are to this process.



> You see, Nature defines Marriage through its design of the human species.  Wherein Nature designed the human physiology with two distinct, but complimenting genders; with each respectively designed to join with the other.



Nope. We define marriage. As we invented it. Nature has nothing to say on the matter, as there is no marriage in nature.

Your version of the 'laws of nature' are just a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy, with you insisting your every subjective opinion must be objective natural law.

Nope. *Subjective is not objective.* You can't get around that.



> In this we know the purpose of the genders, thus the purpose for the legal joining of two individuals, one male, one female, in legal terms, so as to provide the highest of probabilities that the offspring intrinsic to such, will be well rounded, sound and capable of repeating the process, thus assuring the viability of the species.



You're describing fucking. Not marriage. No matter how much you ignore this fact, they two still aren't the same thing. Fucking happens regardless of marriage. Nor does marriage require procreation or the ability to procreate.

0 of 50 States require a couple procreate or be able to procreate to marry. Your 'defining standard' simply doesn't exist. Not in our laws. Not in nature.

Its just you, citing you. And you're nobody.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Yes, I am.  I have an IQ that would give you a nose bleed if you could only fathom it.



Yes... the quantum verse _is_ largely a mystery.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nope- your arguments are those used by those who oppose same sex marriage- i.e.- same sex marriage opens the doors to brothers marrying brothers.

Here let me help you:
There is no compelling state interest in preventing homosexuals from marrying.

If you cannot find a compelling state interest in preventing a brother from marrying a sterile sister, then you lack an argument irrespective of 'gay marriage'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Nothing with me.  Opinions are like butts, we all got one.  Keys' thinks is crap is authoritative is his his problem.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Really after all these years you still haven't figured that out?

I refer you to the decision by Judge Walker, affirmed by the Federal Appeals Court, and left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court

I also refer you to Loving v. Virginia- another case where the 'will of the people' was ignored.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Everyone's got one. And most are completely full of shit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Says you.



False...  As it is Nature which says it, through the design it set froth upon human physiology.  That I recognize and report such, hardly provides that I am Nature, thus such is my design.

But, I should point out that were I Nature and, such were of my _design_, you'd have no more success sustaining the pretense that such doesn't exist, than you've had pretending that Nature does not exist.  As Nature does exist, therefore the laws which govern such do exist and within the scope of that, is the standard of Marriage, which require that Marriage is: The Joining of One Man and One Woman.  This as a result of the natural design of the human species; wherein it provides two distinct, but complimenting gender, wherein each respectively, joins with the other,  forming one sustainable body, from two.  

As with most things in nature, there is nothing complex about any of it.  

It is merely sufficiently so to be well beyond your limited intellectual means.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


There is no marriage in natural law, and you are not God's authority on earth.

Scamper along.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yet- you blamed 'libs' for bringing restrooms into the thread- but it was you. 

If you don't want to talk about restrooms in this thread- don't post about them- and then keep arguing about them.
If you don't want to talk about gay marriage anymore- then stop posting about gay marriage.

And stop blaming 'libs' for your own posts.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



So, your OK with same sex heterosexual sibling marrying. 

Got it

And I might add, if you want me to, I can dig up a definition of Marriage that banned same sex couples from marrying. So I guess, using your argument, we should leave marriage as it was????

I'm also a bit concerned with your obsession with other people's relationships.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Who can't fathom a nose bleed?


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



If that is your dream, you can of course pursue that through legislation or the courts- but it is totally unrelated to 'gay marriage', just as straight marriage is unrelated to opposite sex sibling marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Redfish always gets more pottymouthed as his bizarre claims are refuted so soundly.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Why would you claim he would.

Sibling marriage is illegal.

Why would you make it legal?


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Works for both, but only after SSM is codified.

Civil rights are civil rights, Right?


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



What compelling state interest is there in denying a same sex heterosexual couple the rights and benefits of marriage. 

Watch her run in 3...,.2......1.........


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


That is for you to show.  Get to it.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Says you.
> ...



Nope. That's you citing yourself, pretending to be nature. Nature doesn't have marriage. Making a 'natural law of marriage' is an impossibility. It would be like the 'natural law of sheet folding'. Nature doesn't have bed sheets either. Nature has fucking. You say that marriage must adhere to the rules of procreation.

Again, nope.* There's no such mandate.* You've imagined it. Marriage doesn't have to be about procreation as demonstrated by all the infertile couples getting married. No state in the union requires a couple to be able to procreate to get married.

*Not one. *

You simply don't know what you're talking about. 



> But, I should point out that were I Nature and, such were of my _design_, you'd have no more success sustaining the pretense that such doesn't exist, than you've had pretending that Nature does not exist.



*Rejecting you isn't rejecting 'nature'. As you're not nature. *You're just just schmo on the internet that keeps insisting that his subjective personal opinion is objective 'natural law'. 

Nope. That's just a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy. In reality its just you citing you. 

And you're nobody.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If they are non familial, they can civilly marry. If they are related by blood, they already have the familial protections gays seek through civil marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Civil Rights are civil rights- and States can only deny rights with a compelling cause.

If you do not know of any compelling state interest in preventing siblings from marrying, then you have no argument, regardless of Same Sex marriage.

Look to Massachusetts- SSM has been legal for 11 years- no sibling marriage there.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



A same sex heterosexual couple is treated no differently under the law as a same sex homosexual couple- in 37 states it is perfectly legal for them to marry.

So back to my question- why would you make sibling marriage legal? 

I look forward to watching you run from that question.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I think my argument is that there isn't a compelling state intetest. It's the same for same sex marriage, Right?

Funny, we are on the same side of this argument and you seem a bit peaved. Why? Shouldn't we be walking shoulder to shoulder, fighting for civil rights for all?


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


When are you filing and where? I'd like to follow your case.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



With same sex marriage being codified I see no compelling state interest in denying same sex heterosexual siblings the rights and benefits of marriage? You?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


If you think so, then send it on to your Congressman.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Send it on to your Congressman.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Can't, I'm married. 

But just because I am doesn't mean we can't walk shoulder to shoulder for CIVIL RIGHTS!

You in, or are the only rights your concerned about are your own?

Honestly, it's understandable, it's the "I got mine, screw you" attitude that's so prevalent these days.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Now you are trolling, Pop.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why, isn't Civil rights more of a USSC's problem?


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Now you are trolling, Pop.



Here, and I thought we were both fighting for civil rights?


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you don't see one, then the lack of one exists in your mind whether or not gays civilly marry. One has nothing to do with the other. 

You know...when the 14th amendment was being debated, a guy warned it would lead to interracial marriage. He was right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now you are trolling, Pop.
> ...


You will have to fight for incestous marriage, and we will oppose you.

That's how it works.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That wasn't my question- once again:

So back to my question- why would you make sibling marriage legal?


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You're pushing for it so you must care a great deal for some reason other than anti gay bigotry, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


woo hoo!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Why are you starting in with the effing LIES AGAIN?  Why do you feel like you need to make shit up? I already said I'm against incest.  Try to keep up.

Change you can believe in? REALLY you're gonna make out like one change is the same as another change?  You think cause we let gays get married MURDERERS ARE GONNA DEMAND THAT WE CHANGE MURDER LAWS TOO? Your argument is ludicrous.   You and Scalia are two peas in a pod this week.

Are you against defending people from harm?  Yes or no?


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So, is two heterosexual siblings marrying for financial reasons, incest?

Your obsession with heterosexual siblings not having sex is worrisome. 

Do you find them not having sex, kinky, icky or both?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Incorrect sentence parsing. Try again.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, I think it's a great idea. When are you filing your case? Good luck.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yes, I want nothing more than civil rights for those that there are no compelling rights to deny these fine folks from the cash bonanza that every American deserves!

Yes, I know I'm sounding like a Patriot!

Fine, color me guilty!

Freedom for heterosexual sibling couples!


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Again, married.

Edited to add:

So far we have Seawytch, Ravi and PaintMyHouse on board now?

Tagging you three cuz I do not want to misrepresent your positions

So same sex heterosexual sibling marriage is approved by you guys, with RKM expressing a nagging reluctance to the pre SSM codification.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Anyone can claim anything. Not very convicted to your pet cause. Probably because it's just a bigoted anti gay slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Perhaps you're referring to Civil Incorporation, wherein any number of individuals can join together as one legal entity, for any legal purpose.  Which can and IS many things, _none of which_ is 'marriage'.

If that if is to what you're referring, I happily join you.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So you are good with incest, got it.  You don't give a shit about the harm caused to younger siblings by older siblings who use their influence over their younger siblings to force them to have sex with them, even force them to marry them using said family bond influence.  Got it.  WOW  I think we should send some reporters over your house to let you to make these claims on National TV.  After-all you've got some incest to promote.  Do you have a book coming out too explaining how to force your little brother to marry you?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


Not anymore it isn't, and I'm very pleased for our gay citizens.  Equality should always trump tradition, and homophobes like you.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Marriage = Sex. Ok got it

What kind of sex must be performed during marriage? Once you quit having sex must you get a divorce?

Exactly how does one prove they are having sex? Daily trips to the clerk of courts? Is there like a marriage court witness? On busy days do they get combat pay?

No wonder there's so many Viagra commercials, it's the continuous requirement for sex to keep your license current?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


No Marriage does not equal sex.  Why you have to keep making shit up?  Were you born a liar or does it come with practice?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Sex happens outside of marriage, Pop.

Marriage is what the secular law in the USA says it is, Keys.

Your opinions are noted and dismissed.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor Pop.

Still trying to figure out some argument that suddenly makes sibling marriage become magically legal if same gender couples have the same right to marry as opposite gender couple.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Poor idiot progressive who thinks he is the one fighting for freedom. Tell me what does it feel like to be a fascists bitch?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2015)

It's both interesting and telling that the issue of same-sex couples accessing marriage law became an issue as a consequence of the ignorance and hate of the right, the very people who whine about it being an issue now.

Indeed, had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment from the outset, and allowed same-sex couples to access marriage law they eligible to participate in, this wouldn't be an 'issue' at all.

The OP and others on the social right have only themselves to blame.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Given your posting history – including this post – you're in no position to call anyone else an 'idiot.'


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...



Marriage has always has been the Joining of One Man and One Woman and Marriage always will be the Joining of One man and One Woman.  

And that is without regard to what twisted cult did what in the pretense of such, throughout the history of twisted, dying cultures.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I really can't speak for your experiences.

What does it feel like to be a fascists bitch?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> So you are good with incest, got it.  You don't give a shit about the harm caused to younger siblings by older siblings who use their influence over their younger siblings to force them to have sex with them,...



ROFLMNAO!  This from a professed advocate of the normalization of sexual abnormality; which is not only harmful to the individual deluded by the mental disorder that presents sexual deviancy, but to the people who buy the nonsense that such is normal and that it is merely a personal choice.

I mean think about, in the span of a decade, we have gone from laws which overtly forbid sexual deviancy, to the fraudulent perception that such is endorsed by a majority of citizens. 

Proving that the entire thing IS A LIE, being advanced as TRUTH.  And advancing deceit as truth is always harmful... to the person doing it and the person fraudulently influenced by such.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)




----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

They will just get more shrill the closer we get to June gay weddings....


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Your the one that assumes that two heterosexual siblings would have sex when they got married, not me. 

You even supplied the classic definition of incest to back up your warped view of this brave new world of ours once same sex marriage is codified. 

So, according to that definition, our Society MUST be protected from same sex HETEROSEXUAL sibling marriage because:

A. Same sex Heterosexual siblings cannot have defective children, since they don't have children. 

AND

B. We must protect a submissive younger heterosexual sibling from being bullied into NOT having sex with their older domanant same sex, HETEROSEXUAL sibling. 

Yep, that's nutz


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm still trying to figure out what the problem is with the idea that one same sex heterosexual sibling would somehow bully it's other heterosexual same sex sibling into not having sex?

You know, sometimes I take for granted that people know things that should be common knowledge, but maybe I assume to much. So just to be clear, heterosexuals don't have sex with the same gender. 

Hope that helps cuz, you folks are a bit slow.


----------



## Seawytch (May 14, 2015)

Pops next argument...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It's both interesting and telling that the issue of same-sex couples accessing marriage law became an issue as a consequence of the ignorance and hate of the right,...



ROFL!

DELUSION  . . . P E R S O N I F I E D ! 

(See the deceit Reader?  It's embedded in them... there is no way that they can stop themselves, because they're incapable of honesty.  Such is the nature of Relativism; therefore _such is the nature of *Evil*._)


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Really? I'm currently arguing with another poster that apparently thinks same gender sex can produce children. 

AND

That a heterosexual older brother bullying his same sex younger brother INTO NOT HAVING SEX TOGETHER MUST BE A BAD THING.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pops next argument...



Nope, I've actually chided others for trying that. I think it's disgusting to even imply that.

But that is a cute lil hamster.......

Nah, not going their, but damn, it would be sooooooooo easy.


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor Pop.

Still trying to figure out some argument that suddenly makes sibling marriage become magically legal if same gender couples have the same right to marry as opposite gender couple.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pops next argument...



Reader, you should recognize that 'Homosexuality' doesn't lead to bestiality, or pedophilia, or serial murder.

The Mental Disorder that presents as sexual deviancy leads to all of those mental deviancies... Which is not to say that every homosexual will molest a child, a goat... or stack human livers in their freezer.  It IS to say that sexual deviancy is a good sign that such is more likely than not, as the sexual deviant has already demonstrated their lack of concern for sexual discipline and the societal mores, rules and laws... and they sure as HELL have no concern for their immoral behavior or the consequences it brings for others.  Such is the nature of the sociopath and and sociopathy is the nature of those who sue innocent people for simply refusing to celebrate their perversion.

What you see in the would-be reasoning of the above cited meme, is deflection.  The same distraction that you see the same would-be 'contributors' doing all over this site and ever site like it, across the world wide interwebz.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the unholy trinity of Relativism.
_
See how that works?_


----------



## Syriusly (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pops next argument...
> ...



And that describes every single one of your posts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Damn those hamsters.  Hey, there's Keys!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



"Pat that is a slippery slope fallacy and you should know better.  It is outrageous of you to claim; here on national television, that homosexuals will suddenly demand to get married just because we drop the laws that prevent them from having sex with each other.  They're just regular people who want to be treated like regular people, who understand that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Shame on you Pat.  You should be ashamed..." Bill Press CNN Crossfire 1996.

How CRAZY WAS BUCHANAN to even suggest that dropping the sodomy laws could POSSIBLY lead homosexuals demanding to be married?  

LOL!  Turns out, it literally is, a very slippery slope.  

Go figure, right?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And with that...  _your concession is once again, duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Keys keeps asserting the *Fallacy of Authority*, when, in fact, he is saying he is the authority.

Oh, well, soldier on, Trooper Keys.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys keeps asserting the *Fallacy of Authority...*



ROFLMNAO!  

Reader, it doesn't get any more pitiful than THAT!  

(Jake, there's no such thing as "the *Fallacy of Authority", *ya poor, pathetic moonbat.)


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Damn those hamsters.  Hey, there's Keys!



God there are like 1000 punchlines I could use, but I think any of them could get me banned.....

But damn, all would be soooooo fricken funny


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Keys keeps asserting the *Fallacy of Authority...*
> ...



There is the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. And you use it obsessively. Insisting that you speak for everything from Nature to Objective Morality, to Creation, to God, to the English Language, to constitutionality. 

When its just you citing you.  For example, marriage doesn't even exist in nature. Yet you bizarrely insist that there's a 'natural law of marriage'. Which is a physical impossibility given the stark lack of marriage in nature.

Yet you still insist that marriage must be about procreation and only procreation in accordance with a non-existent 'law of nature' you made up. 

No, it doesn't. No such 'natural law of marriage' exists. No such mandate exists. That's just a plain old appeal to authority fallacy. Where you offer us your subjective opinion as objective 'natural law'. And its still your plain old subjective opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 14, 2015)

Yup, Keys believes he's the Mouthpiece for All Truth Ever.

When really, he is a hamster.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pops next argument...
> ...



Social mores, rules and laws are all our constructs. We invented each of them. They are not inherent, they are not absolute, they are not immutable. As demonstrated elegantly by the decriminaliztion of sodomy in Lawerence v. Texas. Society has largely abandoned the bigotry that you're burdened with. The laws you're referring to no longer exist. And the rules you insist have been violated don't exist.

You're once again offering us your subjective personal opinion and insisting its something objective. Its not. Subjective is not objective. Your personal opinion binds no one to do anything. Nor do we base societal mores, rules, nor laws on your subjective opinion. Nor does you pretending you speak for 'nature' or 'god' or 'the Great Spagetti monster' magically change your subjective opinion into something that isn't subjective.

Its still you citing you. And you're nobody.

Back in reality, the worst thing you can say about homosexuality is that its unproductive. Just as masturbation, old people fucking, oral sex, birth control, or celibacy is unproductive.

That's it. Your personal animosity toward homosexuals doesn't translate into our mandate to do anything. As you truly are irrelevant to this entire process.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And here's where the bizarre 'summary declarations of victory' start. Followed immediately by your rout. 

Its your tell, Keyes. Your acknowledgement that you know your argument is done. And you're merely looking for an excuse to run.

You don't need an excuse. Just run.


----------



## Pop23 (May 14, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pops next argument...



This seemed an appropriate post to reply to with this sentiment:

Pops next argument is:

To wish you all a Hardy Welcome to the club. 

In a few days, whether I like it or not, you become part of the "Marriage Club"

By you I obviously mean Same Sex couples. 

It's like welcoming a stranger into the family, one you have no idea about, but your parents (the USSC in this case) assures you will be a good fit. 

Take care of the one you love, take care of the children that you have been blessed with. Love each other long and hard. Fight FOR them with the same passion YOU fought for this and things will be great b

My acceptance of you into this community is far less important than the care you take of this community. 

Earn this right everyday by making it stronger. It is something to be proud of. Do not take it for granted and it will treat you well. 

And be assured........

I SEE YOU SCREWING THIS UP, AND I'M JUMPIN ALL YOUR ASSES LIKE A FREAKING BAD DREAM!


----------



## LittleNipper (May 14, 2015)

The most important issue is that the United States has become anti-Christian and arrogant against proper respect of God. In fact, the Federal government presently expects much more respect for itself.


----------



## Skylar (May 14, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> The most important issue is that the United States has become anti-Christian and arrogant against proper respect of God. In fact, the Federal government presently expects much more respect for itself.



God according to who?


----------



## Pop23 (May 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pops next argument...
> ...



Bump Ravi


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


What has this to do with me?


----------



## kaz (May 15, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Its still you citing you. And you're nobody



Welcome to message boards, Gomer.

Tell the truth, in real life, you have no actual friends, do you?  You are one arrogant ass



Skylar said:


> There is the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. And you use it obsessively. Insisting that you speak for everything from Nature to Objective Morality, to Creation, to God, to the English Language, to constitutionality.



You constantly commit the appeal to your own bloated ego fallacy



Skylar said:


> When its just you citing you.  For example, marriage doesn't even exist in nature. Yet you bizarrely insist that there's a 'natural law of marriage'. Which is a physical impossibility given the stark lack of marriage in nature



Sure it does.  There are a lot of animals who mate for life.  The more intelligent the animal, the more likely they are to do so.  And humans have been in man,woman marriages for millennia.  Even when they cheat, they know they are doing something wrong


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM.   Thats just the truth.  Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?


----------



## danielpalos (May 15, 2015)

Only as long as the right feels they are morally challenged.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No.  Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state,  ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory.   got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent.   They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory.   with me so far?

Now,  what legal argument will you bring forth to prohibit them from marrying?

Will you tell them that "its just not right" "that its incest" ?   their rebuttal, "who says its not right"?   "why do we have to live by YOUR definition of right and wrong"?   We aren't going to have sex so its not incest.

Now, what will the court do?   We all know the answer, you fools just refuse to acknowledge it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2015)

You are the one who has to bring up the argument, redfish, not anyone else.  If you can't, you fail.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> The most important issue is that the United States has become anti-Christian and arrogant against proper respect of God. In fact, the Federal government presently expects much more respect for itself.



I somehow missed  where the United States banned Christianity and started bulldozing churches.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2015)

You must have missed the news.  Here in Utah, the feds and staties started closing churches, and the Magdalen has beenn turned into a FEMA installation for clergy and lay people who resist the New Order.

On the serious side, the US is no longer dominated culturally by the far right white Protestant socons, and they hate it terribly.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Its still you citing you. And you're nobody
> ...



Animals- other than humans don't marry. 

Lots of animals do mate for life- but your claim "The more intelligent the animal, the more likely they are to do so" is false on many levels. 

Humans are by most measures the most intelligent species- and if you look in the United States- a large minority of the United States clearly don't mate for life- just look at our divorce rate.

After that? Bonobos and Chimps are likely the next most intelligent- neither mate for life and are incredibly promiscuous. Gorillas? They form polygamous groups which last until the dominant Silverback can no longer defend his harem. Orangutang males only are with females for mating.  After that arguably it would be dolphins and porpoises- again no mating for life. 

Actually mating for life is rather rare in nature- off the top of my head I can think of cheetahs.....wolves.....some bird species.

But even when they do- its not marriage. Marriage is a human construct, designed to accomplish different goals at different times.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes- I do know what legal precedent is- you clearly have no clue. 

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that Americans have a right to marriage- and at least three times the Supreme Court has overturned state marriage laws because they were unconstitutional- that is legal precedent regarding marriage and the authority of the Court to overturn State marriage law.

However- none of the cases are actually 'precedents' for other marriage cases.
Loving was cited in Zablocki- but the actual case of Zablocki was different from Loving- the issues were different- the essence though- that the State could not provide a compelling interest in denying marriage to a man because he was not paying child support- that was the same.

In the same way- Loving is not legal precedent for Obergefell-  overturning mixed race marriage bans is not a legal precedent for overturning gay marriage bans. 

And in the same way- Obergefell will not be a legal precedent allowing you to marry your sibling.

Either you can make a case against sibling marriage legally now- regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on SSM- or you cannot.

If you can- then it doesn't matter what the court says about SSM- because you have made a case against sibling marriage.
If you can't- then it doesn't matter- because you can't figure out a reason why siblings shouldn't get married.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Since a same sex sibling couple would be treated under the law exactly the same as an opposite sex sibling couple- where is the denial of equal treatment? 

Do you have any argument against sibling marriage?

If you do not- then that is the crux of your problem.

Nothing changes in regards to sibling marriage if SSM marriage is legal- other than same sex siblings will be treated like opposite sex siblings are treated now.

Which is why, even though SSM marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years- sibling marriage is still illegal.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Starting with a strawman?  The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state.  They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.

Yes, the basis of that decision will likely be based on equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory.

No, incest is against the law.  Any court in the land would throw you out.  Just as heterosexual marriages has never been a basis for incest neither will gay marriages ever be a basis for incest.  Gay and/or hetero marriages has nothing to do with the issue of incest.

That said, if singles, pluralists, and incest depraved people want to get together and sue the feds for discrimination in the form of tax benefits for hetero and gay marriages... yes they have a chance that the court will hear that case and perhaps even establish that tax benefits for married couples is discriminatory.

But your not gonna be able to use gay marriage as a basis for making incest legal.  Not gonna happen.

Additionally, you are incorrect.  Over turning inter-racial marriages is a basis for overturning gay marriages.  Inter-racial marriage bans was based on bigotry against blacks.  Gay bans is based on bigotry against gays.  Incest bans is not based on bigotry.  Incest bans are based on harm to the individuals involved and harm to the potential progeny.


----------



## Seawytch (May 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pops next argument...
> ...



You're welcoming me to a "club " I've been a "member" of since 2008? You're a little late to the game, Pops.


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Not to mention a little confused. Though now that he has admitted he won't fight against gay marriage any more his logic dictates that he is now gay.


----------



## Pop23 (May 15, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Note, I said not you specifically, same sex couples. 

But you keep thinking I meant only you

You self flatterer you


----------



## Pop23 (May 15, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I've confessed to being a Lesbian years ago

Where you been?


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

_ I have given you a logical realistic scenario that will play out in our court system if the SC rules as you want it to.   It won't just be sibling marriage, it will be multiple person marriage of all kinds and they will use the exact same arguments that you are using today for SSM._

_you can spin and deny and rationalize until the cows come home,  but it will happen._


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You have provided an opinion of yours. We are pointing out it is neither logical or realistic. 

Meanwhile I believe this is day 15 of you still arguing about gay marriage after telling us all you had more important things to discuss.


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

the point of this thread,  which is appartently too complex for you, it to demostrate that gay marriage is in fact an issue that people care about and have very strong opinions on.

Maybe it is the most important issue facing us,  because it will define where our society and culture go in the next few years.

What continues to amaze me is the inherent contradiction within the left.   You want gay marriage because of fairness and equality, but you would deny other forms of "marriage" because you consider them abnormal or icky or dangerous to society.   You are unable to comprehend that they are all symptoms of a dumbing down of society to a system where anything goes and nothing is considered wrong. 

As I have said many times,  liberalism is a mental disease, there is no other explanation for its inherent contradictions and falacies.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yeah you do lie a lot

Kaz- 4/29/15:
_and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? * And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread.* I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings_


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Your claim is complete nonsense.  It is irrational.  It is quite frankly, ludicrous.  Being gay has nothing to do with incest.  Gay and/or heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with incest.  That you think support for gay and/or heterosexual marriages will lead to incest makes you sound, insane.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Your strong hatred of gays is clouding your judgement.  Just because you hate gays and incest does not make gay relationships incestual relationships.  The only link between gay marriage and incest is you.


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

I tried to get the mods to close this thread when it migrated to a discussion of whether gay marriage was the most important issue facing us to a discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.

The fact that it has continued proves my point.   Gay marriage is a very divisive issue,  no one has the answers, and neither side is willing to compromise.   It has also been demonstrated that is will lead to the further decay of our society.   But thats my opinion, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

For the record,   You are no more right on this than me or anyone else.   There is no correct and incorrect,  all there are is opinions.

We need a national referendum of some sort to resolve it,  but I see zero chance of that ever happening.


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

quote where I ever said I hate gays.   You won't find it.

Catholic priests who molest choir boys are all gay,  every one of them.   Pedifiles are predominately gay, that has been proven. 

you realy need to look up the definition of incest.   Incest involves opposite sex sexual relationships within familial boundries.   two sisters doing mutual carpet munching, however repulsive, is not incest.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Which of your rights are you willing to compromise on? Life? Are you willing to give up your life for the good of the majority?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You don't hate gays you just think they are PEDOPHILES and CARPET MUNCHERS.

WOW JUST WOW!!!

No, people who molest boys, are PEDOPHILES.  Gay people are not pedophiles.  People who have sex with consenting adults are not pedophiles, you dumb shit.  And no, the majority of peds are not gay that is a baseless lie.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You cannot control how everyone else posts in a thread- but you should be able to control how you post in a thread.

If you no longer want to talk about 'gay marriage'- stop talking about 'gay marriage'

For the record, I am actually 'more right' than you on several issues strawmen that you have raised in this thread- from the bizarre claim that more intelligent species tend to be monogamous which is the same thing as marriage, to what is considered 'legal precedent'.

Anyway- if you don't want the conversation on the right or wrong of gay marriage to continue- well stop posting about it- and I will stop responding to you.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You cannot control how everyone else posts in a thread- but you should be able to control how


Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



See here is the thing- you don't need to say you hate gays when you demonstrate that hatred with claims like your second line.

The Catholic Priests who molested boys might have been gay- or might not have been. 

Pedophiles- by which I assume you mean child molesters - are by a large margin men who molest girls. 

See- as a father of a daughter- this is an issue that I care about- so I read up on it. 

The victim of child molestation is likely to be a girl between 69%-91% of the time. And men are the molesters of all children by a large margin over women.

What is sad is that making the claim that _Pedifiles are predominately gay_ as you do actually puts children at risk. Most child molesters are family members- fathers/step fathers/brothers/uncles etc, followed by men in positions of authority over children- priests, ministers, teachers, coaches. Telling people that they should be watching out for the 'gays' just puts all children at more risk from the Jerry Sandusky's of the world. That attitude endangers children- endangers my child.


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

not all gays are pediphiles, but all pediphiles are gay,  draw your own conclusions.  

So you are now claiming that priests who rape young boys are not gay???????   really?

I did not say the sisters partaking in carpet munching were gay, you said that.


----------



## Seawytch (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You're still a bigot. You want to deny gays equal rights, period.



> Catholic priests who molest choir boys are all gay,  every one of them.   Pedifiles are predominately gay, that has been proven.



Wrong. Just the opposite has been proven. Keep displaying your ignorance though...it actually helps the pro equality side.



> you realy need to look up the definition of incest.   Incest involves opposite sex sexual relationships within familial boundries.   two sisters doing mutual carpet munching, however repulsive, is not incest.



Yes, it's still incest, perv.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Sometimes I think you go out of your way to be wrong.

Definition: Incest
: sexual intercourse between people who are very closely related


*Incest Law & Legal Definition*




Laws vary by state, but generally, a person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately:




His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or
His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or
His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or
His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood.
In some states incest also includes copulation or cohabitation between first cousins, but the majority of jurisdictions permit marriage between such cousins. Incest is a crime in all states, even if consensual by both parties. However, it is often related to sexual abuse since usually the younger person is a victim of the predatory sexual activities of an older relative. Statutes generally do not require the perpetrator to be a certain number of years older than the victim. Victims of incest and sexual abuse are strongly encouraged to talk to an adult they trust to protect themselves and others from further abuse and take advantage of the many resources available to help them heal.

Laws vary by state, but the following is an example of a state law dealing with aggravated incest:

"(a) Aggravated incest is:


Marriage to a person who is under 18 years of age and who is known to the offender to be related to the offender as any of the following biological, step or adoptive relatives: Child, grandchild of any degree, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece; or
(2) engaging in: (A) Otherwise lawful sexual intercourse or sodomy as defined by K.S.A. 21-3501 and amendments thereto; or (B) any lewd fondling, as described in subsection (a)(1) of K.S.A. 21-3503 and amendments thereto, with a person who is 16 or more years of age but under 18 years of age and who is known to the offender to be related to the offender as any of the following biological, step or adoptive relatives: Child, grandchild of any degree, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.
(b) Aggravated incest as described in subsection (a)(2)(A) is a severity level 5, person felony. Aggravated incest as described in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2)(B) is a severity level 7, person felony. "


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No.  Pedophilia has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY OR HETEROSEXUAL, you dumb shit.  WTF is wrong with you? Seriously? WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

I have to correct something I said.   not all pediphiles are gay,  only the men who molest boys and the women who molest girls.

and with that, I once again request that the mods close this thread, it has served its purpose and continued posting would only be repeating what has already been said.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No.  You are again wrong.  Pedophiles are people who have sex will little children.  Little children are not CONSENTING ADULTS.   I'll ask again. What the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
Bullshit,  a sick male who molests little boys is GAY.   a sick female who molests girls is GAY. 

Yes, a male who molests girls may or may not be gay,  but he is sick and should be locked away from society.


----------



## Redfish (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

since that post makes no sense,  I will not attempt to answer it.


----------



## Seawytch (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And you're still displaying your ignorance.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No.  NO NO NO! 

They are not gay.  They are pedophiles.


----------



## Seawytch (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



More ignorance on display.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You don't know the difference between a little child and a consenting adult?  I'll ask again... What the HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > (Jake, there's no such thing as "the *Fallacy of Authority", *ya poor, pathetic moonbat.)
> ...



OH!  What a delightful point.

Allow me to join in the fun.

There is Chevrolet, Doorknobs and ... to be sure: M&Ms _Melt in your mouth, not in your hands._

What there is *NOT*, however, is: *The Fallacy of Authority.*

Of course, if you had the slightest means to reason objectively, you'd understand that.

But... in fairness to you, as a Relativist,_ there is NO WAY you could know that.

See how that works?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Its still you citing you. And you're nobody
> ...



She's not speaking to monogamy.  She's speaking to the Religious Ceremony, wherein two beings consciously join together, bound by their own oath to the Creator of the Universe and witnessed by those closest to them.

Which in a sweet irony, has happened in nature... billions of times over thousands of years.  

Of course as a Relativist, she naturally needs to define 'nature', to fit within her own subjective needs.  Which of course, bears no kinship, with *reality*_.  
_
But hey_... _that's just_ *one* _of the _many _downside to the mental disorder that presents as *sexual deviancy*.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Animals- other than humans don't marry.
> 
> Lots of animals do mate for life- but your claim "The more intelligent the animal, the more likely they are to do so" is false on many levels.
> 
> Humans are by most measures the most intelligent species-



Humans are by every measure the most intelligent species.  And this without exception...  



Syriusly said:


> ...and if you look in the United States- a large minority of the United States clearly don't mate for life- just look at our divorce rate.



You cite a demonstration of a decline in cognitive acuity; wherein those who have 'bought into' lies... thus foolish people, therefore people of descending cognitive acuity... who allowed themselves to believe in an "Easier Way", which of course lead to greater hardship.  

These foolish notions (LIES) of course ALL STEM from "RELATIVISM" and of the two competing species of reasoning: The Ideological Left and the Philosophical Right?  Which would you guess brought the world "No Fault Divorce"?

Which do you suppose promotes sexual promiscuity; which some argue leads women to choose poorly in marriage? 

Which do you suppose promotes in women, the illusion that Sexual Intercourse bears little if any consequences?

Which do you suppose is the one which claims the above addle-minded, regressive nonsense, to be truth?

And... for te best question of all.  Which do you suppose require greater intelligence?  The Fool who buys the illusion, or the sound individual who recognizes foolishness as the absence of truth?

(Reader, please understand that the would-be 'contributor' to whom I am responding, is quite literally incapable of understanding what I have asked of her.  But it would be good fun to watch it try to respond, sadly, in all likelihood, it lacks the courage to do so.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Starting with a strawman?  The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state.  They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  Without regard to who claims otherwise or how few their number, or how many those few FRAUDULENTLY CLAIM to represent.

As a result, no state has 'banned' marriage.  They have merely defended the standard that IS MARRIAGE.

And the SCOTUS either has the wisdom to understand that, or they do not.  If they do, then they will remain relevant.  

If they do not, they will become irrelevant.  

In reality, thus in truth, that is all there is to it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> I tried to get the mods to close this thread when it migrated to a discussion of whether gay marriage was the most important issue facing us to a discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.
> 
> The fact that it has continued proves my point.   Gay marriage is a very divisive issue,  no one has the answers, and neither side is willing to compromise.



The Issue is not divisive.  The issue is the LINE which decisively denotes EVIL. 

I hope you come to understand that... because your OP presented the illusion that the issue is something else, which can be or should be ignored; that the fight for the standard of marriage is a a completed fate; that the Evil must win.

Understand, evil cannot win. Because Good is infinite.  Evil can fester, and destroy, as it is now, because that is its purpose.  Evil is the rot that returns everything NOT GOOD, to dust, evil is death.

By ignoring evil, you concede to it.  There is NEVER a time for ignoring evil and there is NO ISSUE more important than destroying it.

And that friend is the reality of it and as such, that is the truth of it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> You're still a bigot.



The use of the word "Bigot" is to proclaim one's self to be such.  

Reader, understand that a "Bigot" is defined as: One who demonstrates an intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.  Thus, the use of the word bigot, to describe another, who believes differently from you, is a demonstration of intolerance for that person; ergo, _the use of the word "Bigot" is to profess one's own bigotry.
_
The Relativist cannot understand that, because the Relativist rejects the objectivity required to recognize truth.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to get the mods to close this thread when it migrated to a discussion of whether gay marriage was the most important issue facing us to a discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.
> ...


Yes indeed, there is evil in the world, stating with people who would protect a tradition at the expense of an American principle, equality.  That evil, is you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > You're still a bigot.
> ...


Bigot or not, you fear homosexuals and that is what makes your positions irrational, fear.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Starting with a strawman?  The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state.  They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.
> ...


Welcome to a new reality.  You may of course reject it, and probably will, but it will be the reality here regardless.





Those who reject reality have very few options and in this case, you have none at all.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And there is not "truth", there are "truths".  The opposite of one profound truth tends to be, another profound truth.  Where you believe objective truth comes from is a creation, of man.  Not the best basis for objective anything.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

*Unprecedented anti-gay marriage bill dies in Texas House*
"The Texas House of Representatives failed to pass HB 4105, otherwise known as the Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act, before a midnight deadline Thursday night, dooming – at least for now – the GOP-led effort to keep same-sex couples from marrying no matter what the Supreme Court decides in June.
Introduced by Republican Rep. Cecil Bell, the bill would have prohibited state or local government employees from recognizing, granting, or enforcing same-sex marriages. It would have also prohibited state or local funds from being spent on “an activity that includes the licensing or support of a same-sex marriage.”"
Unprecedented anti-gay marriage bill dies in Texas House MSNBC

Good...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What Tradition is that?

Fireworks and Beer on the Fourth?

Turkey on Thanksgiving?

Football on Sunday?

Pray tell man: which of these horrors is preventing some poor wretch from exercising their God-given rights?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


The right is to be treated equally, before the law, something you could care less about.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 15, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 
Um, you know the definition of "hypocrisy" isn't "thing I don't like and consider bad", right?  You can make an argument that coercion is bad, certainly, but I'm missing the "hypocrisy" there.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> *Unprecedented anti-gay marriage bill dies in Texas House*



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.  Which any homosexual is welcome to become, the moment they apply, with a person of the distinct Gender.  

You see, preserving the natural standards of Marriage, doesn't preclude anyone, from doing anything.

Perhaps you're conflating marriage with Civil Incorporation, wherein, any number of people can come without regard to gender and join for any legal purpose.

It has served MANY MANY different purposes, except marriage, as it is NOT such and never will be.  But it does join more than one person as one legal entity.

(Reader, understand that the Sexually Deviant have had this option available to them for CENTURIES... and they've never taken it.  The reason is that Civil Incorporation brings no sense of legitimacy... as does Marriage.  Because Anyone Can Incorporate anytime... for any legal reason, while only One Male and One Female may join in Marriage. 

Thus, as is always the case, as low as the natural standard of marriage is, just BEING there, sets it well above that of the institution which has no standard.

And that is because an institution which has no standard, has no meaning... and that which is meaningless can bear no Legitimacy.  

And in THAT friends, you will find the REASON that that the Proponents of Perversion are set upon stripping marriage of it last remaining standard.  
_
See how that works?_


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > *Unprecedented anti-gay marriage bill dies in Texas House*
> ...


Marriage is no longer what you think it is, and wasn't what you thought it was either, so sad for you.

13 Facts on the History of Marriage


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
I can assure you that they ARE planning to.  Don't ever think that polygamists - among a host of other groups - aren't waiting in the wings for everyone to get complacent with homosexual "marriage" before following suit.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 15, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


So?  Big fuckin' deal.  We go the North Pole, then to the Moon, now people want to go to Mars.  Should we have just stayed home then?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Well Good...  Than that settles it. As the Sexually Deviant enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

You see, as a healthy male of sound mind I can't marry my male Bestie either, just like those, such as yourself, who suffer the mental disorder that presents as Sexual Deviancy.  And just like the sexually deviant males, I can marry anyone I can talk into it, as long is it is a person of the distinct gender.  

This notion that you sick fucks are unable to exercise a right is LUDICROUS!   

But hey in fairness to you, as people who are saddled with mental disorder,_ there's no way that you could have known that._

Feel better?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It's not even a debatable point.  For goodness Sakes, the Euro-Peons are already doing it. The other day, they had their first (that I know of) Three-way Lesbian "Wedding". Prior to that they were "Marrying" Woman to *DOGS!  
*
It's just old testament Evil... rising up again.  _That's all._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Mariage is today, what marriage has been since the first knucklehead fell in love with the pair of hips across the field.  It's never changed and it will not change until such time that the human physiology that defines it, changes.

You'll be alerted if that ever happens.


Your problem is that you feel that because you people have so fucked up the system that the law of nature must change to meet your level.

That's not how it works.

You've a right to do whatever the fuck you want to do, as long as you're prepared to accept the consequences that come with it.  We call that "RESPONSIBILITY".

You reject the idea of responsibility, so you feel that that relives of you facing the consequences for your fucked up choices. 

You're wrong.  (Because, again: _That's not how it works._)


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 15, 2015)

Keys, go ahead and oppose polygamous weddings.  I think if you posted a poll, most of the Board would support the opposition.  But, Keys, you are not a prophet, not a philosopher of Natural Law, but only a knucklehead whom we all enjoy for the grins and giggles you bring to the board.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You really do hate gays don't you? 

You can't be this ignorant.

Most of the victims of child sex abuse are girls molested by men- 69% to 91% of the victims are girls, upwards of 95% of the molesters are men.

So you think all of the men molesting those girls are automatically gay?


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL.....do you need the moderators to close the thread to stop you from posting?


----------



## Kosh (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So let me get this straight- because it is always hard to get a straight answer from a confused homophobe.

A father who has been married for 20 years to a woman, with no record of ever having sex with a man, molests his own son- and therefore he is 'gay'?

What- the previous 20 years of heterosexual adult sex suddenly disappears according to you when a sick perv molests children?

We can agree that any child molester should be locked away- regardless of whether or not the man is attracted to adult females or adult males. 

You are the one who keeps looking for some area of agreement- stop trying to call child molesters 'gay' and lets all agree that the sick monsters who prey on children should be locked up.


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And the irony impaired troll comes a trolling.


----------



## Kosh (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And yet another irony impaired far left drone troll post!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You really do hate gays don't you?
> 
> You can't be this ignorant.
> 
> Most of the victims of child sex abuse are girls molested by men- 69% to 91% of the victims are girls, upwards of 95% of the molesters are men.



Let's just assume that the stats you cite are correct.

What you're missing is that each and everyone of those 69-91-95% of men who molest children... ARE PEOPLE WHOSE SEXUAL DESIRE DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD... OKA: SEXUAL  DEVIANTS, just as homosexuals are sexual deviants!

The difference is that THEY did not overtly present with mental disorder, UNTIL THEY BEGAN MOLESTING LITTLE GIRLS.

You on the other hand, presented with mental disorder, the moment you chose to pursue sexual gratification with the people of your same gender, over whom you allowed yourself to obsess.

When you did that, you informed yourself and anyone else who knew it, which was at least ONE other person, that you were unconcerned for your own well-being and that of others and that you tended toward disregarding cultural mores and standards and had no regard for soundly reasoned moral standards.

Thus, you were prone to cross sexual boundaries, where you allowed yourself to desire something, sexually.

Now, what's the difference between the homosexual and those who _'need'_ the sexual affection of children?

Meaning that if YOU can't refrain from obsessing over women for your sexual gratification, what is it that you stand on as you promote hatred against the lowly pedophile?

As an exercise, using the standards that you and you cult have set upon the culture, or better said, using the standards which remain despite your cult's best efforts to remove them... what would be your argument which contests the legalization of the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, because their love for children, provides that they're capable of 'earning a child's trust', thus the child's consent to play sexual games?

_GO!

(Reader, watch this closely, as the would-be 'contributor' flees this discussion like it was on fire.

And that is because, using the same irrational drivel that the homosexual deviants have used; which includes a vote at the APA on the matter, in keeping with the APA's longstanding published position that *'some children may benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult', *there IS no contest against the Legalization of Pedophilia.

Which, if you're keeping score, is just ONE of the examples of how 'allowing homosexuals to marry one another is harmful to someone else... .)_


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You really do hate gays don't you?
> ...



Yes- lets.

Almost all child molesters are men. Most of the victims are girls- but every child molested is a victim.

People like yourself who use this issue to try to attack homosexuals put children in danger.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> The Catholic Priests who molested boys might have been gay- or might not have been.



ROFLMNAO!

*NEWS FLASH!*
*
If you're a man molesting boys: You're a HOMOSEXUAL.*
Without exception... _every single time._

*Also... just to be clear, if you're a male who molest little girls: You're a Fuckin' Sexual Deviant.  You just hid it better than the Homosexual.*​


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The Catholic Priests who molested boys might have been gay- or might not have been.
> ...



News flash

Idiots like you put children in danger.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



_*What you're missing is that each and every one of those 69-91-95% of men who molest children... ARE PEOPLE WHOSE SEXUAL DESIRE DEVIATES FROM THE HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL STANDARD... OKA: SEXUAL DEVIANTS, just as homosexuals are sexual deviants!*

*The difference is that THEY did not overtly present with mental disorder, UNTIL THEY BEGAN MOLESTING LITTLE GIRLS.*

*You on the other hand, presented with mental disorder, the moment you chose to pursue sexual gratification with the people of your same gender, over whom you allowed yourself to obsess.*

*When you did that, you informed yourself and anyone else who knew it, which was at least ONE other person, that you were unconcerned for your own well-being and that of others and that you tended toward disregarding cultural mores and standards and had no regard for soundly reasoned moral standards.*

*Thus, you were prone to cross sexual boundaries, where you allowed yourself to desire something, sexually.*

*Now, what's the difference between the homosexual and those who 'need' the sexual affection of children?*_

_*Meaning that if YOU can't refrain from obsessing over women for your sexual gratification, what is it that you stand on as you promote hatred against the lowly pedophile?

As an exercise, using the standards that you and you cult have set upon the culture, or better said, using the standards which remain despite your cult's best efforts to remove them... what would be your argument which contests the legalization of the pursuit of children for sexual gratification, because their love for children, provides that they're capable of 'earning a child's trust', thus the child's consent to play sexual games?

GO!*

(Reader, watch this closely, as the would-be 'contributor' flees this discussion like it was on fire.

And that is because, using the same irrational drivel that the homosexual deviants have used; which includes a vote at the APA on the matter, in keeping with the APA's longstanding published position that *'some children may benefit from a loving sexual relationship with a caring adult', *there IS no contest against the Legalization of Pedophilia.

Which, if you're keeping score, is just ONE of the examples of how 'allowing homosexuals to marry one another is harmful to someone else... .)

LOL!  I say it HERE and it comes out THERE!  Be AMAZED!  Be very amazed... ._


----------



## Syriusly (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Nothing by skipping your posts.

Not a single rational thought.

People like you put children in danger from child molesters.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Nothing by skipping your posts.
> 
> Not a single rational thought.
> 
> People like you put children in danger from child molesters.



*ROFLMNAO!*

*I say it here... and it comes out **^ THERE! ^*

*I tell ya Reader, there's nothing like: The Pride of Ownership!

Rest assured, that > IF < she had a contest which would could preclude the legalization of pedophilia within the scope of the 'rules' that they're wanting to normalize Homosexuality, she'd offer it.  

She doesn't offer it, because no such argument exist, and that's because no such argument CAN exist.

Meaning simply, that the reasoning that Normalizes Homosexuality, Normalizes every facet of sexual deviancy, not just including, but specifically:
*
*Pedophilia... 
Which the Cult now refers to as  
"Loving Adult/Child Relationships" . *​


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Then how do you explain polygamous marriage?  It existed before monogamy began to be mandated, not by Nature,

but by law.

Polygamy is more natural than legally enforced monogamy, because polygamy improves the ability of the genetically strong to pass more of their genes on to the next generation,

and that is a priority for Nature.


----------



## danielpalos (May 15, 2015)

I agree that with polygamy, there is always a mostly nice guy to go around.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Polygamy is more natural than legally enforced monogamy...



Gluttony ... for punishment.  I dunno... foolishness is expressed in many ways, by many fools.

You do it by posing non sequiturs.  Others by trying to please more than one woman.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 15, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


What's a gay? You are homosexuals and you always had equal rights


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Yes. And knowing Pubes aka keys, I believe it's purposeful


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Reader, what she's trying not to speak to is re-posted below, for your edification:

_*NEWS FLASH!*_​_​*If you're a man molesting boys: You're a HOMOSEXUAL.
Without exception... every single time.​Also... just to be clear, if you're a male who molest little girls: You're a Fuckin' Sexual Deviant. You just hid it better than the Homosexual.​*_


----------



## Ravi (May 15, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You talk about molesting children a lot.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Ravi said:


> You talk about molesting children a lot.



We're discussing sexual deviancy. 

Are you suggesting that Adults who pursue children for sexual gratification are not sexual deviants?

Or are you just concerned that sexual deviancy is being discussed in terms _more closely associated with REALITY?_

.

.

.

Go ahead, _don't be scared._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 15, 2015)

Now on the subject of "Pedophile-Sexual Deviancy, being synonymous with Homo-Sexual Deviancy", we find THIS:

*"Details revealed in the arrest of Enrique Pearce, 41, a campaign consultant who up until a week ago was making $5,000 a month working for San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, indicate that Pearce allegedly owned photos and videos of infants and young children being raped and sexually violated, including photos he allegedly took himself of young boys.*
_Deputy District Attorney Alexis Fasteaus said that the children were unaware they were being photographed, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Fasteau revealed that law enforcement had started investigating Pearce after another man reported chatting online with someone using the screen name “redentice” who wrote “sharing a boy with another man is really hot.” She also said that Pearce had 4,902 images on one of his laptop computers; over 600 included minors engaged in sexual conduct, at least 10 showed “prepubescent minors” under the age of 12, and many photos apparently showed men hurting children.

According to the Chronicle, Police Sgt. Candiece Lewis of the police special victims unit said that on February 7, a man entered Central Police station and mentioned someone had contacted him online asking “do you perv?” and if he was “lookin to explore 8-12.” 

Pearce was hit with five felony child pornography charges; his attorney said he would make bail and be released by Wednesday night. June 12 was set for his pretrial conference.

In addition to Lee, Pearce worked for Democrat Jane Kim in her successful 2010 campaign for the Board of Supervisors, and for Matt Gonzales’ unsuccessful run for mayor of San Francisco in 2003. Both Kim and Gonzales are far-left politicians, with Gonzales running for Vice President on the Green Party ticket in 2008.

In an interesting sidenote, SF Weekly reported that Pearce rarely sleeps more than four hours a night, and quoted him saying, “I’ve been an insomniac ever since middle school.”

Now we know why."

S.F. Mayor s Consultant Allegedly Had Shocking Child Rape Videos - Breitbart_


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



An 'oath before the creator of the universe' isn't a requirement of marriage either. You keep projecting your religion onto marriage. And marriage isn't bound to any of it. Its our institution, defined by us, meaning what we say it means. 



> Of course as a Relativist, she naturally needs to define 'nature', to fit within her own subjective needs.  Which of course, bears no kinship, with *reality*_. _




You citing yourself, projecting your subjective religious beliefs and making up non-existent 'natural laws of marriage' isn't 'reality'. That's just your personal opinions, your subjective beliefs.

Once again, subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to get the mods to close this thread when it migrated to a discussion of whether gay marriage was the most important issue facing us to a discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.
> ...



Nope. Again, Keyes.....you're hamstrung by the fact that your personal opinions define nothing objectively. Your arguments are the same fallacy, replayed over and over. Where you demand that we accept your subjective beliefs as objective fact.

Subjective is not objective. There's no 'natural law of marriage'. You hallucinated that. There's no requirement that a couple procreate or be able to procreate to get married in any state. You made that up too.

You citing yourself isn't 'objective'. Its just your personal opinion.



> I hope you come to understand that... because your OP presented the illusion that the issue is something else, which can be or should be ignored; that the fight for the standard of marriage is a a completed fate; that the Evil must win.



Disagreement with the nonsense you make up isn't 'evil'. As you define nothing objectively. And your insistence that what you believe marriage is defines it for everyone is blithering nonsense. Your beliefs don't even define marriage in your state. Let alone the country. Let alone nature.

You keep offering us the same Appeal to Authority fallacy. And you keep failing in the exact same spot.



> Understand, evil cannot win. Because Good is infinite.  Evil can fester, and destroy, as it is now, because that is its purpose.  Evil is the rot that returns everything NOT GOOD, to dust, evil is death.



Understand, your personal opinion defines neither good nor evil. And no, you don't speak for God. You don't speak for nature. You just speak for you.

And you're nobody.  Rendering you gloriously irrelevant to anyone's marriage.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

Keys is posting facts,  those of you on the left are posting failed talking points.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Keys is posting facts,  those of you on the left are posting failed talking points.


Hey moron, liberty is not a left vs right issue and neither is incest, or rape, or murder, or pedophilia.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Keys is posting facts,  those of you on the left are posting failed talking points.
> ...


 

correct,  but the left has attempted to make them political issues rather than societal issues to be settled by society as a whole.

the left wing positions on these things are not driven by beliefs,  they are nothing but attempts to gather minority votes.   If you cannot see that, then you are truly brainwashed.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Keys is posting facts,  those of you on the left are posting failed talking points.
> ...


To bad you don't realize how to the left you are


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

its a mental disease, they cannot help themselves.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And the people on the right who disagree with you, they are all brainwashed too?  

Have you ever even considered, that it might be you who is the brainwashed one and not everyone else?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I'm for liberty.  If you think liberty is an issue owned by the left, then you're a moron.  An authoritarian moron to be specific.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Liberty is a mental disease? WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Nope, my opinions are mine and mine alone.   They are based on over 60 years of life,  40+ years of working, travel over most of the world, and interface with people of all nationalities, races, and cultures. 

Yours are based on------------------------------------------------------what you are told by your masters.   you libs are slaves and you are too dumb to realize it.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 

Liberty is a concept.   liberalism is a mental disease.   WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...




Jeeeez Redfish. 

How many times have you said you won't talk about SSM again? You even demanded mods close this thread. And yet, here you are.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


WOW liberty is JUST A CONCEPT. WTF is wrong with you?  Huh? Yes, liberalism is a mental disease. One in which I am not afflicted.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



All marriage is discriminatory.  Government should treat it's citizens the same.  There is a better solution to everything government marriage solves than government marriage.

That said, perpetuation of the species is a far greater argument than government validating who people screw when that screwing can't lead to children by design.  There is no argument for gay marriage except government discrimination.  There is an argument for straight marriage other than government discrimination.

That said, that the right thinks government is the best solution to perpetuation of the species is pretty ridiculous.  Again, there is a better answer to everything marriage supposedly solves that would apply to all citizens keeping us equal under the law.  But you can't pretend you are for equality while you fight something which is specifically designed to be unequal, government marriage


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Sometimes, yes.  But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Bullshit. You're not the first bigot, you are one of many.  You learned to be a biggot, you were not born with it.  You were "brain washed" into believing that you and YOU ALONE should have the AUTHORITY to decide WHO GETS LIBERTY based on your bigotry and hatred and WHO DOESN'T.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


BS... The argument for gay marriage is LIBERTY!!!!!!  We either have it or we don't.  This is not an issue of whether gay marriage is better for the species than heterosexual marriage.  This is an issue of whether we have LIBERTY OR WE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Playground, great strategy...


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yes, government treating it's citizens differently, that is clearly liberty.  Gotcha.

And the role of the courts is to say, wow, that isn't fair, let's just fix that...


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Yes, liberty is a concept.  A very good one that is the basis for our constitution and our body of law.  But it is a very fragile concept that is constantly challenged by those who would mandate what others believe and what they consider normal and acceptable behavior.

This country was founded to get away from the minority rulers of europe, the kings and dictators.   And today you libs support minority views being forced on everyone else.

thats why I say that liberalism is a mental disease.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bullshit. You're not the first bigot, you are one of many.  You learned to be a biggot, you were not born with it.  You were "brain washed" into believing that you and YOU ALONE should have the AUTHORITY to decide WHO GETS LIBERTY based on your bigotry and hatred and WHO DOESN'T.



Right, when clearly he doesn't have that power, you do.  You're the one advocating judicial fiat


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.  What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages.  Which of course it is.  Just as it was unconstitutional for a government to ban interracial marriages.  Such types of discrimination is not constitutional.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> BS... The argument for gay marriage is LIBERTY!!!!!!  We either have it or we don't.  This is not an issue of whether gay marriage is better for the species than heterosexual marriage.  This is an issue of whether we have LIBERTY OR WE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY.



Liberty is the right to be left alone from government, liberty is not the right to demand things from government.

Why does government need to give people perks and tax breaks for screwing each other?  This is why leftists are so delusional and out of touch with reality.  You look at all the despotic governments in the world, Arab countries who kill gays and Jews and Christians just for being, and you say OMG, two fags want to fuck and government would give them tax breaks.  WTF?  They don't have liberty!


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. You're not the first bigot, you are one of many.  You learned to be a biggot, you were not born with it.  You were "brain washed" into believing that you and YOU ALONE should have the AUTHORITY to decide WHO GETS LIBERTY based on your bigotry and hatred and WHO DOESN'T.
> ...


Bullshit.  I'm arguing the constitutionality of taking AWAY THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY GROUP BASED ON DISCRIMINATION.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > BS... The argument for gay marriage is LIBERTY!!!!!!  We either have it or we don't.  This is not an issue of whether gay marriage is better for the species than heterosexual marriage.  This is an issue of whether we have LIBERTY OR WE DON'T HAVE LIBERTY.
> ...


BULLSHIT.  Liberty is not the RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE.  What the hell is wrong with you?

As for your tax break question... go ahead and push for removal of marriage tax breaks, I agree they are discriminatory against singles, and should not be there.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes, yes.  But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism
> ...



True, but irrelevant since no one said they are



RKMBrown said:


> What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages.  Which of course it is.  Just as it was unconstitutional for a government to ban interracial marriages.  Such types of discrimination is not constitutional.



Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.  Deducting rent is not "banned" it just isn't a tax deduction.  You need to learn the English language.

And again, liberty is not the right to demand anything of others, it is protection from others demanding things from you


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > OMG, two fags want to fuck and government would give them tax breaks.  WTF?  They don't have liberty!
> ...



You just lost the argument that you are not a leftist, clearly with that statement you are


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You cannot "tak(e) away" that which you never had.  You need to learn the English language and stop arguing like a government loving leftist


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Liberty is concrete.  You want my liberty, come take it from me you Authoritarian piece of shit.  Your authority over gays is done.  It's over. Get over it.  You need a tissue?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The role of the courts is not to make life fair, leftist


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Bullshit.  And you are nothing but a piece of shit liar now.  I'm more conservative than you will ever be.  Authoritarian policies have nothing to do with left vs right issues, ya dumb ass.  You are pushing some dumb ass argument that the right is against liberty. OMFG


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Courts have to give me gay marriage because I want it, I don't want to convince anyone, I don't want to work for it, I wannnnnnntttttt ittttt.  Give it to me now! Just give it to me.



They you offer Redfish a hanky? That's classic


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That's a pretty low hurdle given that I am against conservatives on military and social issues.  Though I am actually fiscally conservative unlike Republicans


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



In the meantime, you're going to push to add more discrimination, great strategy


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Dude, your off your meds.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Government marriage IS discrimination, all of it.  Think about it, hello.  You can't fight for discrimination while claiming to be against it, you leftist retard


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


HUH? How is REMOVING DISCRIMINATION... ADDING DISCRIMINATION?  Are you mentally handicapped too?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You didn't grasp the point. This is what you said that cost you the argument:  Liberty is not the RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE.  The right to demand things from others, including government, is pure leftism.  It's ridiculous.  That is not actual liberty in any way, it's Orwellian doublespeak.  You cannot demand things from others without infringing on someone else's liberty.   Sorry, you're called out on strikes


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> Courts have to give me gay marriage because I want it, I don't want to convince anyone, I don't want to work for it, I wannnnnnntttttt ittttt.


Rights aren't up for a vote of the the people, we are not a democracy.  How long before you accept that?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism


Um, the reason these laws got tossed is because they were deemed unconstitutional.  That's not going around around the Constitution, that's respecting it.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up.  We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about.  You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage.  I mean duh.

Stop arguing like a liberal, and I'm not just talking about your positions


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



OK, this is going way to fast for you.  I'll explain the obvious.

Marriage is discrimination.  It causes people to be treated differently by government. Government loves to discriminate and pit people against each other, it grows their power

You are for giving more people access to government marriage, this discrimination

That means you are for expanding discrimination

Yet you are arguing against discrimination

Which means you are arguing to reduce discrimination, by expanding discrimination

Was that clear enough for you?  I thought it was butt obvious the first time.  Not getting an argument no matter how clear is so leftist of you, leftists never get arguments but their own.  In a debate, you comprehend the other person's argument and rebut it, you know, like I'm doing to you.  Leftists just repeat their assertions comprehending nothing but what they think, you know, like you're doing to me


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Liberty, boys, is the ability to act freely, or not act, with given boundaries.  A business owner is not at the same liberty as the man on the street.  They are required to follow different sets of rules.  Being a liberal, I'm big on the right to be left the hell alone, but even that has limits and society limits liberty as it does most other things.  If it didn't we'd have anarchy, not society, and liberty would be at serious risk because few would have the power necessary to enforce it.  Your liberty, like your property, is protected by what society creates.  For that there is a price to be paid, limits on both liberty and property.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Courts have to give me gay marriage because I want it, I don't want to convince anyone, I don't want to work for it, I wannnnnnntttttt ittttt.
> ...



Begging the question, I already addressed that.

See Mr. Brown, this is you arguing in this discussion, not getting a point and reasserting your position.

Thanks for coming in and demonstrating my point how leftists argue, Paint


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism
> ...



Yet none of you can name anyone who being gay changes who they can marry.  You keep comparing to blacks.  The difference between government not having mixed race marriages and gay marriages is this.  Being black changed who you could marry for every black.  Being gay changed who you could make for zero gays.  Wow, that is the same...   LOL.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Liberty, boys, is the ability to act freely, or not act, with given boundaries.  A business owner is not at the same liberty as the man on the street.  They are required to follow different sets of rules.  Being a liberal, I'm big on the right to be left the hell alone, but even that has limits and society limits liberty as it does most other things.  If it didn't we'd have anarchy, not society, and liberty would be at serious risk because few would have the power necessary to enforce it.  Your liberty, like your property, is protected by what society creates.  For that there is a price to be paid, limits on both liberty and property.



Liberty is not the right to demand anything from others, that infringes on the liberty of others. Not having gay government marriage doesn't prevent gays from doing whatever the fuck they want, including fucking each other


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Hey moron, liberty is not a left vs right issue and neither is incest, or rape, or murder, or pedophilia.



ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make that shit up!

I don't think it is possible to frame the entire problem better than THAT!

*NOTHING* denies _REALITY_ like a _*RELATIVIST!*_


----------



## beagle9 (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


So your for gay marriage then?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> Marriage is discrimination.  It causes people to be treated differently by government.


It does not so much discriminate as allow for different rules to be applied because the marriage contract is in force, but yes, their status is different than that of single people.  A classic example would be the protection allowing spouses not to be compelled to testify against each other, which does not apply to unmarried couples.  If you can find a compelling reason, the government, and others are allowed to discriminate, like churches being allowed to hire ministers only of their faith.  Discrimination exists, it's not going away, the question is, is there a compelling reason for it?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


It seems you want to ignore the obvious, gays do not fall in love with, and therefore want to marry, the opposite sex.  Since they are required to be two adults, like other people able to marry, and since marriage is a state-approved contract, and in addition since no compelling government interest is served by not allowing gays to wed, there is no valid reason for them not being equally able to marry the one they love.  See how that works now?

The reason why the Loving decision comes up is because the Supreme Court stepped in and said your state rules cannot override Equal Protection, which is also true in this case.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty, boys, is the ability to act freely, or not act, with given boundaries.  A business owner is not at the same liberty as the man on the street.  They are required to follow different sets of rules.  Being a liberal, I'm big on the right to be left the hell alone, but even that has limits and society limits liberty as it does most other things.  If it didn't we'd have anarchy, not society, and liberty would be at serious risk because few would have the power necessary to enforce it.  Your liberty, like your property, is protected by what society creates.  For that there is a price to be paid, limits on both liberty and property.
> ...


When I go in to buy a cake, from a person that sells cakes, I am not demanding anything.  That's what they do.  It's a business transaction and since we set the rules businesses are required to follow, hiring practices, accounting rules, land use, fire codes, etc., we are well within our rights to say - Sell to one, Sell to all.  What you want is Anarchy, which you mistaken call Liberty, and that's not what we have here.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Well, if you addressed it any differently than I did, you're simple dead wrong.  Your rights aren't up for a vote of the people either way.  It's none of their business actually.  In a true democracy it might be, but that's not our system here.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.  What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages...



Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> I'm arguing the constitutionality of taking AWAY THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY GROUP BASED ON DISCRIMINATION.



You're pretending that Marriage is something that it is not, then pretending that there's a right to advance that deception, that marriage is something that it's not, then fraudulently claiming that PRETEND RIGHTS ARE BEING DENIED.

You are crazier than an outhouse RAT!  

*Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.*


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.  What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages...
> ...



And in 37 of 50 States it includes one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. No matter how hard you close your eyes, buddy.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > I'm arguing the constitutionality of taking AWAY THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY GROUP BASED ON DISCRIMINATION.
> ...



Actually, that would be you. You keep making up requirements of marriage that don't exist. You insist that marriage involves an 'oath before the creator of the universe'. But it doesn't have to. You insist that marriage is about procreation. But infertile people get married or stay married all the time. You babble about an imaginary 'natural law of marriage'. But no such natural law exists.

Back in reality, no state requires any couple to procreate or be able to procreate in order to get married. Why then would we exclude gays from marriage based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 37 of 50 States, we don't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> *Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.*


Just curious, since that is not true in most of the US, and soon all of the US, when exactly are you going to stop saying what isn't true, never?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > *Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.*
> ...


You're too stupid to comprehend the statement.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > *Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.*
> ...



You ask that question like such issues have the slightest relevance to Keyes. Remember.....his is one long Appeal to Authority fallacy. Where he insists his personal opinion is objective truth. 

You can't get around that kind of batshit with something as trivial as reality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Not at all.  If I say a pet is only a dog or a cat, and people have all kinds of other animals as pets, doesn't that make me a fucking moron?


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Oh, I suspect Paint can comprehend the sentiment. In 37 of 50 States, Keyes is simply wrong.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> You can't get around that kind of batshit with something as trivial as reality.


I would imagine but I like to state the obvious anyway so we cal discuss it.  Ignoring reality is a form of mental illness.  I'm interested to know just how ill he actually is?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


It's something that has to be recognized. In the state I live in it is not recognized so therefore I am correct. It may be the same for him. So you're actually the stupid one.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Well, he doesn't say, "marriage is between one man and one woman, in my state", now does he?  And in most states that isn't true.  So, if I say a pet is only a dog or a cat without adding, well in my state that's true but not in most others, wouldn't you call me an idiot?

Coming to the defense of someone who's wrong just because you hate the other guy makes you a child (or a relation).  Don't be.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> When I go in to buy a cake, from a person that sells cakes, I am not demanding anything.  That's what they do.  It's a business transaction and since we set the rules businesses are required to follow, ...



So 'we' _*set the rules*_ on who can sell cakes and to whom they must sell them... but 'we *CANNOT* _set the rules_ on the standard of marriage?

ROFLMNAO!

Anyone need anything else? 

The Cult is now advancing feckless NON SEQUITURS as the purest essence of what stands for Leftist _'reason'._


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > When I go in to buy a cake, from a person that sells cakes, I am not demanding anything.  That's what they do.  It's a business transaction and since we set the rules businesses are required to follow, ...
> ...


In case you hadn't noticed, there are rules about that as well eh?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


It can be true to you. I deny marriages between homos. If fags get married I refuse to recognize it. If you choose to recognize it then go ahead but I don't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> It can be true to you. I deny marriages between homos. If fags get married I refuse to recognize it. If you choose to recognize it then go ahead but I don't.


Only children and the mentally ill ignore reality.  Which are you?  Maybe both I'd guess.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > It can be true to you. I deny marriages between homos. If fags get married I refuse to recognize it. If you choose to recognize it then go ahead but I don't.
> ...


Just because someone else changes the definition of something doesn't mean you have to go with it. It's the difference between two competing definitions of the same word. I choose to go with the non fag one.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > *Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.*
> ...



First, you're a liar.

The curiosity of liars is irrelevant to reasonable people.  You do not live in the United States.  You are a British Subject, who is trying to pass off Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.

Now, setting aside that, let me school you on how it works HERE, actually IN the United States.

HERE... A State cannot pass a law that binds other states.  

A problem that hopefully,  the US Supreme Court will soon dispatch, putting an end to the sanctioning of this runaway lechery, which it should have done, LONG AGO, the moment Massachusetts went rogue.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Time to learn to think like a lawyer, and grow up a bit.  If the law says it's true, it is in all ways that really matter.  You could call it Self Defense, but if the courts convict you of Murder, you're fucked.  You can defend yourself until the end of time but you'll be doing it from behind bars.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Only children and the mentally ill ignore reality.



ROFLMNAO!  I_* SO *_adore the _sweeter *Irony*._


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


I don't really know how the law really matters to me. If someone asks me about it I'll call them fags and move on. Doesn't effect me at all.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Okay, well just go with you're insane, and I'm an American, a real one, a Liberal.

As to your argument, it fails completely because a marriage of first cousins, legal in some states but not the majority, is valid in all states.  Full Faith and Credit.  That's why interracial marriage bans died, for the entire US in one decision.  They, like gay marriage bans soon will be, were found to be unconstitutional.  The Federal law is supreme in this case, meaning, you lose.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


As long as you treat married gays the same as married straights, when required to, you will be on the right side of the law.  But the reality is, Adam and Steve are just as married as Adam and Eve.  If you deny that then you are denying reality.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

nah. Gays lose cause they're a corrupt, dirty, and fucked up community. Read the article and comments here. A pro gay website but still disgusted with themselves. Why I Hate Being Gay 62 Reasons Village Voice


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


I'm not denying that by law they have the same relationship. I am denying that it is really marriage. It is an incorrect definition.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Its completely coherent. You just don't like it. There's a difference.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> nah. Gays lose cause they're a corrupt, dirty, and fucked up community. Read the article and comments here. A pro gay website but still disgusted with themselves. Why I Hate Being Gay 62 Reasons Village Voice


Maybe I can help you out here.  See, it matters not a damn if any gays get married or even want to, ever.  Equality before the law demands that we allow them to have the option because if they don't then they are not equal, and equality is as American as apple pie.  Embrace it, it's a good thing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Time to learn to think like a lawyer, and grow up a bit.  If the law says it's true, it is in all ways that really matter.  You could call it Self Defense, but if the courts convict you of Murder, you're fucked.  You can defend yourself until the end of time but you'll be doing it from behind bars.



Yet, in REALITY... it was him Defending Himself... without regard to the OPINION of a Jurist.  That he was FUCKED by said Jurist, does not ALTER THAT REALITY.

What that would simply mean, is that the JURIST FUCKED HIM USING THE_ COLOR OF LAW._   As THE LAW REQUIRES THAT HE DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THOSE WHO SEEK TO INJURE HIS MEANS TO EXERCISE THIS RIGHTS... which would at that point INCLUDE THAT JURIST.

And when people begin to exercise their GOD-GIVEN RESPONSIBILITIES... there will be fewer Jurists, who seek to FUCK PEOPLE.

The same goes for mouthy Lesbians who think that they are rightfully entitled to ruin people's lives because they are offended.  Erase a few of those and your average Lesbian will be settled SO FAR in the back of the closest that it will be IMPOSSIBLE TO OFFEND THEM. 

Now, please... take a few minutes and blame ME for THREATENING HOMOSEXUALS... in the above DEFENSE OF MYSELF FROM YOUR ATTACK UPON ME, MY CULTURE AND THE STANDARD OF THAT WHICH RESTS AS THE CORE OF MY CIVILIZATION.

This isn't Palestine, this is America.  And HERE we don't blame the victim for being aggressive in defense of their means to exercise their rights. 

HERE... we pin a fuckin' medal on 'em and throw 'em a fuckin' PARADE!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Since marriage here is a legally binding contract, that is not a good thing to deny, so don't.  For some people not getting married in a church means you aren't married but a lot of my clients are lawyers and they charge the same whether you were married before a judge or married before God.  If the contract is legally signed, you're married, period.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > nah. Gays lose cause they're a corrupt, dirty, and fucked up community. Read the article and comments here. A pro gay website but still disgusted with themselves. Why I Hate Being Gay 62 Reasons Village Voice
> ...


It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.


Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


I didn't say it's incoherent. I said that it is incorrect. There's a difference.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


The homos will never be truly married. For that to happen one would have to be of the opposite sex of the other.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Time to learn to think like a lawyer, and grow up a bit.  If the law says it's true, it is in all ways that really matter.  You could call it Self Defense, but if the courts convict you of Murder, you're fucked.  You can defend yourself until the end of time but you'll be doing it from behind bars.
> ...


Okay, you're the Mayor of Crazytown.  Got it.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



Oh, well that's even easier to address: you're obviously wrong. In terms of legal definitions you vs. the federal judiciary has the same winner ever time: not you.

Marriage is what we say it is. Theres no 'inherent' definition. And in 37 of 50 states, it includes a man and a man or a woman and a woman.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


I can fix a lot of things, your immaturity isn't one of them.  Time maybe, but I doubt it.  You simply can't accept reality.  Only drugs or time can fix that, and sometimes not even then.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Holy shit. You can see the spittle dripping down the monitor on that one.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



False... Superman1929's position is entirely coherent... it is also consistent.  

It states in no uncertain terms that Marriage is as Nature designed it; an extension of the natural, physiological design of the human species; which is by every conceivable standard: REALITY.

it further states that _artificial _constructs; which is to say PRETENSE; which is to say THAT WHICH IS NOT REAL...  is advanced as reality by those saddled with the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy, such is IRRELEVANT TO REASONABLE PEOPLE.

There's nothing even remotely complex about ANY of this... that such is beyond your limited intellectual means, is merely a further presentation of that mental disorder, noted above.

_(That means it's yet another clue... won't it be fascinating to see how many clues it takes before they get it?)_


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Yeah, he's lost it, if he ever had it that is, which I very much doubt.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Marriage is between a man and a woman. Everything else is sodomy.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

The gay community is a social experiment gone awry. This community should never have formed because let's face it, it has no actual spiritual foundation, but instead is built on the idea that all "consensual" sex is good, a mere REACTION to the larger culture admonition against sex outside marriage. How flimsy is that? A community formed not out of biology or an independent purpose, but out of rebellion. It shows too. Gay guys and their often far left worldviews are in constant denial of the negative effects on emotional and mental health of sexual oversaturation. The prevailing gay ideologies encourages everyone to revel in relativism because afterall we are all different right? Yes we are, yet and still we all have common biological issues to deal with. And deny as we may, there is a procreative side to sex. Go figure. And if we don't at least channel our sexual energy into something meaningful, as nature has set up for heterosexual unions in the form of a child, we lose the battle against nature. All of the frivolity of gay culture is only an extension of the casual sex ethos. Gay men often do not socialize with one another as they do with heterosexuals and the result of that is dysfunctional social dynamics and mental illness. Gays (male especially) are quick to blame frustrations on being treated by heterosexuals when in fact, WE are our own worst enemies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I can fix a lot of things, your immaturity isn't one of them.  Time maybe, but I doubt it.  You simply can't accept reality.  Only drugs or time can fix that, and sometimes not even then.



I doubt you've the means to fix anything.  Odds are much higher that you lack even the most basic of intellectual skills, sufficient to understand any semblance of order, let alone such sufficient to repair that which is out of order.

The primary evidence being that you lack even sufficient skills to discern REALITY... given your incessant representation of your own fantasy, as such!


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Time to learn to think like a lawyer, and grow up a bit.  If the law says it's true, it is in all ways that really matter.  You could call it Self Defense, but if the courts convict you of Murder, you're fucked.  You can defend yourself until the end of time but you'll be doing it from behind bars.
> ...



But your personal opinion doesn't define reality. You keep making the same stupid mistake over and over: assuming that whatever subjective opinion you hold must be objective truth and define reality.

Um, nope. There's no such mandate. You citing you doesn't translate into reality. Its just your subjective opinion. 




> Now, please... take a few minutes and blame ME for THREATENING HOMOSEXUALS... in the above DEFENSE OF MYSELF FROM YOUR ATTACK UPON ME, MY CULTURE AND THE STANDARD OF THAT WHICH RESTS AS THE CORE OF MY CIVILIZATION.
> 
> This isn't Palestine, this is America.  And HERE we don't blame the victim for being aggressive in defense of their means to exercise their rights.



You're threatened that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' they're going to be subject to attacks and violence that make 'hate crimes look like Christmas dinner'. You've threatened wide spread violence against gays, systematic killing of gays by people who think just like you do.

And in your scenario.....*you* are the victim?

Holy shit dude....you're raising self delusion to an art form. *You just want to hurt people. And you're trying to blame the people you want to hurt for all the harm you want to inflict.*

That's an argument that should come with a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon and a wife beater T-shirt.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I can fix a lot of things, your immaturity isn't one of them.  Time maybe, but I doubt it.  You simply can't accept reality.  Only drugs or time can fix that, and sometimes not even then.
> ...



With 'reality' in your argument being our unquestioning acceptance of your subjective personal opinion as defining objective truth.

Um, Keyes....subjective is not objective. And your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively. Not 'nature'. Not 'god'. Not 'objective truth'. Nor 'reality'. Its just you citing you.

And you're nobody.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It states in no uncertain terms that Marriage is as Nature designed it; an extension of the natural, physiological design of the human species...


Nature didn't design anything, not even fucking, and certainly not marriage which has never been limited to just one man and one woman in all of human history but for certain locations.  If nature is your guide, there is no such thing as marriage, just coupling and how long that last varies from an anonymous fuck in a bathroom stall to the lifelong fidelity of two virgins until death.  What you believe is untrue,. which helps to explain why you reject reality.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Sodomy is mostly a heterosexual thing, and has nothing to do with marriage.  When my wife is sucking my cock that's sex, and sodomy, just a common part of marriage.

You like definitions right?  So, look up sodomy.

*sodomy*
_noun_ sod·omy  \ˈsäd-ə-mē\ _(Medical Dictionary)
plural_ *sod·om·ies*
*Medical Definition of SODOMY *
*:*  anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; _also_ *:*  copulation with an animal
Sodomy Definition of sodomy by Merriam-Webster


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


I know what it is. 

_Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense._

I was thinking about it being similar to fucking animals.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Oh, well that's even easier to address: you're obviously wrong. In terms of legal definitions you vs. the federal judiciary has the same winner ever time: not you.



So kids... what the cultist is saying here, is that the Federal Judiciary is always right.

There's truly no need to delve into the litany of evidence proving that false, as it is self evident.  

Which of course proves beyond any potential for doubt, the fallible nature of that cultist and its cult. 

And in terms of potential fallibility, there is no greater potential for such, than where the subject is known as having consistently presented inarguable symptoms of Mental Disorder.





Skylar said:


> Marriage is what we say it is.



And there ya have it.  Marriage is what THEY; the mentally disordered ... _SAY IT IS!
_
Does anyone have a better demonstration of _*The Origin of War*, than that?
_
I'd truly be interested in seeing what ya have to offer, if ya think ya do.  Because, that idiocy captures it entirely.  it is truly perfection.

BUT!  If anyone has something that they'd like to offer that they feel shows a better example of how war starts... again, I'd love to see it.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is discrimination.  It causes people to be treated differently by government.
> ...



That's the definition of discrimination, retard.  Learn the English language


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...


Well, don't, because it isn't except for the fact that we are also animals.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism
> ...



Right, pure legislation from the bench.  Gays had exactly the same rights as straights, the courts had no legitimate say.  That leaves it up to the legislature


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I am aware of the definition.  It's the manner in which you are using it that is wrong.  You are suggesting that all people be treated equally in all things, which is never true.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Tell us, when the courts toss gun control laws, are they legislating from the bench, yes or no?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> It seems you want to ignore the obvious, gays do not fall in love with, and therefore want to marry, the opposite sex



Right.  I'm a vegetarian except I eat seafood.  I actually am, that's not just suppose.  So I am Constitutioally allowed to fish in deer hunting season, right?  I don't want to eat deer, I want to eat fish, so the Constitution protects me, right?

It's a stupid argument.  Laws don't change based on what you want, that's exactly why it's a job for the legislature.  See how that works?  Get it now?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Allowing everyone to marry the opposite sex is equal. I don't get your point.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, well that's even easier to address: you're obviously wrong. In terms of legal definitions you vs. the federal judiciary has the same winner ever time: not you.
> ...


I'd suggest that the authorities keep an eye on you, but I'm quite sure they already are...


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Using it wrong, am I retard?  Discrimination specifically means treating people different.  Read your own post, idiot.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



His point is that it's not fair and the Constitution says the job of the courts is to make life fair


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



That's a clown question, bro


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> It's a stupid argument.  Laws don't change based on what you want, that's exactly why it's a job for the legislature.  See how that works?  Get it now?


Laws change for many reasons, being found to be unconstitutional is top of the list here.  That is what has killed your position and why gay marriage is about to be ruled legal in all of the US.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The question was name another law that changes based on what someone wants, try reading it again


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


That's equal only if you want to marry the opposite sex, and not all people do, which makes their standing unequal if only opposite sex adults can marry.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, well that's even easier to address: you're obviously wrong. In terms of legal definitions you vs. the federal judiciary has the same winner ever time: not you.
> ...



I'm saying that in terms of legal definitions, the Federal Judiciary is authoritative. Some random guy on the internet isn't.

And I'm a 'cultist' now? You're kinda taking this whole 'anyone who won't accept me as speaking for the Creator is evil!' schtick a little far, dontcha think?



> There's truly no need to delve into the litany of evidence proving that false, as it is self evident.



Except that your 'evidence' is just you stating your personal opinion. And then laughably insisting that whatever you make up is 'objective truth'.

It isn't. Killing your entire argument.

What else have you got? Or is just you screaming that your subjective opinion is 'reality' again?



> And there ya have it.  Marriage is what THEY; the mentally disordered ... _SAY IT IS!_



Again, Keyes....your personal opinion doesn't define marriage, nature, god, objectivity, reality or anything else. That you 'believe' that marriage is only one man and one woman doesn't make it so.

As demonstrated elegantly by marriage including a man and a man or a woman and a woman in 37 of 50 States. You say it can't be happening. And yet it is. The bug of your delusions has run straight into the windshield of reality.

And 'splat' goes another one of your Appeal to Authority fallacies.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Someone wanted not to ride in the back of the bus, and the laws were changed when enough people agreed that requiring such a thing was wrong, meaning unequal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 SAID:

“It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.”

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and wrong.

The rights of due process and equal protection of the laws are in no way 'made up' rights, these rights are inalienable and fundamental to a free people and free society:

“...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, _*liberty*_, or property, without _*due process of law*_; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the _*equal protection of the laws*_.” US Constitution, 14th Amendment

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because of who they are violates their right to liberty, their right to due process, and their right to equal protection of (equal access to) the laws, in this case marriage law, because measures seeking to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying lack a rational basis and pursue no proper legislative end – they exist solely to disadvantage gay Americans.

That you hate gay Americans is not 'justification' to deny them their civil rights.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'. 

Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


No, it's a question you can't answer because it completely undermines your position.  Finding a gun law unconstitutional is no different than finding a marriage law unconstitutional.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I realize they are in a trap that they created, but I enjoy watching them chew off three of their legs, and still be connected to the chain...


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > The question was name another law that changes based on what someone wants, try reading it again
> ...



LOL, you are not a bright guy.  The bus laws were based on the color of your skin.  The law wasn't changed based on that blacks wanted something different, that isn't an answer to the question.  The law didn't changed based on what they wanted, it changed based on the color of their skin.

What law does change based on you want something different than someone else?  Only gay marriage, and only because the courts changed it based on they wanted something different.  Your turn, name a law that changes based on what you want


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SUPERMAN1929 SAID:
> 
> “It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.”
> 
> ...


They're not a couple. They're fags. I'm saying that if gays can marry, they should just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Paint....we know the schtick. If they agree with the ruling, its 'upholding the constitution'. If they disagree with the ruling, its 'legislating from the bench'.
> 
> Its just plain old confirmation bias. Where anything that doesn't match what they already believe is dismissed. Its an unremarkable argument.



So seriously, you don't grasp the difference between the courts just striking down laws that violate the constitution and the courts creating new law?      Of course you don't, you can't see past your pompous ego...


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 SAID:
> ...



Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> You're threatened that unless gays 'sit down and shut the fuck up' they're going to be subject to attacks and violence ...



I'm not threatening anything.  I am stating that you're foolishness is so profound as to believe that you can assault people, abuse and offend people through the color of law, with _impunity_.

And IN REALITY... THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ANYTIME, ANYWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY. 

Meaning that EVERY SINGLE TIME, THROUGHOUT THE SCOPE OF HUMAN HISTORY,  THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR HAS COME INTO SOME DEGREE OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE... THAT ACCEPTANCE HAS TURNED YOUR INNATE SELF DESTRUCTION TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CULTURE AT LARGE.  Which has resulted in the destruction of the culture and with it, the destruction of the social acceptance of your behavior.

If I dropped dead this instance... and as a result was removed from the equation, that would not alter that reality, one iota.

YOUR SELF DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR WILL CONTINUE TO GROW AND FESTER UNTIL THE POPULATION ON THE WHOLE CAN NO LONGER TOLERATE YOU AND LIKE THE RECENT ECONOMIC BUBBLE, THE QUEER BUBBLE WILL POP AND YOU IDIOTS WILL BE ERASED.

It's not even a debatable point.

Read the book: _The Population Bomb_. 

Don't like that, read any book which recites the history of the Greek City States, or the Roman Republic, which devolved into the Empire, which devolved into a tiny little irrelevant town toward the middle of economic disaster, with lots of cool old shit.

Don't like that... Read the history of the Japanese Samurai.  (SPOILER ALERT: _It doesn't end well..._)

Pick _any_ one.  And note that as time marches on, the period from '_deviant acceptance_' to cultural destruction comes ever so much faster.

The FACT remains that homosexuals have ALWAYS been a part of humanity and Homosexuals have ALWAYS been forbidden, except for tiny little pockets of acceptance, following periods of prosperity,  just before the cultural BUBBLE BURSTS!

So, that tells us that something was working in the culture, which was rinsed from the culture, which ended up resulting in the release of a profound evil, that destroyed the culture. 

Hmm... now if the homosexuals aren't that evil... they're sure as FUCK a manifestation of it.

But...  Skylar, you tell me, why is it, that as you claim, Homosexuals have ALWAYS been with humanity, that Homosexuals have virtually NO HISTORY living peaceful co-existence with humanity?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



You don't understand the difference between positive and negative rights.  That's a major chasm, your analogy is pathetically terrible.  That's why I said it was a clown question, it's a clown question.   Learn the English language and stop asking clown questions, bro.  Get it now?  See how it works?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Race was only the criteria.  The basis of the laws, and why they were bounced, was because of unequal treatment.  It does not matter why one is unequal to the courts, only that one is and if no compelling government reason can be found then the law gets tossed.  That is why you have lost on this issue, there's no valid reason for said laws.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yes, we went into the trap of not being liberal, there is no escape from that.  Get it now?  See how it works?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Exactly, and with gays there is no unequal treatment, they can marry exactly the same people and do the exact same things, no right is different than for straights.  They just want something different, a job for the legislature to address


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period


Not gonna happen.  Marriage is something most adults should, and will, take part in.  It's hard to really grow up if you don't.  We want people to marry, it's good for society.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



It's hilarious that an ego as big as yours would highlight that you don't know the difference between positive and negative rights.  They are fundamentally different things


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Half agree, they should "just get rid of every benefit for everyone from being married" period
> ...



So are you not married or did it just not do the job?

BTW, your argument is fundamentally flawed in that you equate marriage and government marriage, they have nothing in common


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> Exactly, and with gays there is no unequal treatment, they can marry exactly the same people and do the exact same things, no right is different than for straights.  They just want something different, a job for the legislature to address


Your argument has died, in the courts, time and again.  That dog doesn't hunt so why are you still trying to force it to?


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Interesting, so you admit the courts tell you what you think?  Sad, but at least honest.  I don't fall into that ridiculous paradigm, so your point is lost on me.  Get it now?  See how that works?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Married means only one thing here, that you have a valid license from the state, or a common law marriage recognized by the state.  There is no other form that matters.  If the state does not recognize it, it's not marriage.

And, I've been married since dirt was new.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


The courts don't tell me what to think but I follow their rulings, all adults do unless they have a profound reason not to and are willing to go against the laws of the nation, and suffer the consequences for their civil or criminal disobedience.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> I'm not threatening anything.  I am stating that you're foolishness is so profound as to believe that you can assault people, abuse and offend people through the color of law, with _impunity_.



How is a gay person getting married an 'assault' on you? It doesn't affect you in anyway. These are people you don't know nor have ever met. Nor will likely ever met.  Yet you're still calling for civil war, you're still threatening violence against gays, threatening their mass murder.

You're not the victim, Keyes. You just want to hurt people.

No thank you.



> And IN REALITY... THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED ANYTIME, ANYWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY.



Again, your personal opinion isn't 'reality'. Its just you citing your subjective beliefs.

Subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.



> Meaning that EVERY SINGLE TIME, THROUGHOUT THE SCOPE OF HUMAN HISTORY,  THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR HAS COME INTO SOME DEGREE OF SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE... THAT ACCEPTANCE HAS TURNED YOUR INNATE SELF DESTRUCTION TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CULTURE AT LARGE.  Which has resulted in the destruction of the culture and with it, the destruction of the social acceptance of your behavior.



Dude, almost no cultures that have ever existed still exist. You're claiming it 'caused by gays'. But if a society rejects gays, *they almost universally collapse.* If they accept gays,* they almost universally collapse.* Your 'cause' isn't. As regardless of the existence of your 'cause', societies still rise and fall unaffected.

You simply don't understand how causation works. And are merely looking for an awkward justification for hurting gay people.

No thank you. You're unwilling to bleed in your desire to hurt gays. And our citizens protect them from you. You're stuck.

Worse for you, your argument dies with you. For folks under 30, gay marriage is a non-issue, with 8 in 10 supporting it. When you're gone, your anti-gay obsession goes with you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> That's equal only if you want to marry the opposite sex, and not all people do, which makes their standing unequal if only opposite sex adults can marry.



Not all people want to be limited to the money they deposited IN THE BANK, in terms of what they withdraw FROM THE BANK.

We have laws against that too... and guess what: THAT LAW TREATS EVERYONE EQUALLY. 

Despite SOME PEOPLE; a TINY MINORITY... claiming that THAT IS NOT FAIR!

Ya know what 'we' say to those people?  Buh BYE!  See after the long stretch.

Has anyone read Scalia's dissent on the lifting of the Sodomy Laws?

It reads like prophecy....

Twelve years later, see if you can find some measure of wisdom in these words:
_"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'"
_
The Lifting of the sodomy laws was so foolish that it stands today as the point when the United States finally succumbed to the cancer that is Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Ya know what 'we' say to those people?  Buh BYE!  See after the long stretch.


What you want is Mob Rule, a true democracy, which is not our system of government mainly because the Founders were well aware of people like you and wanted them to have nothing to do with the decisions of educated and reasonable men who were needed to form, protect, and run the government.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not threatening anything.  I am stating that you're foolishness is so profound as to believe that you can assault people, abuse and offend people through the color of law, with _impunity_.
> ...


Not my words, please fix that...


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > That's equal only if you want to marry the opposite sex, and not all people do, which makes their standing unequal if only opposite sex adults can marry.
> ...



Scalia recognizes a simple point: there's simply no rational reason to deny gays marriage without 'moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct'. And that disapprobation couldn't hold up to rational scrutiny.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Twelve years later, see if you can find some measure of wisdom in these words:
> _"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'"
> _
> The Lifting of the sodomy laws was so foolish that it stands today as the point when the United States finally succumbed to the cancer that is Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.


He's correct, there is no reason to deny them.  At least, the courts sure can't find one.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Fixed. Sorry about that. I wouldn't want those words attributed to anyone but the head job that spewed them.


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



LOL, nothing leftists do is anything unless government blesses it. Funny but sad


----------



## kaz (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



So you can have an opinion that differs from the courts, but I can't?  Why is that?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Fixed. Sorry about that. I wouldn't want those words attributed to anyone but the head job that spewed them.


TY...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Your opinion is fine, just stop stating what is obviously untrue as true.  The reality is, the majority and the courts think your opinion belongs in the past.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You have a childish view of government.  I do what the law requires.  The law does not require me to be here, or even bless me being here, to argue with mental or literal children.  That I do on my own.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SUPERMAN1929 SAID:
> 
> “It's a made up right. It's not even marriage and we need to get rid of every benefit received for being married after it has been turned into a joke.”
> 
> ...



What the above idiot is doing, is taking laws designed to prevent injustices against people of a given genetic minority, and asserting it upon BEHAVIOR.

Which is of course about as SUBJECTIVE as it can get.

People can't control their genetics... there is no genetic component to sexual deviancy.  Sexual deviancy comes PURELY as a consequence of mental disorder, wherein a deviant thought is nourished into an obsession.

Once we are forced to accept bad behavior... civilization is GONE!  

And I realize that people do not like to face this, but the natural fact is that WHEN PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER FIND OBJECTIVE JUSTICE IN THE SYSTEM, THEY SEEK THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE JUSTICE... at that point, history has shown that nature induces WAR.

Read the book... of the only study of its kind: The Population Bomb.  It's demonstrates, the nature of nature and it's all in their.  

As population becomes stressed, certain elements of the culture come to a profound sense of entitlement.  

We call that sense of entitlement: Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism... what have you.

At some point after that becomes evident, there comes a profound increase in the assertive nature of homosexuality.

Once that comes, it is certain that the culture is in the final stages, wherein at some unannounced point, a fight begins which erupts into a free-for-all, barn burner of a collective fight, which we call "WAR".  

There is triggered in each individual a sense of unbridled retribution... in which during minor lulls, the homosexuals are devoured, then the socialists... in a fit of cannibalism, which was until that moment, unheard of in the culture.  

At some point, the population is free of those eliciting the entitlement and homosexual mentality and as quickly as it came, the fighting stops and the population returns to normal.

We... Western Civilization, are on the precipice.  

We have Islam and the Left in full throated Entitlement Mode... and the homosexuals are OFF THE CHAIN.

It is truly, only a matter of time.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Your opinion is fine, just stop stating what is obviously untrue as true.  The reality is, the majority and the courts think your opinion belongs in the past.



What evidence do you have of this "Majority"?

And please... BE SPECIFIC.

(Reader, the key here is its statement: "...stop stating what is obviously untrue as true."  That will come home again and it will not like it when it does.  Because it is FALSE.  And THAT is why it will IGNORE the challenge or pay the price for not having done so.  And LOL!  Yes... it's going to lose, again.  That is a fact at this moment, and will not change with time.)


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> It is truly, only a matter of time.


It is truly only a matter of time until you are under supervised care, if not already.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> You have a childish view of government.  I do what the law requires.



YOU... are a LIAR.

You were a practicing homosexual prior to 2003... where sodomy was illegal.  You were not doing what the law required THEN.  You simply choose to claim such now, that the law is within your favor.

(Reader, what you're witnessing above is the personification of RELATIVISM.)


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Your opinion is fine, just stop stating what is obviously untrue as true.  The reality is, the majority and the courts think your opinion belongs in the past.
> ...


Trends do matter, and are not good for you in this case.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> What the above idiot is doing, is taking laws designed to prevent injustices against people of a given genetic minority, and asserting it upon BEHAVIOR.
> 
> Which is of course about as SUBJECTIVE as it can get.



Says you. Meanwhile, between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US the Supreme Court has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times when describing why discrimination against gays was invalid.

You disagree, citing your subjective opinion. Your personal opinion is objectively irrelevant to the law or 4 Supreme Court citations that explicitly contradict you.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.


> Once we are forced to accept bad behavior... civilization is GONE!



Civilization is going to be fine. But your flavor of bigotry dies with you. As the younger generation has no fucks to give on the topic.



> And I realize that people do not like to face this, but the natural fact is that WHEN PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER FIND OBJECTIVE JUSTICE IN THE SYSTEM, THEY SEEK THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE JUSTICE... at that point, history has shown that nature induces WAR.



They'll be no war on the matter of gay marriage. As people like yourself have to be willing to bleed. And you and your ilk aren't.* You're only willing to hurt people if they can't defend themselves, if they're helpless and unprepared*. If there's no consequence to you.

And that's not how wars are fought. Wars require people that are willing to sacrifice their lives to defeat the enemy.

Among Millenials, 8 in 10 already approve of gay marriage. Millenials aren't going to kill anyone or sacrifice their lives because YOU don't like gay people. *Especially when even you aren't willing to bleed for your own cause. *

Your chickenshit nature protects you from society. And it protects society from you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > You have a childish view of government.  I do what the law requires.
> ...


I'm not gay little friend, not that it matters, and I've been enjoying heterosexual sodomy most of life, that's how I first started having sex, decades ago.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> It is truly only a matter of time until you are under supervised care, if not already.


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(Reader, did you see how it wanted to appear to engage the argument, but it did so by avoiding the argument.  In point of fact, the Study I cited in the argument it deleted, is reality... it was a formal trial, using stringent scientific methods, which sought to observe the effects of populations under increasing stress... it was repeated several times with precisely the same outcome.

What's more, is that at the time, the study was HERALDED FAR AND WIDE by The Ideological Left... until some time in the late 70s, when someone realized that the 'incidents of thievery', were analogous to a 'sense of entitlement' thus equated to liberalism/socialism.  At which time all references to the book vanished in what seemed like INSTANTLY. 

Yet, it is still available... with several copies resting comfortably on my own shelves and those of my children... and more importantly, the laws of nature that it observed remain in full force and effect.

And just LOOK at how they NEED to deny those laws... and this from a weasel who JUST professed to being a ardent adherent TO: THE LAW.

ROFLMNAO!  Now HOW cool is THAT?)_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > What the above idiot is doing, is taking laws designed to prevent injustices against people of a given genetic minority, and asserting it upon BEHAVIOR.
> ...



No Skylar, says _*REALITY*_.

(Reader, take a moment to go back through Skylar's posting history and examine for yourself the fallacious moonbattery that she applies as she consistently seeks to set EVERY fact presented to her as the mere opinion of the person advancing the fact.  What you're literally seeing there, is yet another symptom of the mental disorder that also presents as sexual deviancy.  This establishing that the disorder is a function of sociopathy rooted in delusion.   It's actually quite fascinating to observe.  As there is truly no reason which can crack the shell of the illusions that comprise the overall delusion.)


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > It is truly only a matter of time until you are under supervised care, if not already.
> ...


_

And Keyes starts with his bizarre summary declarations of victory....just before he starts with is excuses to run. 

(setting my clock). Keyes rout in 5, 4, 3, 2 and.....
_


> _(Reader, did you see how it wanted to appear to engage the argument, but it did so by avoiding the argument.  In point of fact, the Study I cited in the argument it deleted, is reality... it was a formal trial, using stringent scientific methods, which sought to observe the effects of populations under increasing stress... it was repeated several times with precisely the same outcome.
> 
> What's more, is that at the time, the study was HERALDED FAR AND WIDE by The Ideological Left... until some time in the late 70s, when someone realized that the 'incidents of thievery', were analogous to a 'sense of entitlement' thus equated to liberalism/socialism.  At which time all references to the book vanished in what seemed like INSTANTLY.
> 
> ...




.....1.

And look, not a single mention of gay marriage.

Can we take it from your utter abandonment of your own arguments and the thread's topic that we've reached the part of your argument where you run?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > It is truly only a matter of time until you are under supervised care, if not already.
> ...


The only ones under stress by gay marriage are little homophobes like yourself.  The rest of society is moving on like it's no big deal, because it isn't.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

_



			At which time all references to the book vanished in what seemed like INSTANTLY.
		
Click to expand...

_
Yup. No reference anywhere.

Amazon.com The Population Bomb 9781568495873 Paul R. Ehrlich Books

Can't find that book no matter how hard you try. I mean, there is_ absolutely_ no way you could find that book in 3 seconds by merely typing its title on Amazon. 

You_ definitely_ can't find it in hardcover, can't find it in paper back, can't find it used in mass produced paperback for only a penny with $3.99 shipping. Nor can you purchase it with an Amazon gift card, credit card or pay pal.

Sigh.....reality really has nothing to do with your batshit, does it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I'm not gay



True.  There is no potential for gayety, in sexual deviancy.  But rest assured, you're a sexual deviant. And as is always the case, the flavor of your deviancy is irrelevant.  All society needs to know is that you've no regard for soundly reasoned rules, mores, taboos, or morality... as all you are concerned with is your own needs, wants and desires, which reign supreme to all else... .  (That's sorta the downside to deviancy, scamp and why we outlawed the exercise of such in the first place.  And it's the reason that lifting sanctions against such was FOOLISH beyond measure.)

Now, if it helps... no one here is surprised by that, except ... apparently, YOU!  Which again points to the nature of your mental disorder as that common to DELUSION!


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not gay
> ...



Because he got a blow job from his wife?

If that's your standard 'sexual deviant' and 'going to war', that 'no blowjobs!' rule is really gonna cut into your recruiting pitch.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


If he wants to ban blowjobs, I'll be armed to the teeth, which ones needs to be careful with....


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Green Revolution killed that book, but good.  Those guys, and Malthus...


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Nope, says you. You're still just pitching your personal opinion as 'reality'. And its still just your subjective opinion.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has cited cases involving raced based discrimination 4 times in rulings that overturned discrimination against gays. You insist that race based discrimination has no legal relevance to gay rights. The Supreme Court says otherwise.

Objectively, the Supreme Court is simply a better source when defining legal relevance than you are, citing yourself.



> (Reader, take a moment to go back through Skylar's posting history and examine for yourself the fallacious moonbattery that she applies as she consistently seeks to set EVERY fact presented to her as the mere opinion of the person advancing the fact.



Save that you're not presenting facts. You're merely presenting your personal opinion and insisting they are facts. You claim to speak for God, you claim to speak for 'objective morality', you claim to speak for 'nature', 'natural law' and 'reality'.

You don't. Its just you. Citing you. Your subjective opinion defines nothing objectively.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> The only ones under stress by gay marriage are little homophobes



So, to show foundation for your premise, you felt it would help if you advanced a contrivance which otherwise does not exist in nature?

Which AGAIN, is yet another piece of evidence that sustains the every growing certainty that the root of your mental disorder... is DELUSION!

(Reader, the word "homo-phobe" literally means: An irrational fear of one's self.  Which doesn't exist.

What the Cult of Sexual Deviancy did, as a means to cow those who recognize it for what it is, by just making up a word which they felt _'sounded _*scientific'.  *Thus it appeals to science, despite having no basis IN SCIENCE, much like "GLOBAL WARMING", unless you're reading this in the Southern Hemisphere, wherein you're leaving summer OKA: Global Warming Season, and into Winter, OKA: Climate Change Season.  

In short the term is A LIE!  A Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant, domonstrating the intention of those advancing such as NEFARIOUS, thus EVIL.  Which, at the end of the day is truly all one needs to know about this crap.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not gay
> ...


It's not deviant when most people do it.  The delusion is yours, and learn how to quote correctly.





And remember, that's not ever, that's just in the past year...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nope, says you.




OH! Well DAMN!  Who knew that you were prepared to repeat yourself.  Proving that your argument MUST BE TRUE!

ROFLMNAO!  
_
Anyone need anything else?

I mean honestly... these people are what is otherwise known in nature, as: FOOD!  

They are truly fuckin' HELPLESS!  
_
Which, let's BE HONEST...   THAT IS WHY NATURE HAS SET TO DEALING THEM OUT OF THE HUMANITY.

Once they're dead, THEIR SPECIFIC HERITAGE is GONE!  And based upon the above cited intellectual means... I say GOOD RIDDANCE.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> (Reader, the word "homo-phobe" literally means: An irrational fear of one's self.  Which doesn't exist.



Says you, citing your subjective opinion. The dictionary on the other hand tells a very different story:



> Homophobe:
> 
> noun
> 1.
> ...



But because you subjectively made up your own definition, we're expected to ignore the objective standards of the dictionary?

Laughing....nope, my little homophobe. The dictionary is far better source on the meanings of words than you are. But thanks again for demonstrating how you keep trying to peddle your personal opinion as objective truth. 



> What the Cult of Sexual Deviancy did, as a means to cow those who recognize it for what it is, by just making up a word which they felt _'sounded _*scientific'.  *Thus it appeals to science, despite having no basis IN SCIENCE, much like "GLOBAL WARMING", unless you're reading this in the Southern Hemisphere, wherein you're leaving summer OKA: Global Warming Season, and into Winter, OKA: Climate Change Season.



Wow......global warming? Really? You're raising the Red Herring fallacy to an art form. 



> In short the term is A LIE!  A Deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant, domonstrating the intention of those advancing such as NEFARIOUS, thus EVIL.  Which, at the end of the day is truly all one needs to know about this crap.



So let me see if I have this correct. Its 'fraudulent', 'nefarious' and 'evil'....to use the dictionary to define words rather than accept whatever you made up?

Or are you still on your 'Global Warming' excuse to flee the gay marriage debate? I don't speak Batshit, so you'll forgive me if I have a little difficulty following your train of thought.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I will not sacrifice my liberty in order to give you your definition of liberty.   I don't give a shit what gays do in private,  but you are demanding that I sanction it as legitimate human behavior.

But you are too stupid to realize what you are asking.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> (Reader, the word "homo-phobe" literally means: An irrational fear of one's self.  Which doesn't exist.


*homophobe*

_noun_ ho·mo·phobe \-ˌfōb\
: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly
Homophobe Definition of homophobe by Merriam-Webster


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Bad news Scamp... Most people are not sexual deviants.

And you can wallow in the shallow hope that a man who engages in one or all forms of sodomy with his female wife is the same thing as sexual deviancy, but you'd be wrong.   As it remains, a man joining with a woman... .

But how cool would it be for you, IF two wrongs made homosexuals something other than sexual deviants?

MAN! Wouldn't that be great for you, IF reality was NOT what it is and was what you needed it to be?

Oh well... that was fun.

Meanwhile you're still a fuckin' perv, advocating for the destruction of civilization and I'm still here enjoying a little intellectual batting practice, knockin' your rationalizations down as fast as you can post 'em.

WOW~  That went quick, _didn't it?_


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> I will not sacrifice my liberty in order to give you your definition of liberty.   I don't give a shit what gays do in private,  but you are demanding that I sanction it as legitimate human behavior.


Your approval is not required.  Why exactly did you ever believe that it was?


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

Damn!   220 pages so far.   Maybe gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA.   Are we that screwed up?


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, says you.
> ...



I'm not citing me*. I'm citing the Supreme Court that has 4 times cited race based cases in rulings defending gay rights.* And you already know about these cases. We can tell by how you keep omitting any mention of them in your replies. And refuse to discuss them.

*You always reveal to us where you know your argument is weakest by what you fastidiously run from. *

Now why would I ignore the Supreme Court on the legal relevance of race based discrimination cases with gay rights.....and instead believe you citing yourself? Why would any rational person?

Smiling...keep running. 



> ROFLMNAO!
> _
> Anyone need anything else?
> 
> I mean honestly... these people are what is otherwise known in nature, as: FOOD!  _



Gays are 'food'? So you're going to _eat _them now? 

Jesus, dude. Are you okay?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > (Reader, the word "homo-phobe" literally means: An irrational fear of one's self.  Which doesn't exist.
> ...




Oh! LOOK KIDS!  A dictionary accepted their colloquial pretense ... why, its as if that changes something.

Homo- Self.

Phobia: Irrational fear.

Homo-phobia: An irrational Fear of Self.

But ... LOL! ... by all means you feel free to repeat that as many times as you think you need to, before it 'comes true'.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Damn!   220 pages so far.   Maybe gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA.   Are we that screwed up?



How many threads have you started about gay marriage now?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> I'm not citing me*. *


*

What you're doin' is embarassing yourself.  You just lack the objectivity to realize it.*


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Since I'm a straight man fucking my wife, regardless of how, you are barking up the wrong tree, as usual.  Tell us though, if I'm getting blown by two women at the same time, am I sexual deviant?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Antisemitism is a hatred and fear of Jews, even though other races, including Arabs, are Semites. Words are not just what you believe them to be.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Damn!   220 pages so far.   Maybe gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA.   Are we that screwed up?


If you let equality win, it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Damn!   220 pages so far.   Maybe gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA.   Are we that screwed up?
> ...


 

this one asks a question about american priorities.   Sorry if you have reading comprehension issues.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Since I'm a straight man fucking my wife...



LOL!  Well of course you are.  You're perfectly normal.  I mean, what other perfectly normal person doesn't spend endless hours advocating for the normalization of sexual deviancy?  

"Its perfectly normal..." You bet.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Since I'm a straight man fucking my wife...
> ...


I'm a liberal, a real one, and we fight for the rights of others.  I also enjoy killing off the stupid arguments of right-wingers, like you, on a public forum for all to see.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Since I'm a straight man fucking my wife...
> ...


 

liberal normalcy =  if it feels good at the time, its normal


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Antisemitism is a hatred and fear of Jews... .



Nope  Antisemitism is the opposition to semites.

Want to know how I know that?

Here, I'll share the wealth:

Anti-: opposed to, against

Semite: a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

BE AMAAAZED!  Be VERY Amazed...   At the MAGICAL POWERS OF ESTABLISHED REFERENCE RESOURCES.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Laughing.....*so now you're ignoring the dictionary on the meaning of words? *You already cited the dictionary is your own source, remember:



> *"But how cool is it that for your thesis to stand, the DICTIONARY can NOT be used to define the words at issue!
> 
> ROFLMNAO! Relativists..."
> *
> ...



Yet its you who is ignoring the dictionary.  The very source you cited. You do realize that you just proved my point, right? *Your entire argument is you insisting that your personal opinion is objective truth. And you've just ignored your own source to do it.*

Sigh...as I said,* you have no standards save one: agreement with what you already believe. *You'll ignore anything, even your own sources, if it contradicts what you want to believe. And just make up your own.

Which is about as subjective and relativistic as it gets. As you're about to demonstrate for us so, so elegantly:



> Homo- Self.



Nope. Homo means 'same' in 'greek. And 'human or 'man' in latin.



> *homo-*
> 1.
> a combining form appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant“same” ( homology); on this model, used in the formation ofcompound words ( homomorphic)
> 
> Homo Define Homo at Dictionary.com



And...



> Origin
> 1590-1600; < Latin homō man; OL hemō the earthly one (see humus );akin to Latin hūmānus human; cognate with Old English guma, Old Irishduine, Welsh dyn man, Lithuanian žmónės men
> 
> Homo Define Homo at Dictionary.com



*Remember, Keyes.....you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about. *And yet in your ignorance, you still insist that anything that contradicts you must be wrong (stunningly, even the dictionary), and anything you make up must be right.

Nope.

Even logically, your claims are a train wreck: as if 'homo' means 'self', wouldn't 'homosexual' merely be someone who masturbates? Your own logic just destroyed your entire basis of argument if applied consistently. And of course, your 'logic' is just you ignorantly making shit up.

As you just demonstrated, my little relativist.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Not necessarily...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



What you're a 'real' example of, is a hysterical feminized male of substandard intellectual means.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



This one asks if gay marriage is the priority. 

You can tell because the words 'gay marriage' are in the title. 

So how many threads have you started about gay marriage?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Antisemitism is a hatred and fear of Jews... .
> ...


*anti–Semitism*
_noun_ an·ti–Sem·i·tism \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\
: hatred of Jewish people
Anti-Semitism Definition of anti-Semitism by Merriam-Webster

You keep making up what words mean, not a good thing to do...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


I stopped running to the playground lady many decades ago.  Even then, she was usually scolding me, not protecting me...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Colloquialisms are not facts, dumbass.  They're words or phrases that are not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation.

Thus, when I refer to you as a _MOONBAT_... I am not claiming that you are a winged rodent which resides within the lunar environment, I am using the term as a means to belittle you for your inferior intellectual means and tendency toward the idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.


But hey.. In fairness to you, as a person saddled with mental disorder, there's no way you could have known that.

(Reader, by this time, you've probably begun to ask yourself, _'Why does Mr. Keys engage these idiots, who are so clearly beneath his intellectual station?', _and that is a good question.

For generations, normal people, such as you and I have taken the position of disregarding these idiots, who were slowly infiltrating our culture's bureaucratic infrastructure.  

And sadly, our ignoring them, actually gave them and others the erroneous impression that their idiocy was something of a higher intellectual value; that it was even equitable with sound reason.

And slowly over the decades, this has taken our nation from the most powerful economy in the world to a bankrupt hulk, governed by those who advance those feckless notions of foreign origin which are hostile to the principles in nature that sustain individual human; and by extension collective viability.  

Now, in fairness... IF there had been an internet in the first decade of the 1900s... Woodrow Wilson would never have been elected... and the left would have been intellectual eviscerated then, as they are being sic eviscerated in the here and now.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

your reading comprehension skills are very limited,  you continue to prove that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Once again... the intellectual giants of the Left come to assert colloquialism as literal fact.


Again Reader, what you're witnessing is the cognitive acuity common to the lowly vegetable.  otherwise known in greater nature, as:_ FOOD.
_
Now let's be honest, do we really want FOOD to be setting the rules?


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Antisemitism is a hatred and fear of Jews... .
> ...



Says you. Again, the dictaionary disagrees:



> *anti-Semitism*
> [an-tee-sem-i-tiz-uh m, an-tahy-]
> 
> Word Origin
> ...



And of course, you'll ignore the dictionary and make up whatever you want. Which is exactly my point. Your sole standard of credibility of any source (even your own sources) is if it agrees with what you already believe. If it doesn't, its summarily dismissed. Even the dictionary......despite the fact that you've cited the dictionary repeatedly. 

You'll even ignore your own sources.

That's the Cherry Picking fallacy. When you ignore anything that doesn't conform to what you already believe. Worse, you ignore what you don't like.....and them literally make up whatever you do. 'Natural laws of marriage', pulled sideways out of your ass, new meanings for the term 'homophobe', new meanings for the term 'homo'...made up by you.

.......and this you call 'reality'? This you call 'objective'?

Nope. That's as subjective as it gets.


----------



## danielpalos (May 16, 2015)

He is still looking for his lost keys and his lost Cause.


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Its apparently good enough to notice 

1) That you've started yet another thread on gay marriage

2) That you're running from my simple question about how many threads you've started on gay marriage. Have you lost count?

But tell us again about how a thread titled 'Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?' isn't about gay marriage. I can always use another giggle.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


There is a Moonbat around here alright, you my little friend.  Even the meds, good as they are, will be of limited value.


----------



## Redfish (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

of course its about gay marriage.  the number of posts have confirmed my hypothesis that gay marriage may in fact be the highest priority issue with many people on both sides.

Now,, what lesson shall we learn from that?   Do you have any idea?


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Colloquialisms are not facts, dumbass.  They're words or phrases that are not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation.



You are literally ignoring the dictionary on the meaning of words and then insisting that whatever you make up is the real meaning of words.

You just proved my point again: *your entire basis of argument is you insisting that your subjecitive opinion is objective truth. *When in reality, its just your subjective opinion. You made a definition for the noun 'homophobe'. Literally pulled it from thin air. Even the root word you claimed to draw it from was your imagination. As homo means 'same' or 'human' depending on if you're using the greek or latin roots. Not 'self'.

*But you still insist that your imaginary made up definition is the only 'real' definition.*

Which is exactly my point. This is the core of your every failure.  You do this with every debate, on every topic. You make up your own personal definitions. And then insist that we're bound to them because you imagine you speak for English, or God, or Nature, or 'Natural Law', or 'objective truth', or the 'creator' or whatever Appeal to Authority fallacy you wish to cling to.

*But its still just your made up, subjective, imaginary personal opinion.  *See how that works?


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> of course its about gay marriage.



So how many threads have you started about gay marriage now?

I've certainly lost count. If you have too....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> *homo-*
> 1.
> a combining form appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant“same” ( homology); on this model, used in the formation ofcompound words ( homomorphic)
> 
> Homo Define Homo at Dictionary.com



And...



> Origin
> 1590-1600; < Latin homō man; OL hemō the earthly one (see humus );akin to Latin hūmānus human; cognate with Old English guma, Old Irishduine, Welsh dyn man, Lithuanian žmónės men
> 
> Homo Define Homo at Dictionary.com



Great.. so you're wanting to correct me by pointing to another sense of the word? 

Which using your sense means that Homo-phobia means The IRRATIONAL FEAR OF SAME. 

This is fun... lets try another.

Homo- the genus of primates of which modern humans.

WOW~ 

Using THAT historic sense, we see that Homophobia is the irrational fear of PRIMATES!

Golly... yet NO etymology provides for ANY means for the existence of Homophobia as you NEED to use it.

Now who could have seen THAT comin'?


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 16, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right heterofascists are, metaphorically, getting their salads tossed.  Are they enjoying it?


Eeeeew...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (May 16, 2015)

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right heterofascists are, metaphorically, getting their salads tossed.  Are they enjoying it?
> ...


Yes, that would be the moment...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Colloquialisms are not facts, dumbass.  They're *words or phrases that are not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation.*
> ...



Am I?

Colloquialism: a word or phrase that is not formal or literary, typically one used in ordinary or familiar conversation.

ROFLMNAO! 

Again reader... they're the intellectual equivalent of: *FOOD.*


----------



## Skylar (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > *homo-*
> ...



This is a demonstration of your failure of process. As its yet another iteration of the same stupid ass mistake you make on virtually every topic, in every debate. 

You don't give a fuck what the word actually means. You don't care what objective sources like the dictionary says (even though you cite the dictionary). You don't care what the root words mean. That you have no idea what you're talking about.

AND....

That in your ignorance (willful and otherwise), you still insist that your made up definition is the 'real definition', while ignoring the anything that contradicts you. Any objective source. Even your own.

*Clinging impotently to your made up, subjective, relativistic, personal opinion as the only possible authoritative source.*

It doesn't matter if we're talking about the meaning of words, your imaginary 'natural law of marriage', your bizarre claims about the 'creator of the universe', regardless of the topic you use the exact same stupid ass process: *insisting that whatever you imagine must be objective truth.*

Um, no. It isn't. As you just demonstrated yet again.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


No, ya dumb ass.  Marriage is not discrimination.  Pissing on a minority group and telling them they are not worthy of marriage, that is discrimination.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> There is a Moonbat around here alright, you ...



LOL!

OK, so you're down to the lofty _"NUH HUH"_ defense?

Well... Looks like I've done all I can to this point.  They're completely out of anything which rises above the intellectual plain of kindergarten.

Someone come find me if they manage to crawl out of the play pin.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Again folks, she comes to defend her own subjective use of the pretense: _Homophobia_, by defining it as "THE IRRATIONAL FEAR OF SAME".

Now, in that referenced definition, where does one find ANY means to show EVEN THE POTENTIAL for a medical condition which presents as AN IRRATIONAL FEAR OF HOMOSEXUALS?

.

.

.

.

Anyone got anything on that?

.

.

.

.

Anyone at all?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty, boys, is the ability to act freely, or not act, with given boundaries.  A business owner is not at the same liberty as the man on the street.  They are required to follow different sets of rules.  Being a liberal, I'm big on the right to be left the hell alone, but even that has limits and society limits liberty as it does most other things.  If it didn't we'd have anarchy, not society, and liberty would be at serious risk because few would have the power necessary to enforce it.  Your liberty, like your property, is protected by what society creates.  For that there is a price to be paid, limits on both liberty and property.
> ...


Oh so now the dumb ass says the right to free speech is not liberty.  Kaz, face it, in the land of morons, you are king.  And news flash demanding liberty, DOES NOT INFRINGE ON YOUR LIBERTY YOU DUMB ASS.  You don't own Gays, you dumb shit.  Get off them.  You don't have the right to shit all over a minority group just because the power of the vote makes you believe so.  Not in this country dumb ass, we have a Constitution.  Oh and btw your POWER IS FLEETING Satan!  I see you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Someone come find me if they manage to crawl out of the play pin [sic].


_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Bull shit, ya dumb ass.  I'M NOT DEMANDING ANYTHING FROM YOU, you stupid piece of shit.  I'M REMOVING YOUR JACK BOOT OFF THE NECKS OF GAYS, YOU DON'T LIKE ME KICKING YOUR ASS? GTFO!!! You need a tissue?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

FYI: The Word they're groping for is Homosexualphobia.  

But to use _that_ word, would begin an actual discussion, wherein they would need to present evidence that a contest of the normalization of the sexual deviancy, presents evidence of irrational fear.

And THAT is a debate in which they have no HOPE to prevail.  As this and tens of thousands of other threads, just like this, demonstrate, to an absolute certainty.

You see, to set the term up in honest terms, invokes honest debate.  And the MOMENT that they engage in what is established as an honest debate, they _lose_... because, as Relativist, they are INTRINSICALLY... (look it up PMH) DISHONEST.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Someone come find me if they manage to crawl out of the play pin [sic].
> ...



Well of course... because you offered an invalid defense, were summarily called on it... your opposition naturally must have conceded through the act of calling you on that invalid defense.

There can be NO DOUBT that such makes perfect sense to the feminized Male, saddled with intellectual relativism.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Bull shit, ya dumb ass.  I'M NOT DEMANDING ANYTHING FROM YOU, you stupid piece of shit.  I'M REMOVING YOUR JACK BOOT OFF THE NECKS OF GAYS, YOU DON'T LIKE ME KICKING YOUR ASS? GTFO!!! You need a tissue?



ROFLMNAO!

I guess I will never tire of the feminized male bowing up in pant wetting, butch regalia.

LOL!  _Adorable..._


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Bull shit, ya dumb ass.  I'M NOT DEMANDING ANYTHING FROM YOU, you stupid piece of shit.  I'M REMOVING YOUR JACK BOOT OFF THE NECKS OF GAYS, YOU DON'T LIKE ME KICKING YOUR ASS? GTFO!!! You need a tissue?
> ...


Why are you bringing up your girlfriend in this discussion?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> No, ya dumb ass.  Marriage is not discrimination.  Pissing on a minority group and telling them they are not worthy of marriage, that is discrimination.



BEHAVIOR... is not a valid basis for minority status, in terms of legal protections.

Behavior IS however, a CLASSIC basis to discriminate against those few people who can't find the strength of courage to behave within the boundaries of soundly reasoned societal mores.

We have literally created MONUMENTS to housing such individuals as we demonstrate our profound discrimination against those minorities.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Why are you bringing up your girlfriend in this discussion?



ROFLMNAO!

Now isn't THAT _precious?_


----------



## RKMBrown (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you bringing up your girlfriend in this discussion?
> ...


Butt out twinkle toes.


----------



## danielpalos (May 16, 2015)

I believe the Most Important issue should be; why do free chics give such lousy client relations for free for a free relationship?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Butt out twinkle toes.



ROFLMNAO!

I bet there is a discernible trimmer around  Newport Beach every time this pansy posts... as the Duke spins in his grave at the thought of such a douche invoking his image, next to such pitiful, anti-American prose.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> BEHAVIOR... is not a valid basis for minority status, in terms of legal protections.


Then why are religions and religious practices protected?  Choices, usually, and behaviors, always.  Since we protect them you lose, yet again.


----------



## danielpalos (May 16, 2015)

I believe wo-men should Always defer to men unless they apply for and obtain special dispensation.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > What the above idiot is doing, is taking laws designed to prevent injustices against people of a given genetic minority, and asserting it upon BEHAVIOR.
> ...


Homos haven't pushed far enough. People will turn against the homos after they've had enough of their toxic behavior.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > BEHAVIOR... is not a valid basis for minority status, in terms of legal protections.
> ...


That my good sir is specifically called out in the constitution. Being a fag is not called out.
Fags lose in the end cause they all have miserable lives so might as well go back into their holes.
Fags lost this debate because the disease makes rational thought difficult.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > BEHAVIOR... is not a valid basis for minority status, in terms of legal protections.
> ...



LOL! _ Seriously? _

Because _religions and religious practices_ comprise the most closely held ideas that a human being possesses. 

OKA: the means to freely exercise such, resting at the core of American Principle.

But hey... As a Leftist; meaning a proponent of foreign ideas hostile to American Principle, _there was no way you could have known that.

(Again Reader, the above individual is not a US Citizen, but a British Subject fraudulently posing as a US Citizen, this in a deceitful attempt to deceitfully advise you, so as to mislead you.  It's part and parcel of the lie that is the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Deviancy.)_


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Guns are in there, and so is Equality, which is why the court rejects your childish fear of homosexuals.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


I already said they should be equal. Marriage between homos isn't marriage at all so it is not a right that homos should receive. We need to see homos for what they are. Mentally ill sexual deviants. How is that not equal? I would expect the same if I chose to take a disgusting life like that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Guns actually are not in there, _per se_... you're conflating the right to own and effectively use state of the art firearms and sufficient ammunition, in defense of the means to exercise one's God-given rights.

Again... your pitiful ignorance of the US Constitution is the consequence of your adherence to Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle.


----------



## danielpalos (May 16, 2015)

Women who turn down full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work; are welcome to go the gay wedding route.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2015)

Keys admits defeat.  Good for him.  Now he needs counseling.  Keys is perhaps the best poster boy for American Creep on the entire Board.  Superman is not even in Keys' league.  And by the by, there are not enough gun in America to ever deprive Marriage Equality rights in our communities, so do not even pretend to threaten your betters.

Gay marriage is not the most important issue in America by far, and after the end of next month, it will become increasingly unimportant.  By election time next year, marriage equality will not be an issue at all.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 16, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Keys admits defeat.  Good for him.  Now he needs counseling.  Keys is perhaps the best poster boy for American Creep on the entire Board.  Superman is not even in Keys' league.  And by the by, there are not enough gun in America to ever deprive Marriage Equality rights in our communities, so do not even pretend to threaten your betters.
> 
> Gay marriage is not the most important issue in America by far, and after the end of next month, it will become increasingly unimportant.  By election time next year, marriage equality will not be an issue at all.


I'll make fags feel unwelcome.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 16, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


You are so screwed here.  Guns in the Constitution?  Yes.  Religion?  Yes.  Equality before the law?  Yes.  Do the courts rule on all three?  Yes....

And I am a real American, unlike you, a liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Keys admits defeat.  Good for him.  Now he needs counseling.  Keys is perhaps the best poster boy for American Creep on the entire Board.  Superman is not even in Keys' league.  And by the by, there are not enough gun in America to ever deprive Marriage Equality rights in our communities, so do not even pretend to threaten your betters.
> ...


Once, maybe.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


How is liberalism a mental disease?


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Are you ignorant? Or a liar? or both?

Up until a few years ago- up until the Supreme Court said 'no' in Lawrence v. Texas- it was illegal for homosexual men to have sex in some states.
At various times there were laws passed to fire gays from jobs. The State department fired gays. The military fired gays.

Same rights?

Only an idiot would make that claim.


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Keys is posting facts,  those of you on the left are posting failed talking points.



If Keyes ever posts any facts, it is entirely by mistake. Most of his posts are pure irrational ramblings.


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



WTF is wrong with you? 

Considering everyone who disagrees with you to be mentally ill? Seriously?


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time.


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Actually- they are both banned and not recognized.

From Georgia
_(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman.* Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.*
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]_


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



*Yet- here you are arguing that marriage is discriminatory- and you want to keep it more discriminatory- and object to marriage being less discriminatory. *


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Here is what Kaz is saying: _Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry- of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage_


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



See, from my point of view- we need to see that bigots like you are mentally ill sexual deviants.


----------



## Syriusly (May 16, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Keys admits defeat.  Good for him.  Now he needs counseling.  Keys is perhaps the best poster boy for American Creep on the entire Board.  Superman is not even in Keys' league.  And by the by, there are not enough gun in America to ever deprive Marriage Equality rights in our communities, so do not even pretend to threaten your betters.
> ...



I am sure that worries them terribly.


----------



## MaryL (May 16, 2015)

GAY marriage is the most important thing EVER and EVER! Forget about starvation or global warming or cancer, GAY GAY GAY. What bothers  me is this bloody fixation on such a obviously pointless debate...


----------



## Syriusly (May 17, 2015)

MaryL said:


> GAY marriage is the most important thing EVER and EVER! Forget about starvation or global warming or cancer, GAY GAY GAY. What bothers  me is this bloody fixation on such a obviously pointless debate...



Looking at your posts I guess you think it is.


----------



## MaryL (May 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > GAY marriage is the most important thing EVER and EVER! Forget about starvation or global warming or cancer, GAY GAY GAY. What bothers  me is this bloody fixation on such a obviously pointless debate...
> ...


Don't think so hard then. It doesn't  suit you.


----------



## Syriusly (May 17, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Oh really- it doesn't take thinking hard to respond to one of your posts.


----------



## Kosh (May 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The irony of that post from a far left drone!


----------



## Kosh (May 17, 2015)

Time to interrupt this non-discussion and entertainment thread:


----------



## MaryL (May 17, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


The irony of WHAT? I was kidding, and you get all GW Bush on me.


----------



## Kosh (May 17, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Are you admitting to be Syriusly as well?


----------



## danielpalos (May 17, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Keys admits defeat.  Good for him.  Now he needs counseling.  Keys is perhaps the best poster boy for American Creep on the entire Board.  Superman is not even in Keys' league.  And by the by, there are not enough gun in America to ever deprive Marriage Equality rights in our communities, so do not even pretend to threaten your betters.
> ...


some on the left believe _gay bashers_ merely lack a sense of humor.


----------



## Redfish (May 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

The only rational explanation for the way liberals think and act is mental illness.   You have my sympathy and I hope that someday medical science will find a cure.   Until then, we will listen to your rantings as we listen to frogs croak in the night.


----------



## Seawytch (May 17, 2015)

MaryL said:


> GAY marriage is the most important thing EVER and EVER! Forget about starvation or global warming or cancer, GAY GAY GAY. What bothers  me is this bloody fixation on such a obviously pointless debate...



Says yet another individual that can't help posting in "gay threads" all about how disinterested they are in "gay threads". 

Go start or find a discussion thread about starvation or climate change or cancer. This one was quite clear about what it was. It was another "gay thread" talking about how disinterested you should be about "gay threads". 

A herp and a derp.


----------



## candycorn (May 17, 2015)

Again, when one of the two major viable political parties in our nation thinks that a it is okay to discriminate against a group of Americans who have broken no laws and base their approval on behavior they find reprehensible, it rises to be among the most important topics of the day.

I'm sure there are a great many who find idolizing folks on television like the folks who apprear on and are Kardashians, Ru Paul, Duck Dynasty, etc to be reprehensible.  I"m sure many find pornography reprehensible. But nobody is saying that these people shouldn't be allowed to marry.  Both reality TV and the porn industry are growing.  Yet somehow, the homosexual community has become the one that it is okay to discriminate against?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 17, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


What a out right fucking lie! You are for government tyranny!


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


We're not the one fucking each other in the butts and molesting children so how does that work out?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 17, 2015)

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Is this alone not proof of mental illness?

Before you use the excuse of oppression causing it, there have been many religious groups oppressed and I never remember their suicide rates being crazy?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 18, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Is this alone not proof of mental illness?
> 
> Before you use the excuse of oppression causing it, there have been many religious groups oppressed and I never remember their suicide rates being crazy?


Which in no way 'justifies' denying same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Given your posting history, you're in no position to accuse others of being 'mentally ill.'


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Is this alone not proof of mental illness?
> 
> Before you use the excuse of oppression causing it, there have been many religious groups oppressed and I never remember their suicide rates being crazy?



Wow....so you don't know about Jim Jones and Guyana?


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > SUPERMAN1929 said:
> ...



We don't know that you aren't fucking someone in the butt. 

And the only ones molesting children are child molesters. The majority of which are men molesting girls.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Waaaah waaah- No- you are for government tyranny!.....

I would laugh- but of course its true- you want the government to regulate how American have consensual sex. 

Doesn't get much more tyranical than that.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



the only rational explanation for you coming to that conclusion is that you are mentally ill.


----------



## AntiParty (May 18, 2015)

Nothing funnier than the people who fear Government Control siding with big Gov to CONTROL people's actions.


----------



## AntiParty (May 18, 2015)

I mean. I hear if you make a gay person mad, they will throw feathers at you really hard. They NEED to be *controlled.* (R)ight?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > So you can have an opinion that differs from the courts, but I can't?  Why is that?
> ...



You are one stupid fuck.

Show where I said the courts haven't ruled for gay marriage.  I keep saying they did, idiot.  What is wrong with you?  Do you have any higher brain functions at all?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yet another non-sequitur and you call my views childish


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is discrimination.  It causes people to be treated differently by government. Government loves to discriminate and pit people against each other, it grows their power
> ...



It's sad how badly the government schools have failed you.  Learn the English language


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty is not the right to demand anything from others, that infringes on the liberty of others. Not having gay government marriage doesn't prevent gays from doing whatever the fuck they want, including fucking each other
> ...





I did?  Show me that quote.  What you're pulling out of your ass stinks, think you can just leave it there?



RKMBrown said:


> Kaz, face it, in the land of morons, you are king.  And news flash demanding liberty, DOES NOT INFRINGE ON YOUR LIBERTY YOU DUMB ASS.  You don't own Gays, you dumb shit.  Get off them.  You don't have the right to shit all over a minority group just because the power of the vote makes you believe so.  Not in this country dumb ass, we have a Constitution.  Oh and btw your POWER IS FLEETING Satan!  I see you.





Gotcha, that rant is classic.  You are going unhinged.  If you actually had an argument, you would be able to process what I actually said and respond to it.  You would want to do that.  All you have is screaming and ranting and you're a lazy piece of shit who can't work for what you want and actually convince people.  Being the mind numb leftist that you are, you just run to the courts to decree it


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Begging the question.  Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts.  The courts were not in response to that statute.  Sorry, whiffed on that one


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law. 

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eliminating all government marriage makes marriage "more discriminatory?"

And giving more people rights that other citizens don't have makes marriage "less discriminatory?"



Um, OK?


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
_Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized. _

*And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned*

From Georgia
_(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman.* Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.*
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]_


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Whiff again.  Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



But government marriage is not being eliminated. There is no movement to end it, there is no indication that it will end- certainly you are not abandoning your own government sanctioned marriage.

You just want to deny that marriage to same gender couples. 

Because you are 'against'  government marriage..........but apparently only for same gender couples.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Here is what Kaz is saying: _Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-_
> 
> _of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage_



1)  I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other.  One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life.  Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others.  I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated  between citizens

2)  I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Wow you are double downing on dumb this morning. 

First of all- your claim was this:


_*Kaz: You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage.*_

And then I pointed out that you were wrong:

Syriusly:  *Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.*

*So you try to move the goal post to obscure the fact that your initial claim was just flat out false- by making another false claim.*

*Hint: gay marriage was not 'invented' in California by the courts.*


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.



Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

But she can't rise above her own subjective needs, to understand that appeals... ALL appeals are only fallacious, when the appeal serves as a distraction from the point of the argument, and when the appeal is not substantiated by sound reason and/or facts bearing the relevance of the appeal to the standing point(s) of the argument.

Fact: Nature exist.

Fact: Within Nature there are immutable laws which govern every aspect of nature, from every scope of the geometric/chronological physical universe, in which our human systems are designed to scan, assess and draw conclusions for the purpose of survival through out and down within the quantum dimensions, of which we can barely scratch the surface and; which have absolutely no relevance to our existence, but which our minds must study, due to that ever present need to pursue the truth; to learn, that is written into our operating systems, to insure to the degree possible, our survival.

Fact: Those Natural Laws are observable have been observed, for thousands of years.  They can be and have been tested... and those tests provide consistent results.  Without regard to their physical or metaphysical applications.

Fact: Ignoring those Laws, like ignoring the laws of the legal code, is no defense from the consequences that come as a result of such.

Fact: Consequences do not always being immediate impact; short circuit an alternating current with one's body may bring anything from an uncomfortable shock, to explosive, instant death... contrasted with the violation of the laws governing promiscuous sex may bring immediate consequences from infectious disease to pregnancy, or the summed effect may gather for decades, until one looks back upon an empty life, full of unfulfilled dreams, broken promises and slow death from incomprehensible demoralization.

Fact: Recognition of these laws requires an objective consideration, which is easily overridden by the subjective need to NOT recognize those laws.

Fact: Skylar and the Cult Advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Deviancy openly refuse to recognize those laws.

Fact: Their refusal to recognize those laws is not precluding them from realizing the consequences for such.

Fact: Their unwillingness, or inability to reason objectively, means, as nature requires it must, they they will erroneously blame someone or something else for their problems and as a result of that poor judgment; such will prevent them from ever finding the means to make the corrections necessary, to solve those problems... and in the process, further injure themselves and others.

Fact: THAT is "HOW HOMOSEXUALITY INJURES SOMEONE BESIDES THE TWO PEOPLE ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

There it is in plain english...

Feel free to dispute any one.

...  Go BIG or Stay Home.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what Kaz is saying: _Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-_
> ...



1) Marriage in the United States is anything anyone wants to call marriage- you can call your dog and cat sitting together marriage- but the only actual marriage is legal marriage. 

2) No one is going through the criminal courts- civil courts are being used- just as they were used 3 other times to fight laws that were found to be unconstitutional. 
That is what courts do.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
> ...



Fact: Keys is a loon.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law



Bam, really?  That's so cool.  Can you point me to that ruling?  I'd love to read that



Syriusly said:


> The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time



Begging the question


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what Kaz is saying: _Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-_
> ...



They can't get it through Legislation.  Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior.  A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite...  a twist on sexual gluttony. 

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Ouch!  That was painful just watching that pretzel you just tied yourself into


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I guess that is as close as you can come to admitting that your claim:

_Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized. _

*Was flat out wrong*


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law
> ...



Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Hint: You are stupid

Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say


Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, marriage isn't either as a matter of fact, but Equality before the Law is, which isn't up for a vote of the people and why you're fucked.

You can go on, and on, and on but your dog doesn't hunt.  Guns, religion, equality, the courts step in on laws passed about all three.  That's how it works here, which screws you completely and I'm very happy about that.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

So 


Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


He must read all of the SCOTUS ruling on Marriage, to cull from them YOUR ARGUMENT which you CLAIM is culled from such.

I gotta say... that's* not* reasonable.

What it IS, is obscurant; a deflection from your own point, as a means to mask your arguments vacuous nature.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Ummmmm actually- and not surprisingly- you are of course wrong. 

On February 13, 2012, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed legislation that established full marriage rights for same-sex couples in the state of Washington. Opponents mounted a challenge that required voters to approve the statute at a referendum, which they did on November 6


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


What part of the people don't get a vote on the rights of others are you still not getting?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say
> ...



ROFLMNAO!

Yes... Let's just allow those presenting with mental disorder, to reject human physiology and the laws of nature relevant to such, which provide for two distinct but complimenting genders, designed specifically to Join Two Beings, into one sustainable being... so that the mentally ill can feel "EQUAL".

Here's the problem with that... in terms of law, the mentally ill are equal.  That two men cannot be legitimately joined as one being... doesn't change that.

And that the mentally ill feel otherwise... is irrelevant.

Ya see scamp... that's sorta the downside to being mentally ill.  You're fuckin' crazy and because of THAT, you don't get to alter critical public institutions, in the hopes that it will make you feel sane.  Because you're not sane. And without regard to the PLETHORA of reasons for adhering to natural law, forcing the entire culture to turn from it, WILL NOT MAKE YOU SANE.

Now, I don't expect you to understand, because you're nuckin' futs... but I set the reasoning out there, so that you might have a CHANCE to understand.  

And that is all a reasonable person can do, within the scope of civility.  

Now please... do not push this beyond the scope of civility.  No one wants to go beyond that ... and if you had the capacity to recognize reality, you'd know that those LEAST wanting to do there, would be YOU and your *teeny tiny* little cult.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The part where for a right to exist, there must be correlating responsibilities...

So let's talk this out, shall we?

Now to what responsibilities are you adhering here, in claiming what right?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> They can't get it through Legislation.  Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY...



Same sex Civil Marriage passed through legislative action in the following jurisdictions:

Delaware – Legislatively - 2013
District of Columbia – Legislatively - 2009
Hawaii – Legislatively - 2013
Illinois – Legislatively - 2013
New Hampshire – Legislatively - 2009
New York – Legislatively - 2011
Rhode Island – Legislatively - 2013
Vermont – Legislatively - 2009


Same sex Civil Marriage won at the ballot box the last 4 times it was on a General Election ballot:

Maine – Ballot – 2012
Maryland – Ballot - 2012
Minnesota – Ballot/Legislatively - 2012
Washington – Ballot - 2012



>>>>


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I am unsure of the exact word count there but it adds up to nothing, while completely ignoring the crux of the issue, equality, which is what the courts are ruling on.  Not marriage, boys, equality before the law.  That's what fucks you when laws are deemed unconstitutional...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Now to what responsibilities are you adhering here, in claiming what right?


The right is to be treated equally by the state.  Since the treatment of gays is unequal, the courts are tossing said laws.  Your rights aren't up for a vote of the people, and neither are theirs.

Imagine a law that said only married people could own houses or raise children?  Since unmarried couples and singles would then be treated unequally the court would be perfectly justified to toss said laws.  Same thing in this case, unequal is invalid here, in most cases.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > They can't get it through Legislation.  Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY...
> ...



12 states...  

SUPER!

Now, what instrument provides for the common disposition wherein a state can institute laws that bind other states?

Oh!  I know this one... It's a thing that sets the rules for all states, which precludes any state from setting law that binds other states without the consent of those states... MAN~  WHAT IS THAT THING?

Seems like it has something to do with a binding agreement, that joins all the states on which the consent to be governed by that thing rests ENTIRELY!  And that without that thing, the hole thing just dissolves...

OH!  I wish I could remember what that thing is... I just feel off my constitution today... federally speaking, I just don't seem to be legislatively capable of getting it going.

Maybe you're having the same problem. 

I know that for me, sometimes I feel like just voting myself a million bucks and going down to the bank and letting them know that I've done all the homework and have long debated the issues and ... well, I'm happy to report that after much deliberation, I've agreed that I will take from the bank: A Million Bucks.

But something tells me that all of the hard work and MY _GREAT *NEED, *_which founded my legislative agreement with myself... will be insufficient, in terms of getting the bank to give me the couple grand I have in that bank and the other 998,000 bucks from the others banking at that bank.

Sounds like you get that way too... .


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Do I really have to slow it down for you that much?

You said and I quote:  "Liberty is not the right to demand anything from others, that infringes on the liberty of others."
Let's break that down for you.
Demanding anything from others has only been done in the context of public free speeches.  You don't like what the gays are demanding in public, you don't have to listen to them.  Thus what you said is the equivalent of "Liberty is not the right to" make public demands.  Making public demands is the cornerstone of free speech.  Thus, what you said is the equivalent of the right to free speech is not liberty.  You are arguing that free speech, if done by gays, should be prohibited.

What screaming?  What ranting.  Oh you freaked out with the call caps... lol  I'll bold stuff since your delicate eyes can't stand the "loudness" of all caps.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2015)

"The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time"

Kaz: Begging the question.

Nope, Kaz, it answers the question.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction, you and Keys have your opinions, and that's that.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> "The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time"
> 
> Kaz: Begging the question.
> 
> Nope, Kaz, it answers the question.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction, you and Keys have your opinions, and that's that.


I'll give them this, they are certainly dedicated to saying everyone else, including the courts, are wrong.  God only knows what they will be saying after the SC rules against them in June...


----------



## bendog (May 18, 2015)

Every night I have trouble getting to sleep because I can't stop thinking about gays being .... normal.  I have nightmares about it.  I can't get enough sleep to stay alert.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Yep- 12 states which show that your boviating was once again  just more cow dung.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2015)

"The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time"

Kaz: Begging the question.

Nope, Kaz, it answers the question.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction, you and Keys have your opinions, and that's that.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



It was not "created" by the Judicature; but, _Eureka_-ed by them; _A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;_

Such laws by a _legislature_ are Bills of Attainder.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You're a terrible word parser, you suck at it


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yes, I'm familiary with that legislation from the bench.

You said they said that I don't know the law, I can't find "kaz" in the link, where is that?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say
> ...



Yes, and gays are treated equally, so you're fucked to a critical mind



PaintMyHouse said:


> You can go on, and on, and on but your dog doesn't hunt



You learn that from your neighbors in Green Acres, Eddie?



PaintMyHouse said:


> Guns, religion, equality, the courts step in on laws passed about all three.  That's how it works here, which screws you completely and I'm very happy about that.



Yes, being black changed who you could marry for every black, being gay changed who you could marry for no gay, they are equal.  Got it, Daniel Webster


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



There are no "rights" involved in the discussion.  You have the right to be left alone, not to demand validation and free shit


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Your idea of equal rights is you get to tie people down you don't like and piss on them while you tell them they don't have any rights.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Just to be clear, so the rich and corporations not paying their "fair share" of taxes doesn't infringe on anyone's rights?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Now to what responsibilities are you adhering here, in claiming what right?
> ...



Name one, name a person that being gay changes who they can marry



PaintMyHouse said:


> Imagine a law that said only married people could own houses or raise children?  Since unmarried couples and singles would then be treated unequally the court would be perfectly justified to toss said laws.  Same thing in this case, unequal is invalid here, in most cases.



Now you're really into lala land.  So it's OK to say there are tax breaks only married people can get.  It's not OK to say only married people can own a house.  That's a ridiculous distinction, either they are both Constitutional or neither is.  You just walked into the point I keep making.  All marriage is discrimination, government should treat all it's citizens the same.  And there are better solutions that could be applied to all for every problem that government marriage supposedly solves


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Demanding anything from others has only been done in the context of public free speeches.  You don't like what the gays are demanding in public, you don't have to listen to them.  Thus what you said is the equivalent of "Liberty is not the right to" make public demands.  Making public demands is the cornerstone of free speech.  Thus, what you said is the equivalent of the right to free speech is not liberty.  You are arguing that free speech, if done by gays, should be prohibited



Demanding things from others is "the equivalent of" making public demands?  That's just stupid.  You are as mentally retarded as any leftist


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else.  Well, until now.  Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Maybe- but I am not the one continuing to post crap claims like you did when you said:

_Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized._

Stop making crap claims- and you won't have to worry about how I parse words.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Nothing I said is anything like that, go suck cock


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



LOL....if you were familiar- you would know its not legislation- but a reversal of legislation.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



It must be since you are discussing it.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation.  Try to keep up, sparky, you're lagging way behind the discussion


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Well you are really going to be sad when the Supreme Court issues its decisions- since what the Supreme Court is deciding is whether or not the rights of same gender couples are being violated or not.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The courts can only reverse legislation when it's based on the Constitution.  When the legislature rolls back legislation because they want to, that's legislation.  When the courts roll back legislation when they want to, that is also legislation.  Gays are treated exactly like straights, the courts added that gays have more rights now than straights, that is legislation no matter how you slice it


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



What a whiney liar. 

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional. 

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



And that is the basis of the reversals.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



No, I'm expecting them to rule for the butt fuckers.  So there is no way for me to be "sad."  I would be very surprised if they follow the law and rule against the gay disease.  It's a disease you know, the CDC says so


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> What a whiney liar.
> 
> the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.
> 
> You know this- you just lie and whine about it.



I'm sorry I made you cry, guy.  Here's a hanky.  Take deep breaths and try to calm down.  Maybe you should play in the yard a while until you calm down


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



LOL....what a whiney liar you are. 

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I answered that in the quote


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Hmmmm no butt fuckers listed in the case before the Supreme Court.

There are gay and lesbian couples- but no 'butt fuckers'- you once again are very confused.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What a whiney liar.
> ...



LOL......

What a whiney liar.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL....what a whiney liar you are.
> 
> Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.
> 
> ...



Seriously, calm down and stop screaming.  It's embarrassing to see.  Maybe if you put a bag over your mouth that will help you calm down.  It's your mommy wondering why you're shrieking like that, Shirley?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Demanding anything from others has only been done in the context of public free speeches.  You don't like what the gays are demanding in public, you don't have to listen to them.  Thus what you said is the equivalent of "Liberty is not the right to" make public demands.  Making public demands is the cornerstone of free speech.  Thus, what you said is the equivalent of the right to free speech is not liberty.  You are arguing that free speech, if done by gays, should be prohibited
> ...


ROFL Which part do you think is stupid the part about others being the public or the part about demanding things being the equivalent of making demands? ROFL If it wasn't for dumb ass statement's you'd have nothing at all it seems.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I am not the one continuing to post crap claims like you did when you said:

_Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized._

Stop making crap claims- and you won't have to worry about how I parse words.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL....what a whiney liar you are.
> ...



LOL....what a whiney liar you are.

Now that homosexuals can marry the person that they want regardless of gender- you think that they have 'more rights' now. But of course straights can marry the person that they want regardless of gender also.

To you- treating homosexuals equally with straights = giving gays more rights.

What a whiner.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right?  Based on what?


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



only in your rightwingnut, uneducated, low IQ world.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



You know when Kaz starts talking about 'sucking cock' and 'butt fuck' he knows he has lost the argument and is just flailing.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



LOL, you don't know what gays are?  You thought it meant happy people?  That's hysterical.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


What part of my question went over the dumb shit's haid?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Stop crying, Nancy.   This is a message board, you will hear views you disagree with.  Hysterical sobbing and gulping for air isn't how you deal with that.  Why don't you play with your dolls for a while?


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



You clearly are confused again. There is no such case before the court. 

The Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas that States can't tell adults they can't have consensual butt sex.

But nothing about tax breaks for butt sex- though I am sure that if there was, there would be more claims by straight men than by gay men.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



LOL......

You have completely lost it. 

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it.


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



OK, it's simple, but you'll never figure it out so I'll explain it to you.  Then you still won't get it.

Leftists think:

1) The rich and corporations don't pay their "fair share" of taxes, which means other people have to make up for it

2) Gay government marriage and tax breaks doesn't affect anyone.  

3) So, does paying taxes affect other people or not?  Yes or no?  Don't get to change the answer to that based on whether you want the tax break for someone or not


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Jesus, more tears?  Look Darlene, go play a while when you can come back and talk without that incessant moaning and wailing.  Have a tea party with your dolls, then come back when you calm down


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


1) Fail: Some leftists know that (1) is a lie, a campaign slogan if you will.  The rest can barely get through a bowl of cereal without government assistance.
2) Fail:  There is no such thing as gay government marriage.  Fail: Everyone knows that tax breaks reduce taxes for the lucky few who get them.
3) Fail.  Your number three is a series of questions not a statement of what leftists believe.  But to answer your questions:  Paying taxes reduces the assets of the person paying said taxes. Depending on how that money is then used, the money will either help or hurt others.  Sort of depends how it's used.  I would think that's obvious.  Either way the person that paid the taxes is harmed.

I'll ask my question again.  How did my question "Other than democrat congressmen who don't pay their taxes... who are these rich people and corporations that don't pay their taxes?"  Make you make the statement "Swish, you completely whiffed on the discussion."   You appear to be loosing all touch with reality.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2015)

Women being big chickens when it comes to simply being honest with us; instead of lying to us and  letting us miss our turn is the most important issue today.


----------



## bodecea (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



It always is so interesting to hear that "straights" look at gay couples and default immediately in their minds to sex.   Do you do that to straight couples too.  Do you sit at a wedding and picture them naked in bed doing it?  Like you do with gay couples?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Now to what responsibilities are you adhering here, in claiming what right?
> ...


So any responsibility which might be associated tot the right you're claiming... Is purely that of the STATE.

Anyone need anything else?

Here is the Ideological Left 'advising' you hat they can't even get their head around the concept where the rights THEY CLAIM... Is sudsy aimed by any responsibility on their part.

And in that... You find the entirety of that thing OKA: THE PROBLEM.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



LOL......

You have completely lost it.

the 'rest of us'- meaning you and people like you- have no problem going to the courts to ask them to protect your constitutional rights- whether its regarding gun ownership, or political contributions or prayer in school or anything else- people from both the right and left go to court asking the courts to overturn legislation that they feel is unconstitutional.

You know this- you just lie and whine about it


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > They can't get it through Legislation.  Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY...
> ...



12 states...  

SUPER!

Now, what instrument provides for the common disposition wherein a state can institute laws that bind other states?

Oh!  I know this one... It's a thing that sets the rules for all states, which precludes any state from setting law that binds other states without the consent of those states... MAN~  WHAT IS THAT THING?

Seems like it has something to do with a binding agreement, that joins all the states on which the consent to be governed by that thing rests ENTIRELY!  And that without that thing, the hole thing just dissolves...

OH!  I wish I could remember what that thing is... I just feel off my constitution today... federally speaking, I just don't seem to be legislatively capable of getting it going.

Maybe you're having the same problem. 

I know that for me, sometimes I feel like just voting myself a million bucks and going down to the bank and letting them know that I've done all the homework and have long debated the issues and ... well, I'm happy to report that after much deliberation, I've agreed that I will take from the bank: A Million Bucks.

But something tells me that all of the hard work and MY _GREAT *NEED, *_which founded my legislative agreement with myself... will be insufficient, in terms of getting the bank to give me the couple grand I have in that bank and the other 998,000 bucks from the others banking at that bank.

Sounds like you get that way too... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


There is no right to redefine marriage; an essential, core institution; the nucleus of civilization, so you can 'feel equal'.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



There is however the right to equal treatment under the law- its part of the 14th Amendment- and there is no gay exclusion there- though I know you wish there was.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Yes... There is.  And no where in the right to be treated equally is there a right to redefine marraige to make anyone feel equal.

See how that works?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


ROFL moron.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Love the irony.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> There is no right to redefine marriage; an essential, core institution; the nucleus of civilization, so you can 'feel equal'.


It's been redefined many times, even here.  Your arguments are DOA, so, why do you persist?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > There is no right to redefine marriage; an essential, core institution; the nucleus of civilization, so you can 'feel equal'.
> ...


Cause he's a Moron.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


The tax breaks for but fucking currently go mostly to breeders, who aren't making babies, not that way at least.  Breeders for butt sex, has a nice ring to it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2015)

"Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right? Based on what?" is a trolling violation.  Reported.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


That part I know, but even morons usually give up eventually.  These two are the Energizer Bunny of Fag Hating.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> No, I'm expecting them to rule for the butt fuckers.


That's the closest thing to a worthy thought I think you've ever had here.  Congrats.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


No, it infringes on their finances, unfairly.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


What a shame it is that you can't figure out what equal is in this case? Oh well, the court already has.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> 2) Gay government marriage and tax breaks doesn't affect anyone.


It affects the gay married folks, righto?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2015)

"There is no right to redefine marriage; an essential, core institution; the nucleus of civilization, so you can 'feel equal'."

One, man and woman is not the nucleus of civilization and has nothing to do with feeling equal.  Two, polygamy is the nucleus if we are going to play that game, and the man and woman monogamists redefined it.  Three, The institution is being "redfined" again.

Four, Key's submission is noted and accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Oh there's shame to be assessed here.  And it's on the sexual deviant demanding a right to assert itself into an institution for which is diametrically unsuited


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I start saying that when you airheads make the conversation dull by continually not processing what you read


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


No.. It doesn't.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


There's no shame in being gay.  It's a shame you don't know that.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I'm afraid that is does, like when we don't bring in enough to pay our bills because taxes aren't raised on the wealth but fees and such are on the little people.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


We're pretty clear on your butt sex argument...


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


So you make up all sorts of lies, and it's our fault for not understanding what you really meant to say.  Oh...  Rolls Eyes.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Not for the sociopath... that's true.

But for those with healthy minds, sexual deviancy is shameful, and whats more, every sexual deviant KNOWS the shame and they KNOW it instinctively.

'Now from where does the shame stem?', you ask.  It stems from the deceit that is axiomatic to such.

Every human being is designed so join sexually with the gender distinct from their own.  Desires for these of the same gender, are a manifestation of mind which has succumbed to severe disorder.  Now... are we responsible for that disordered processor?  Probably... but let's not get bogged down into that mess.

The fact is that the shame only comes from action taken, in pursuit of gratification as a result of those deviant cravings which one has NOURISHED.

The shame is stark, it is palpable and it is programmed into the human psyche.   The same is true for all breaches of character.  Be it adultery, theft, vandalism, libel...  again, except in the case of the sociopath, which is merely a deeper, more egregious manifestation of the aforementioned mental disorder.

What you're asking the SCOTUS to do, is to normalize those mental disorders and the idiocy which they spawn.

Which as has been noted MANY times, provides for absolutely NO potential viability for this culture and any other culture over which this culture has influence.

(That means it is a really bad idea, scamp... .)

I hope that helps.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> So you make up all sorts of lies, and it's our fault for not understanding what you really meant to say.  Oh...  Rolls Eyes.



Now HOW COOL IS THAT?

ROFL!

Did anyone else notice that the above douche, just came to lament the 'making up of all sorts of lies, BY MAKING UP ALL SORTS OF LIES.... BUILT INSIDE THE IMPLICATION THAT ITS OPPOSITION MADE UP ALL SORTS OF LIES?

Folks, you can't GET any more pitiful than THAT and still possess the cognitive acuity sufficient to TYPE!

Sweet MOTHER... What a dumbass~


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> I'm afraid that is does, like when we don't bring in enough to pay our bills because taxes aren't raised on the wealth but fees and such are on the little people.



Friends, there is not enough room in the United States, for this sort of idiocy and Americans.

Let's just face it... there is no bottom to "NEED".  It's a subjective swamp which exists ONLY in the minds of the mentally disordered.

There is however a LIMIT on what a reasonable person should allow their government to confiscate from the product of their labor.

It's time we simply state in no uncertain terms that if they can't come to grips with their 'NEED', we're just going to have to remove them from existence.

They're not capable of reason, therefore they cannot be reasoned with... .  

It's going to come down to it sooner or later and the longer we wait, the worse its going to be for everyone.

Who would like to offer a reason not to do so?

We'll accept: 

1- They're human beings thus they have a right to their life.

The answer to which is, yes.  They're are human beings.  And they DO have a right to their lives.  A right which is BOUND to the RESPONSIBILITY to not make the exercise of THEIR LIFE, an infringement of the means of others to exercise THEIR LIVES.

Now we know that the would-be 'contributor' PHM has stated in certain terms that it recognizes NO RESPONSIBILITY on its part, for ANY right that it claims.

SO... that position ALONE is a demonstration that THAT individual is a threat to the means of everyone else to exercise THEIR RIGHTS, by nothing more than its very existence.

Now, regular contributors to this board and any other board of its kind, dam' well know that NO LEFTIST recognizes ANY responsibility, of ANY KIND.  And we know this because Left-think rests in Relativism, Relativism axiomatically rejects objectivity and INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY CAN ONLY EXIST THROUGH OBJECTIVITY.

Now... does any of THAT clear any of this up for ANY ONE?

Let me state it this way: Knowing that premise exists... (You don't have to accept it, just as you don't have ot accept any element of reality.. ) but knowing the premise, who still feels that there is ANY WAY the US is not heading directly toward civil war?

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?


----------



## kaz (May 18, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



What I said was pretty straight forward, not understanding it was on you.  And you also failed the reality check that you thought I was saying something clearly a libertarian wouldn't say, a liberal would


----------



## RKMBrown (May 18, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Just because I replied to your question to the liberal, does not mean that I did not understand that your question was to the liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2015)

Keys wants civil war if Marriage Equality becomes the law of the land.

What a numbskull.


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid that is does, like when we don't bring in enough to pay our bills because taxes aren't raised on the wealth but fees and such are on the little people.
> ...



Poor poor Keys.....he so much wants a Civil war in the United States.

And like everything in his life- he is doomed to be disappointed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2015)

No civil war will happen, as Keys suggests.

Those who act on his premise will receive the LEO treatment all criminals do, up to and including the ultimate punishment if they engage in torture and killing of their enemies.

Their will be no middle ground whatsoever.  Submit to the law, or become criminals, and earn the criminal's end.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 18, 2015)

242 pages guys?

Good grief


----------



## Syriusly (May 18, 2015)

Grampa Murked U said:


> 242 pages guys?
> 
> Good grief



Redfish needs a few hundred pages more of posting how he is not going to be posting about gay marriage ever, ever again.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929 (May 18, 2015)

Gays don't deserve to marry men.


----------



## Seawytch (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right?  Based on what?



Tell us that story again how you're really not an anti gay bigot? 

Civil marriage has been declared a fundamental right...but you knew that. 

You also know that in order to deny a fundamental right, you've got to be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. It's not judicial tyranny because the bigots can't come up with one.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right?  Based on what?
> ...


No one is denying you rights you angry pervert


----------



## kaz (May 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right?  Based on what?
> ...



Find Jesus, sinner.  You are commuting the worst sin of all, worse than murder.  You can still be saved, but you have to start now, you have a lot of work to do.



Seawytch said:


> Civil marriage has been declared a fundamental right...but you knew that.



These statements are what blow the crap out of your credibility.   I "knew" that the courts declared is that.   So of course now I'm supposed to give a shit what the courts did.   I'm just laughing at you right now, you're a vacuous idiot that I am supposed to care what they said as if you believe I would.  And we both know, sweet heart, that doesn't work in reverse.  The courts are a sledge hammer when they agree with you and toilet paper when they don't.  If you want to debate intelligent people, you need to cut crap like this



Seawytch said:


> You also know that in order to deny a fundamental right, you've got to be able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. It's not judicial tyranny because the bigots can't come up with one.



Begging the question


----------



## Pop23 (May 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Getting tax breaks and validation for diseased fags butt fucking is a natural right?  Based on what?
> ...



Absolutely correct

Soon straight same sex couples will also be allowed spousal benefits they have been so long denied.

With people now forced to buy health insurance, same sex straights will be able to get better deals, more affordable rates by simply signing a piece of paper.

The best part is, they don't have to live together, love each other and can keep dating opposite sex partners the entire time.

What's not to love?


----------



## Seawytch (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Let's see...I stated fact and you want to address the fantasy world Kaz lives in. Okay, laugh away. 

The courts are there for the people to redress their grievances. The precedent is there, you can't deny it. It's not suddenly "judicial tyranny" because the gays are using the system the way it was intended.


----------



## kaz (May 19, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Begging the question


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 19, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Gays don't deserve to marry men.


This doesn't make any sense.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2015)

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Gays don't deserve to marry men.


some guys may have very high standards and complain they can't find any good helpmeets in the wo-men's pool.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


At least you're consistent at being an ignorant, hateful bigot.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts. When the state seeks to prohibit citizens from accessing state law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, a compelling government interest, and pursuant to a proper legislative end, they're in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The states may not seek to disadvantage a given class of persons simply because of who they are.


----------



## Redfish (May 19, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

you have yet to quote the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" are used.   Until then, you are just spouting talking points that have no constitutional basis.


----------



## Redfish (May 19, 2015)

243 pages.   I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today 

would a thread on the national debt,  government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?

Sorry, folks, this amazes me.


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


how is recognizing their natural rights a criminal decree?


----------



## Syriusly (May 19, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yeah- one more example of Kaz declaring he knows better than everyone else- laughably talking about 'arguing' with intelligible people while he ignores anything he doesn't agree with, and proclaiming that what he agrees with his right.

All that your statement does is demonstrate once again that you have no credibility.


----------



## Syriusly (May 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



The Constitution doesn't mention marriage- yet marriage is a constitutional right. 

You know this- because the court decisions have been pointed out to you again and again- but you choose to pretend they don't exist(or like Kaz pretend that the courts don't matter).

The decision before the Supreme Court right now is whether or not that constitutional right applies to gay couples just as it applies to straight couples.


----------



## Redfish (May 19, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 

I didn't say it was criminal.   I just asked you for the language in the constitution where the words "gay marriage" appear. 

Provide that and then we can go on.


----------



## Syriusly (May 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> 243 pages.   I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today
> 
> would a thread on the national debt,  government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?
> 
> Sorry, folks, this amazes me.



What amazes me is after you declaring that there are more important issues to argue about- and that you were done posting in 'gay threads'  you are still- 243 pages later- still arguing against gay marriage. 

Clearly it is the most important issue to you.


----------



## Redfish (May 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 

What you are relying on is an "interpretation" of the constitution by a few left wing judges with an agenda. 

If you really want this settled, you need a constitutional amendment ratified by 38 states  saying that marriage consists of two unrelated people who are above the age of majority.   Get that and its over.  

Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?


----------



## danielpalos (May 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Rights and powers not expressly delegated are reserved to the States or the People.


----------



## Redfish (May 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > 243 pages.   I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today
> ...


 

to me no,  but I do have strong feelings and beliefs on the subject.   I admit to going along with the debate.   Got anything of substance to contribute?


----------



## Redfish (May 19, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


 

exactly, so let the people of each state vote on it.   you just verified that its not a federal issue, thanks for finally admitting that.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Sort of... it's more to the negative.  Which is, they are deciding whether a state can ban gay marriage.  That does not mean they will rule that the state must provide gay marriage licenses.  But it may mean that the states have to recognize gay marriage licenses from another state.  At least that's what I thought was going on.


----------



## Syriusly (May 19, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Technically you are correct- here are the questions the Supreme Court was deciding.


Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?


----------



## Syriusly (May 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I am providing as much or more substance as you are.

The difference is, I didn't start this thread whining about how we should stop talking about it- or saying that I would stop talking about it.


That would be you.


----------



## Syriusly (May 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



LOL.....I love how wingnuts like you always call judges that disagree with you 'left wing judges with agenda's'...while applauding when you agree with them.

The issue is before the Supreme Court- just as marriage rights have been before the Supreme Court at least 3 other times. 

And just like in Zablocki- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so fathers who owe child support can still enjoy their constitutional right to marry. And just like in Loving- we don't need a Constitutional Amendment so that a  mixed race couple can enjoy their constitutional right to marry.

The courts are here to protect all of our constitutional rights- not just the ones you approve of, for people you approve of.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 19, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Require to recognize.. hmm I would say no to that explicit statement.    I would think it's a more a matter of equal protection.  IOW if they have a law providing certain marriage rights to heterosexual couples already married from another state, country, province, ship, etc... then they would have to extend that law to cover all of the married consenting adults living in their state.

I don't think the court can force the state to change the marriage license form in a particular state.  But I do think they can throw out laws that do not provide equal protection under the law.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> 243 pages.   I guess gay marriage is the most important issue facing the USA today
> 
> would a thread on the national debt,  government waste, ISIS, racial unrest, or poverty continue for 243 pages?
> 
> Sorry, folks, this amazes me.


You seem to think this is really about perverts being able to hook up....It isn't. It is about governmental over reach and the erosion of yours and mine liberties. The idiot homosexuals are just tools being used by the progressive leadership in their multi front plan to destroy the USA.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Who told you you have a right to get married?????????


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


It is a natural right and purely private act; I don't need permission to get married.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


There is equal treatment under the law you you crying about it isn't going to change that. Nether me a normal person or a Pervert like you will have certain states recognize same sex perversion.......


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Who the fuck said you did need permission???? I just wont recognize your perversion as normal or valid....As is the true right. You perverts seem to be under the delusion that you can force your life choice on others and force them to see it as normal. It doesn't work like that.


----------



## rightwinger (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Did we need a Constitutional amendment to allow blacks to marry whites?


----------



## danielpalos (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


ok then, i won't recognize your moral turpitude whenever you practice the abomination of hypocrisy; lie to any chics to get them to put out, lately?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Yes we did....What did you think the 14the amendment  does?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Then dont....No skin off my ass.....By the way douche bag I am married and dont lie to woman nor have I ever to get laid. Only weak men lie to get pussy. Now I just beg.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I'm heterosexual... married 30ish years with 3 kids.  Since you think being heterosexual and married is perverted...  What's that make you? 

No, equal treatment under the law does not mean you get to piss all over people you don't like based on sexual orientation, skin color, or any other bigoted reason you may have to piss on people you don't like.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Don't you have an empty beer cooler to fill?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


If you didn't think homosexualism wasn't perverted why did you have to make sure you told me you were hetro?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Thats why I have employees


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Yes or no, dumb ass, is being heterosexual perverted in your dumb ass eyes?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Gratz on that.  Did you check if they are gay before hiring them?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Or course it isn't perverted. It is how the human race survives.....Are you normally so retarded?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


what has whether they are perverted to do with a job? Unlike you I dont use sex as a decider of my work life....Good lord you are bigoted....Is it self hatred?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


You called me perverted... I'm just clarifying why it is that you think I'm perverted.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


How is my question to you being bigoted?  Are you mentally handicapped?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Hey you are the one demanding people see marriage between you and your boyfriend as normal....Not I.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The fact that you have to ask is even more disturbing......You assume I am like you and use thinks like sex and skin color as a deciding factor in employing people.....That is bigoted. I am not like you and your liberal friends.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2015)

This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.

43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month.  The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law.  The American citizenry in a solid majority want it.  The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.

An amendment is not required.  No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


I'll repeat.  I'm not gay. I have no "boyfriends."  Further, I've never "demanded" anyone see anyone's marriage as normal.  Let alone "demanded" that anyone see gay marriage as normal.  

To summarize, you are nothing but a piece of shit liar.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Paranoid much?  All I did was ask you a simple question.  That you think my question is accusing you of illegal employment practice, is merely a "projection" on your part.

Additionally, I'm not liberal... more to the point I'm the exact opposite of most modern liberals.  I'm a constitutional conservative, a libertarian who believes in limited government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2015)

Thanatos is not a conservative, just a far right crank.  That he is opposed to Marriage Equality demonstrates that he does not understand American values and he believes the issue to the most important current event.


----------



## kaz (May 20, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Scared of that little 38 states thingy, aren't you?
> ...



Blacks were treated differently under the law than whites.  Gays were treated exactly like straights, so there is no comparison


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I really don't care whether your refuse to recognize homosexuals or blacks or Jews or Germans as normal or valid.

No one cares.

Just so long as you don't deny Americans their rights and treat them legally equally, you can hold whatever perverted point of view you want.


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

LOL,  thats really funny,  you post a bunch of bullshit about courts protecting rights,  but you limit it to rights that YOU approve of.   You are a hypocrit of the highest degree


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

kaz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Wrong. 

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.

Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.

There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Show me where I have called the courts 'activists' just because I disagree with their rulings and we can talk. I think that the court was wrong in Citizen's United- but I don't therefore call the court 'right wing judges with an agenda' like you wingnuts on the far right do to judges you disagree with.

You are fine with judges when they rule how you want them to rule- and you call them tyrants when they don't- pure hypocrites.


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.
> 
> 43 of 46 federal judges agree on Marriage Equality, and SCOTUS will agree next month.  The last five state elections agree on Marriage Equality should be the law.  The American citizenry in a solid majority want it.  The millennials, the largest voting block next year, overwhelmingly want it.
> 
> An amendment is not required.  No one has ever given a compelling reason why it should be offered.




you are full of shit, snake.

maybe the SC will rule in your favor next month,  maybe it won't.   If it rules against you will you STFU and accept that ruling as law?

We also get your new PC  buzzwords-------"marriage equality"  instead of "gay marriage".   Everyone gets it, your new name is fooling no one.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

lower court judges who make unconstitutional rulings will be overturned by the next higher court. 

Are you really so naive that you think some federal court districts do not lean left?


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 

race and gayness are not the same thing.   a mixed race man/woman marriage is not the same legally or biologically as a man/man or woman/woman marriage.

I know you guys want it to be so,   but its not.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

April 29- May 20- we are closing in on a month since Redfish announced that people are wasting their time talking about gay marriage and that he was done......2473 posts later....he is still whining about gay marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Of course you didn't actually respond to my post

The claim was made that blacks were being treated differently than whites with mixed race marriage bans

Wrong.

Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black. Whites could marry anyone they wanted- so long as they were white.

Just as men can marry anyone that we want- as long as they are women. And women can marry anyone that they want- as long as they are men.

There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Are you really so naive that you think that every court that rules in ways you don't agree with 'leans left'?

Most of the judges who have ruled against gay marriage bans were appointed by Reagan, Bush or Bush.  

You are fine with judges when they rule how you want them to rule- and you call them tyrants when they don't- pure hypocrites


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This thread and issue is indeed the biggest and most important event in Redfish's life.
> ...



'Marriage Equality" has been the term used since the beginning. 

Regardless of how the court rules next month, I will accept the ruling as legal, and I will not be calling the Justices 'black robed tyrants' or similar pejoratives.

What about you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2015)

Redfish now acts stubbornly and smarmily as his points go down in defeat one after another.


----------



## Seawytch (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.



Nor was there one needed to end bans on prisoner or divorcée marriages. All it took was a SCOTUS ruling.

And imagine that...neither case had to do with race.


----------



## kaz (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry ]anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black


So they were the same, but completely different, great argument.  Not.

Being black changed who they could marry for every black.

Being gay changes who you can marry for ... no one ...

Fail


----------



## Skylar (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



44 out of 46 times? Really?


----------



## bodecea (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> April 29- May 20- we are closing in on a month since Redfish announced that people are wasting their time talking about gay marriage and that he was done......2473 posts later....he is still whining about gay marriage.


Yep.   How can one take him seriously when he lies so blatantly (or else can't control himself and his own postings)


----------



## Seawytch (May 20, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks were treated exactly the same as whites- blacks could marry marry ]anyone that they wanted- so long as they were black
> ...



It changes what gender you want to marry. Gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender, just like Mildred Loving did not want to marry a black person of the opposite gender.

Your willingness to try to justify an anti gay position is telling. That and using pejoratives for gays.


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

I did reply, when the topic is marriage, race and sex are not the same thing, legally or biologically


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

Yep,  I have said many times that I would accept the ruling of the SC.   But I do not believe that you will if it goes against you.


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish now acts stubbornly and smarmily as his points go down in defeat one after another.


 

nothing posted by you are any of your buddies on this topic has defeated one basic premise.   In a free society we are free to believe whatever we want to believe,  practice whatever religion we want to practice, and state our views openly. 

the problem that you lefties have is that you want to curtail the freedom of anyone who does not share your views and call them bigots or homophobes for not accepting your view of humanity, biology, and civilization.

YOU are the bigots.


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

prove it


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2015)

One, Redfish, any of your requests for common knowledge info (such as the judges above) will not get an answer because you don't deserve it.

Two, Redfish, everyone of your points has been refuted.

If this is the most important issue in your life, your life has been truncated emotionally.

People insisting on their rights are never bigots, while people like you trying to deny those rights are bigots.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Discrimination however is.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage bans three times- and just like in this case- none of those required a Constitutional Amendment to ensure the Constitutional rights of Americans.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish now acts stubbornly and smarmily as his points go down in defeat one after another.
> ...



You apparently mistake 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom from criticism' or 'freedom from consequences'

No one is saying you should be put in jail for being a stupid bigot like you are. 

We are however pointing out that you are a stupid bigot.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Lets compare in June.

Mind you- I have no problem if you complain or whine because you disagree with the conclusion- only if you attack the court for their decision.


----------



## Redfish (May 20, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

and the left won't attack the court if they lose????????????   don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Syriusly (May 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I can't speak for anyone other than myself- I won't.

But I would be surprised if anyone uses any term similar to 'black robed dictators'- that seems to be exclusive to the far right.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2015)

Anyone using the term 'black robed dictators' is excoriate SCOTUS is dolt, a Creepy American, nothing more.


----------



## Redfish (May 21, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone using the term 'black robed dictators' is excoriate SCOTUS is dolt, a Creepy American, nothing more.


 

no one has used that term except those of you on the left.   but carry on, idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 21, 2015)

Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


What do you think you are doing when you demand that a community acknowledge what they see as sin? The only lying shit here is you.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Stop trying to lump perverted homosexuals with blacks and Jews! Homosexual life is a CHOSEN ONE being a Jew or black is not and it is a insult to their struggle to be associated with perverts!


----------



## Seawytch (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Religion, like Judaism, is chosen, numbskull.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 NO ONE IS DEMANDING A COMMUNITY ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT THEY SEE AS SIN.  Your strawman is a joke.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > There was no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on mixed race marriages, and there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to end bans on same gender marriages.
> ...


Where is there a ban on homosexual unions????


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Your point is what? That it sucks that you live a life of sin and evil?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Yes it is. Because most have already said marriage is between a man and a woman..... You are a liar


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> What do you think you are doing when you demand that a community acknowledge what they see as sin? The only lying shit here is you.


Shut up.  This is a secular democracy, not a theocracy.  No one gives a flying flip about your concept of "sin".  And, no, homosexuality is not chosen.  Anyone who says that is being deliberately duplicitous.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Stop your lying, Creepy.


----------



## Syriusly (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



So you are saying that Sammy Davis Jr. had no choice to become a Jew?

Hmmmmmmmmm

You bigots are funny- stupid- but funny.


----------



## Syriusly (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You might want to look at the question before the Supreme Court.

LOL....who am I kidding.......that would require reading.....


----------



## Seawytch (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You can't be this obtuse? What do you think the SCOTUS just heard?


----------



## Seawytch (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I'm sorry...I did not realize you are a mentally challenged person.

You just said gays choose their sexuality (they don't). People actually DO choose their religion.


----------



## Syriusly (May 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



And just to bring this home

Thanatos chooses to be as stupid as he is.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


They heard arguments for and against the first and tenth amendment. It is nothing about you perverts and everything about the rest of us.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Yes they do choose it. Perversion is a choice


----------



## Seawytch (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



People choose to act on their attractions, not the attractions themselves. If you believe you chose, you're bisexual...congrats!

Religion is 100% chosen.


----------



## jillian (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



it has nothing to do with religious loons. 

it has everything to do with human dignity.

something you wouldn't know about.


----------



## Seawytch (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Please, cite the arguments made before the SCOTUS that they are about to rule on.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You first.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Ignorant nonsense.

The issue before the Court concerns the 14th Amendment:

“Question 

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law


----------



## Redfish (May 22, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.


 

Bullshit,  you are no more mainstream GOP than Stephenopoulous.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you on the far right are Creepy Americans, as described by those like me, a solid member of the mainstream GOP.
> ...


Says a typical Creepy American of the reactionary far right.  Will you support Kasich over Cruz or Perry or Santorum or others of the reactionary ilk?


----------



## Redfish (May 22, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 

I have said several times that Kasich is my number one candidate.  

As to "reactionary"   I know you like that word, but like most of what you post, its bullshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 22, 2015)

Says the bullshitter, Creepy Redfish.

Get over the shitter and get to work for Kasich, reactionar, and redeem yourself.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You know Kasich is gay right?


----------



## Redfish (May 22, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Says the bullshitter, Creepy Redfish.
> 
> Get over the shitter and get to work for Kasich, reactionar, and redeem yourself.


 

go fuck yourself, you lying asshole.


----------



## Redfish (May 22, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


 
So is Hillary,  just think,  the first lesbian president-------ain't that a wonderful thought?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 22, 2015)

HRC will not be president, and Kasich will know those on the far right who have been naughty and who have been nice.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No pics didn't happen.


----------



## beagle9 (May 23, 2015)

danielpalos said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What is a *natural* right in regards to homosexuality or the act of homosexuality ?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Wrong.

The word is being used appropriately and accurately, it precisely describes you and others on the social right hostile to change, diversity, dissent, and expressions of individual liberty:

_reactionary_

_of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change._

Reactionary Define Reactionary at Dictionary.com


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 23, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Immaterial question from a far right reactionary drone.  Try again.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 23, 2015)

kaz said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Gay Americans do have the same rights as everyone else, including the right to due process and equal protection of the law; where to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

When the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Constitution, gay Americans had no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court, particularly in cases where such measures were amendments to states' constitutions.

Consequently, the states have only themselves to blame for their measures hostile to the civil rights of gay Americans being invalidated; had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there would be no need to get the courts involved.


----------



## kaz (May 23, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Right, fortunately in this country gays have the exact same rights as anyone else.  Well, until now.  Unlike the rest of us, instead of convincing anyone they get to run to the judiciary to get what they want by criminal decree
> ...



Name someone you would not be able to marry if you were gay that you can't now or vice versa


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 23, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


A better term would be _inalienable right_ as opposed to 'natural'; an inalienable right can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

In the case of gay Americans, it concerns the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the states may not seek to disadvantage gay Americans through force of law predicated solely on who gay Americans are.

Another fundamental, inalienable right is that of choice, where the substantive component of the 14th Amendment prohibits the state from denying citizens their right to make personal, private decisions with regard to the conduct of one's life: whom to love or marry, whether to have a child or not, and decisions pertaining to how to raise one's child – these and other like matters are immune from attack by the state.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 23, 2015)

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


An immaterial question.  Move along.


----------



## kaz (May 23, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



When government is based on negative rights, that is true.  Negative rights do not infringe on other's rights.

But you are advocating positive rights.  To call that "choice" is retarded, you are advocating one's rights over another.  To refer to that as "rights" at all is an oxymoron


----------



## Lilah (May 23, 2015)

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Negative rights vs. positive rights--would you provide examples, s'il vous plait.


----------



## kaz (May 23, 2015)

Lilah said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You know you're on the internet

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia 

Negative rights are the right to be left alone.  Free speech, protection from someone breaking into your house, ...

Positive rights are the so called right to demand things from others.  The right to housing, healthcare, paper saying you are married to someone, the right to force someone to bake you a cake...

Negative rights are applied to all equally, we all have the right to be left alone from others.

Not so with positive rights.  Positive rights infringe on the rights of others, by definition.  So a system of positive rights is a system where one group of citizens screw another.  You know, like the Democratic party constantly demands


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 23, 2015)

Two words for Kaz: constitutional nonsense.


----------



## Lilah (May 23, 2015)

kaz said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



OMG! " we all have the right to be left alone from others."
So the kid who doesn't want to attend school has the right to be left alone?  And babies do not have the right to proper housing or healthcare?


----------



## Syriusly (May 23, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Read Lawrence v. Texas.


----------



## kaz (May 23, 2015)

Lilah said:


> OMG! " we all have the right to be left alone from others."
> So the kid who doesn't want to attend school has the right to be left alone?



That sounded good to you?



Lilah said:


> And babies do not have the right to proper housing or healthcare?



Are you eight?


----------



## kaz (May 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I'm against gay sex sodomy laws, but there was zero legitimate Constitutional basis for that ruling


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 23, 2015)

Libertarian nonsense, kaz.  Trot along.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 24, 2015)

I am against judicial tyranny destroying more and  more of the constitution so homosexuals can lie to themselves that this will make them normal.


----------



## kaz (May 24, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> I am against judicial tyranny destroying more and  more of the constitution so homosexuals can lie to themselves that this will make them normal.



I see you know Seawytch...


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 24, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> I am against judicial tyranny destroying more and  more of the constitution so homosexuals can lie to themselves that this will make them normal.



Then logically you must support the Irish referendum on gay marriage.


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 24, 2015)

kaz said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Positive rights are disparaged by those who think the right to deny others equal rights is a legitimate right.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 24, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > I am against judicial tyranny destroying more and  more of the constitution so homosexuals can lie to themselves that this will make them normal.
> ...


Do you ever not post stupidity?


----------



## Seawytch (May 24, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> I am against judicial tyranny destroying more and  more of the constitution so homosexuals can lie to themselves that this will make them normal.



Except in the case of marriage equality, the Constitution is being upheld...specifically the 14th Amendment. 

Y'all are cute when you're shrill and losing though.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > I am against judicial tyranny destroying more and  more of the constitution so homosexuals can lie to themselves that this will make them normal.
> ...


Hey stupid homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## kaz (May 24, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Lilah said:
> ...



Do you know what you just said is gibberish?  I'm thinking you don't


----------



## Seawytch (May 24, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



When did you realize you wanted to suck a guys cock? 

Even if it were true that sexual orientation is a choice (it's not), that is not a response. Religion is a choice and yet if you tried to say that Protestants couldn't marry, you'd run afoul of the Constitution, wouldn't you?


----------



## Lilah (May 24, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



When did you make your decision?


----------



## kaz (May 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You do love the playground insults



Seawytch said:


> Even if it were true that sexual orientation is a choice (it's not), that is not a response. Religion is a choice and yet if you tried to say that Protestants couldn't marry, you'd run afoul of the Constitution, wouldn't you?



What a ridiculous analogy.  Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit.  Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets.  Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime


----------



## thanatos144 (May 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Religious practice is constitutionally protected while marriage is not it is left up to the individual state to manage as it should be. Just because you are angry at being such a vile person no man would fuck you doesn't give you the right to make all of us suffer


----------



## thanatos144 (May 24, 2015)

Lilah said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


So you are saying homosexuals are a deformity?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 24, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 24, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Polygamy was a Mormon religious practice.  Why didn't it get constitutional protection?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 24, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Heterosexuals have non-reproductive sex 'on your dime' all the time, based on your reasoning.

Why do you give them a pass?  Other than because you're a bigot.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 24, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Idiot it wasn't just Mormons doing it
Also it wasn't in thier religion to have many wives. That is a myth.


----------



## kaz (May 24, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Swish, missed my OP post again, that isn't what I said.

And not wanting to give people tax breaks to mate when they can't reproduce is being a "bigot."  Noted


----------



## kaz (May 24, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Oh, and I forgot:




kaz said:


> OK, I'll answer your questions one more time.  After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid




You are stupid


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Sucking a cock is "insulting"? I was establishing his position of authority. He believes he chose so I wanted to know when he chose and if he found himself equally attracted to males and females. He made the claim, I want to know how much he knows about it. 



Seawytch said:


> Even if it were true that sexual orientation is a choice (it's not), that is not a response. Religion is a choice and yet if you tried to say that Protestants couldn't marry, you'd run afoul of the Constitution, wouldn't you?





> What a ridiculous analogy.  Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit.  Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets.  Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime



It's a perfectly valid analogy. Thantos believes that sexual orientation is a choice. Religion is a choice and yet if we were to say only Protestants could not civilly marry, I'm sure Thantos would believe such a law would be unconstitutional (just like bans on gays civilly marrying each other are)

Are you and the wife still having kids?


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



But that's not what your OP said. Your OP singles out gay people and does not include straight people having non productive sex. 

(Gays can and do reproduce...Stupid bigots don't realize that gay does not equal infertile)


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


That's s lie. Homosexuals can not produce.  What they can do is use the genetic material of someone of the opposite sex to create a baby but the homosexual couple themselves did not reproduce.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Homosexuals have kids every day.  What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids?  Are you a moron?  Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby.  She agrees they engage in coitus.  Nine months later baby comes out.  See how that works?


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes they can...exactly the same way lots and lots of straight couples do...with Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)

_Today, approximately 1.5% of all infants born in the United States every year are conceived using ART.
_​So, yes, we can and do reproduce just like hundreds of thousands of straight couples do every year. We also adopt. 4% of ALL adoptions are to same sex parents.


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



They don't usually engage in coitus, however...not when there are perfectly good turkey basters around.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Then they used heterosexual means ....a baby will never be produced using homosexual means..... that is a fact. Also is homosexuality was genetic then wouldn't it be impossible for a homosexual to have heterosexual relations?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Yes, well didn't want to go into artificial insemination alternatives as I keep hoping some lesbian couple will ask me to.. well nvm.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


What makes you think homosexuals are incapable of heterosexual acts?  And no, just because some girl prefers girls over men does not mean she is incapable of choosing to have sex with a man to get pregnant.  People have sex all the time, being gay does not prevent normal intercourse, nor does it prevent them from walking in a straight line, nor does it prevent them from talking like heteros. ROFL


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



No, we used scientific means. IVF and AI are not heterosexual or gay, they're science. Adoption is adoption. 

How children are created is relevant to parenting (and to civil marriage, obviously)


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Perversion is a learned response


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Which means you can not have your girlfriends or wife's baby


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Is that your excuse for your perverted acts on gays?


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Actually, yes, I could have carried her child if we'd had enough money for that sort of thing. We didn't. We did it the old fashioned way...gay guy watching porn in the living room and doing his thing into a cup. 

Again, 1.5 million babies were born using ART last year. Many of those NOT the genetic material of both the male and female of the couple. 

Now explain what that has to do with anything?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


I know lots of happy people but I am pretty sure I didn't do perverted things with all of them.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Let me rephrase that then.... you and your partner can not have a baby with your and her DNA.  It is impossible.


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sucking a cock is "insulting"? I was establishing his position of authority. He believes he chose so I wanted to know when he chose and if he found himself equally attracted to males and females. He made the claim, I want to know how much he knows about it.[/quote]

No you stupid piece of shit, saying I was gay is when that had nothing to do with what I said.  It was pure playground.  How do you possibly get this response out of that?  You sure do a lot of kool-aid swillng for someone who can be lucid.  This sure wasn't it, it was butt obvious what the playground part was


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Not getting the relevance to that either for my OP post because the "concept of marriage' is that it's for life or my personal view which is that taxes should be flat


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Wow, instead of saying my view, I should have referred to the "concept of marriage."  

Wait a second, I did...


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes, that was a classic seawytch strawman.  That two fertile women or two fertile men don't reproduce is a fact and in no way implies they are infertile.  Her brain is on holiday today


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Wow, you should read the OP post.  The thread isn't about test tubes and adoption


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

You all seem to be thinking I care what homosexuals think of me? I don't.  I am gonna clear this up for you homosexuals and those like RK who is in the closet. My personal beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman also that it is a sin in the eyes of God and man. But this is a constitutional issue and the 10th amendment clearly give marriage laws and who they say is legally married to the states. That doesn't mean 6 people in robes gets to circumvent it just because 1% of the population wants artificial approval of their life choices.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

And no I wouldn't move if my state through legislation made homosexual marriage valid. I wouldn't vote for it my self but I am just one person in the state


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The only way it's relevant to the thread is if your gay girl is having a straight marriage, not just straight sex


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> I am gonna clear this up for you homosexuals and those like RK who is in the closet



You could be right, he sure likes sticks rammed up is butt and nothing gets him hotter than a gay sex conversation


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Then you've changed your mind and are now in favor of gays having rights.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Incorrect.  500 Gay men and 500 gay women can have just as many kids as 500 hetero sexual couples.  What part of the birds and the bees has you so dumbfounded?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...

...the truth is exactly the opposite.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Lmao you are under the delusion that gay means homosexual lol


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


LMAO you're under the impression that this thread is about happy marriage.  Have you been drinking?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Then we should stop the income tax completely and go to a fair tax so everyone pays including the ghettos and politicians and race baiters


----------



## Seawytch (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> No you stupid piece of shit, saying I was gay is when that had nothing to do with what I said.  It was pure playground.  How do you possibly get this response out of that?  You sure do a lot of kool-aid swillng for someone who can be lucid.  This sure wasn't it, it was butt obvious what the playground part was



Nobody was talking to or about you. I responded to Thantos, Narcissist. He's the one that made the claim that being gay was a choice and I was responding to him. Not every post must revolve around you.


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



"can" is irrelevant.  They don't


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...





NYcarbineer said:


> The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...
> 
> ...the truth is exactly the opposite.



No it's not, you idiot.  First, you are in the wrong thread.  Second, read my OP post.  The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children.  What is wrong with you?  What grade did you drop out of school?


----------



## RKMBrown (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Incorrect.  Gay people have kids every day.. where have you been?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
What is it about those years that defines him as "heterosexual"?  The actions.

So what is it about molesting his son that defines him as "homosexual"?  The action.

Leaving alone for a moment the unlikelihood of someone out-of-the-blue becoming a child molester for the first time in his 30s or 40s, this person would actually be defined as a bisexual.

This is what happens when people insist on re-defining reality every time it doesn't suit them:  they get bogged down and confused by extraneous bullshit.


----------



## Lilah (May 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



W-what?


----------



## bodecea (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> You all seem to be thinking I care what homosexuals think of me? I don't.  I am gonna clear this up for you homosexuals and those like RK who is in the closet. My personal beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman also that it is a sin in the eyes of God and man. But this is a constitutional issue and the 10th amendment clearly give marriage laws and who they say is legally married to the states. That doesn't mean 6 people in robes gets to circumvent it just because 1% of the population wants artificial approval of their life choices.


What makes you think that homosexuals care about you at all?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2015)

Lilah said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
Was I mumbling?  No, couldn't have, I'm typing.  Which words didn't you understand?


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No- this is what happens when homophobes insist on calling homosexuals pedophiles. 

The majority of men who molest boys identify themselves as 'heterosexual'- which makes sense since all of their adult relationships are with women. This includes fathers/stepfathers/grandfathers/brothers/uncles.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

_Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)._

Calling child sexual abuse the same thing as adult consensual sex(heterosexual or homosexual) is no different than calling rape, sex.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry. 
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.

This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.


----------



## Lilah (May 25, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Words are not the problem; it's your inability to use them correctly.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Not a delusion- just being conversant with a dictionary. A delusion would be like you- pretending that gay does not mean homosexual even though you know the dictionary says otherwise. 

Webster:
*1gay*
_adjective_ \ˈgā\
: sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex

: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals

: happy and excited : cheerful and lively


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Wow- you figured that out on your own? 

Neither can millions of heterosexual couples- who we marry without any concerns regarding whether they have any babies or not- or whether their babies have both parents DNA.

You just want a different standard for homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


How exactly did you learn your perversion?


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> What a ridiculous analogy.  Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit.  Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets.  Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime



Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies- once again you portray legal marriage as nothing more than prostitution. 

But of course what your real message is:

Kaz gets his government bennies, and is happy to have gays pay for them, but he doesn't want gay couples who have children to get the same benefits- or pay for them.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes- not wanting to give gay people exclusively tax breaks for being married, while happily giving tax breaks to hetero couples who can't reproduce is being a bigot. 

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay. 

You want them to pay for your bennies, while ensuring you don't pay for their children.


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Different tax breaks.  When you learn to read, read the OP post


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies



No I didn't, you really are stupid


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I've addressed that point repeatedly, and it shouldn't have been necessary once if you were literate and read my OP post.

90% of straight marriages have children.  Explain how you know ex-ante what the ex-post result of the marriage would be for that.

On the other hand, 0% of gay marriage sex produces children.  The ex-ante result of that ex-post knowledge is perfectly clear.

I mean duh


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay



It's certainly at least a fringe benefit, denying a tax break to a bunch of whining liberals.

You realize you want the progressive taxes and death tax, why should you be let out of your own trap?


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay
> ...



Hmmm?

I am fine with progressive taxes and inheritance taxes- and I am also fine with paying my fair share.

My family gets the benefits of familial tax breaks and also pays taxes- and I believe that should be available exactly the same to gay couples and straight couples. 

You want to be able to keep your bennies, and have gay couples pay for them- and deny the same bennies to gay couples.

Because they are gay.  

And you already got yours.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Once again you mix apples and oranges- basically you are saying since straight couples have apples, gays should not be allowed to eat oranges.

The majority of straight marriages have children- their own biological children, adoptive children, and children born through various forms of fertility assistance.

I haven't seen what the majority of gay marriages have yet- but I am thinking within a few years the majority of gay marriages will have children also- in two of the exact same methods as straight couples use.

You want to give the bennies to straight couples- regardless of whether or not they have children or not- and you want gay couples to pay for them.

You want to deny bennies to gay couples- even if they do have children- so you want gay couples with children to pay for the bennies to straight couples with no children.

Basically you want to screw over the children of gay couples.

Between that and you thinking that marriage is some form of government paid prostitution- you are really screwed up. 

You got yours- you want gay couples to pay for your bennies- and screw over their children.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies
> ...



Everytime you mention government bennies and sex that is exactly what you are doing. 

You just don't want to admit it because even you know how asinine it is when I put it in the correct context.


----------



## Syriusly (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I read the OP- it was stupid then and hasn't gotten less stupid
The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.

This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Exactly, you support progressing taxes and death taxes ... for other people.  Then you want out of it.

I want flat taxes for everyone.

Clearly the hypocrite is you, Sammy.  Sorry guy, just is


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...





How on earth do you get that out of what I said?  You realize you're on the internet.  If you don't know what ex-ante and ex-post mean, you can look it up.  no?



Syriusly said:


> The majority of straight marriages have children- their own biological children, adoptive children, and children born through various forms of fertility assistance.
> 
> I haven't seen what the majority of gay marriages have yet- but I am thinking within a few years the majority of gay marriages will have children also- in two of the exact same methods as straight couples use.
> 
> ...



100% of gay sex won't lead to children, we don't have to wait and see what the results are


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You're babbling again.  There is no logical flow to anything you are saying


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 25, 2015)

Tell us Kaz, what's it like to be on the losing end at all times, to know what you believe is being rejected by the majority?  That must really suck eh?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Then we should stop the income tax completely and go to a fair tax so everyone pays including the ghettos and politicians and race baiters


A fair tax isn't...


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

bodecea said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > You all seem to be thinking I care what homosexuals think of me? I don't.  I am gonna clear this up for you homosexuals and those like RK who is in the closet. My personal beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman also that it is a sin in the eyes of God and man. But this is a constitutional issue and the 10th amendment clearly give marriage laws and who they say is legally married to the states. That doesn't mean 6 people in robes gets to circumvent it just because 1% of the population wants artificial approval of their life choices.
> ...


The fact that you need to force people to accept homosexual unions


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Used by homosexuals does not mean gay means homosexual.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


To the sick of soul a moral life is perverse


----------



## thanatos144 (May 25, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Then we should stop the income tax completely and go to a fair tax so everyone pays including the ghettos and politicians and race baiters
> ...


Only a progressive sees everyone paying taxes as not fair.... You are retarded


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Tell us Kaz, what's it like to be on the losing end at all times, to know what you believe is being rejected by the majority?  That must really suck eh?



Leftists are with you, non-leftists are with me, I'm losing no more than you are. And the majority thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, nice try.  OK, actually it wasn't.

But your desire to claim victory does show your insecurity


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 25, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


No, I'm rational.  And nearly all adults already pay taxes, too many of them regressive.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Tell us Kaz, what's it like to be on the losing end at all times, to know what you believe is being rejected by the majority?  That must really suck eh?
> ...


I've already won here, and in Ireland, so, what's it like to know that society has rejected both your politics and your faith?  That must really suck, which makes you an angry child...


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



  You're rational, now that's funny


----------



## kaz (May 25, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



What faith is that?  And you don't know people evolved with a male and female parent, or you claim you don't, and you call me a child?  You are a liar, and a very bad one.  Obviously you know we did evolve that way


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Highly rational, which fucks you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (May 25, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


What you believe is simply untrue. Learn human history, it wasn't mom, dad, 2.1 kids, and a dog.


----------



## Redfish (May 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


 

gay couples can have the bennies,  gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other,   but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union. 

What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.

equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.


----------



## Seawytch (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".


----------



## RKMBrown (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Liar.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 26, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


The one demanding special treatment is you


----------



## mdk (May 26, 2015)

We now have 88 pages of the OP trying to convince us that gay marriage isn't an important issue to him. lol


----------



## dblack (May 26, 2015)

It's a deliberate distraction.


----------



## Redfish (May 26, 2015)

dblack said:


> It's a deliberate distraction.


 

yes,  the left is using the gay crap to take the attention away from obozo and his failures both dometically and internationally.  

creating an obsession over the sexual deviancy of 2% of the population seems to be working for them so don't expect it to stop.

This thread was started to make people aware of what the left is doing with this divisive issue. 

Its amazing that it took 264 pages to reach that logical conclusion.


----------



## Brian Nott (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...




I think that's not an American problem only - Ireland has just voted for approval of same-sex marriages as well and all Irish are just proud enormously of this victory as if they have taken Nothern Ireland back.


----------



## Syriusly (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Equal treatment is equal treatment- marriage is marriage.

And gay couples are marrying. 

You do not have to accept it- you can deny that a gay marriage is a marriage to YOU- but that is merely your opinion.

A minority opinion that is getting smaller every day.


----------



## Syriusly (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It's a deliberate distraction.
> ...



264 pages of you arguing about gay marriage, after you told us all you were not going to argue about gay marriage anymore.

That is some obsession on your part.


----------



## Seawytch (May 26, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Name this "special treatment".


----------



## Syriusly (May 26, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



You know- they think being treated equally is 'special treatment'.

Some of them are still upset at the special treatment women get by being allowed to vote.


----------



## Seawytch (May 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I know they can never name these "special rights" only gays get.


----------



## Redfish (May 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 

OK,  one more time

If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get,  where is the unequal treatment?

The only difference is the word used to describe it.

THAT is my point, your crusade is NOT about equal treatment, its about the word "marriage"

You think that a gay union must be called a marriage because you think the use of the word makes it somehow normal human behavior.  Its not, but most people are willing to acknowledge your right to commit to someone of the same sex and have the exact same rights as a man and woman in a marriage.

Until you admit what this is really about, it will never be settled.


----------



## Redfish (May 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 

I started this thread to try to help people understand why this is such a divisive issue in our country and why it gets a disproportionate amount of media attention.  

The answers have come out so the mods are free to close it if they choose.


----------



## Seawytch (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Chickenfish lies. For HIM it's all about the word. Gays don't care what's it's called it just has to be the same for gay couples and straight couples.

But then Chickenfish wouldn't feel special and superior anymore.


----------



## Syriusly (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



There is a word for that kind of arrangement- and that is marriage.

That is equal.


----------



## Syriusly (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



In other words- Redfish hopes the moderators will close down the thread to stop him from arguing about gay marriage, since he cannot stop himself.

Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> OK,  one more time
> 
> If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get,  where is the unequal treatment?



Ahhh...

One more time.

Many of the States that banned SSCM's a decade ago also banned Civil Unions.  For example from Virginia:

"*Section 15-A. Marriage.*

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."​

It wasn't the gays that voted against Civil Unions, it was those opposed to ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples that did that.

Only now that SSCM has been winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, and winning at the ballot box is suddenly Civil Unions supposed to be an acceptable alternative.  An alternative that wasn't acceptable 10 years ago when the anti-gay crowed was in power.

There is a saying, something about reaping what you sow.


>>>>


----------



## Redfish (May 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

so in your mind its only equal if the same word is used to describe it?  

As I said, the issue with you on the left is NOT equal treatment, its all about the word and using the government to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal. 


That is what this is about and anyone with a minimal amount of common sense knows it.


----------



## Redfish (May 27, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > OK,  one more time
> ...


 

you may be right,  but lets let the people decide at the ballot box.


----------



## Redfish (May 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

NO, I am merely trying to get some of you to understand what this is really about and why it is such a divisive issue in the USA today.

You can hurl insults if it makes you feel good.   I really don't care.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 27, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You want a exemption from law just because you are homosexual.....Thats special treatment.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 27, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


That is the true crux of the argument....They dont want the people to decide. They dont even want each states legislation to decide for their own state. What they want is to force their lifestyle and agenda on the whole country as a stepping stone to dismantle freedom of religion. The homosexuals are so desperate to be seen as normal they sold their freedoms to the progressive party to be used as tools.


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



What makes you think you understand the issue any better than anyone else? Do you suppose you have some special insights or knowledge that everyone else doesn't have access to?

You started a thread asking if this is the most important issue- and then have spent most of the last month arguing against gay marriage.

After saying you were done arguing about gay marriage.

If you really think this is the least important issue- start treating it like the least important issue- stop arguing about it.

Everytime you argue the merits of gay marriage you are reinforcing how important you think the issue is.


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The last 4 times the people have voted, they voted in favor of gay marriage. Gay marriage would pass in California right now- but luckily, the courts led the way- because courts decide Constitutional issues- like the courts have decided the constitutionality of state marriage laws three times before.

The homophobes are so desperate to attack homosexuals that they are willing to ignore the Constitution to do so.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Do you want the states to decide if YOU can exercise your rights to life, liberty, speech, religion, gun ownership, and other types of property?  If so... then lets throw out the 14th amendment and have at it.


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



LOL- now that is original- asking that the Constitutional guarantees of equal treatment before the law is what you bigots call 'special treatment'


----------



## thanatos144 (May 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I am not so sure about California...To many Latins and blacks for gay marriage to pass.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 27, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Again mister in the closet homosexual the 14th amendment does not apply because being homosexual is a CHOICE


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I have yet to see any of you bigots display any common sense at all.

No one is offering 'civil unions' with the exact same rights and benefits as marriage. That is entirely your 'offer' on the eve of the Supreme Court deciding the issue. 

States like Georgia specifically banned recognition of any 'civil unions' which had the same rights as marriage.

There is no Constitutional right to 'civil unions'- but there is a Constitutional right to equal treatment before the law.  That is why there are successful civil cases against bans on same gender marriage.

Equal is equal- marriage is marriage.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


You do know that the law is applied equally to ALL right? What you are asking for is a special exception so homosexuals can feel normal. Same sex marrige is not recognized in many states no matter if you are homosexual OR heterosexual thus the law is equally applied....


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



The 14th Amendment does not say anything about 'except for homosexuals'

*Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; 
*nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*

Person- any person.

Not just the persons you personally approve of.


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



No I don't know that the law is equally applied to all. Multiple courts have ruled that it is not. 

And that is the issue before the Supreme Court. 


Once again-  asking that the Constitutional guarantees of equal treatment before the law is what you bigots call 'special treatment'


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



Believe what you will.


----------



## thanatos144 (May 27, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


So ignoring evidence is all you have....Figures.... Now kindly fuck off you have been dismissed.


----------



## Seawytch (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



What exemption from what law?


----------



## Seawytch (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You haven't provided any evidence, just your anti gay opinion (that's losing badly)


----------



## RKMBrown (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


The right to life is not a choice, it's a right.  Get over it.  Oh and the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a part of that right to life.  See right to life in the fourteenth amendment.  See SCOTUS rulings on marriage.  Sorry, but the constitution is not dictated by the pope.


----------



## Syriusly (May 27, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You wouldn't know what evidence was if it bit you on you boney ass- all you have are you bigoted opinions.


----------



## Redfish (May 28, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Hmmm,  does your "right to life" argument apply to unborn human beings, or only to gay human beings?    Just curious.


----------



## RKMBrown (May 28, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Yes.  IMO when a baby has brain function and a beating heart, the baby is a living human being.  As such that baby deserves protection from those that would do the baby harm.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > The most important issue is that the United States has become anti-Christian and arrogant against proper respect of God. In fact, the Federal government presently expects much more respect for itself.
> ...


They will soon enough. At least the ones that know homosexual behavior is just another sin and GOD--- not government, designated what constitutes marriage thousands of years ago.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 2, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


You're a moron, without qualification.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 3, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I'm a Christian and I wasn't reborn yesterday. I've seen many changes through the years and I've noted that some things remain much the same.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 3, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Try noticing reality.  No one is banning Christianity or closing down churches.  The hits the faith is taking is because of morons like you.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 3, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I don't understand how/why you equate right to life with right to gay marriage.   Its totally illogical.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 3, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You're correct, there is no right to life but there is about to be to gay marriage.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 3, 2015)

Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 3, 2015)

Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 3, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.


Guess you've never been married...


----------



## Skylar (Jun 3, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.



Its similar to an argument made by Ginsberg.....where marriage has already changed when it became a union of equals. For a very long time it wasn't.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 3, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.


The "right" to Gaiety marriage dissolves my right to ignore homosexual unions. You want to attend the "church" of fornication, and get "married" there that is up to you. But when YOU sue me so your significant other can horn in on healthcare to nurse HIV even where the business is "Christian" or owned by Christians ---I have a real freedom of religion issue that says I do not have to go against what the Bible indicates according to everything the Constitution implies.

Christians should not have to decorate homosexual specific wedding cakes, anymore than they should be made to decorate sexually explicit ones. Christian photographers should not have to provide services for homosexual affairs anymore than Nazi ones. If one can fire someone for trying to proselytize while at work, I see no reason a person who choses a homosexual lifestyle should not seek those who agree with such to service them. They are obviously not that hard to find.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 3, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.


Sorry, but I didn't elect the judges on the Supreme Court and I don't believe they have any right to dictate to anyone as to how the Constitution can be bent to suit their own values and opinions. The only way the Constitution should be "adjusted" is through a Constitutional Amendment. Women's suffrage took an Amendment as did Emancipation. The judges didn't just let it slide by.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 3, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Marriage is a part of life.  That's how.  

It is your "illogical" stance on gay marriage that makes you think marriage has nothing to do with life.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 4, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Right wing nut job religious right, far left bed wetters and media are infatuated with gay anything. I support gay rights and have no problem with gay marriage but agree with redfish. Let court make a decision and live with it.
> ...



Interpreting the constitution is the job of the court. Says who? 

Says the Fedearlist papers.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 4, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

For the last time.   I want gays to be able to legally commit to each other and get the same benefits as a man/woman marriage.   But a gay union is not a marriage.   Look it up in your Websters.

Again, at the risk of being repititions,   the current gay agenda is NOT about rights or equal treatment, its about using the govt to mandate societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.   But its not and never will be.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

Wrong,  the job of the court is to determine whether current law is being applied in accordance with the constitution.  It is NOT their job to interpret the constitution.

I know its a subtle difference, but it is a significant difference.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 4, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


What they also determine is what is unconstitutional, like gay marriage bans in this case.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 4, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



That's what you say. This is what Federalist Paper 78 says:



> *The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.* It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.
> 
> The Federalist 78



Interpreting the constitution is most definitely the job of the judiciary.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 4, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Equality is what this is about, which fucks you good because in your mind faggots aren't equals.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

the federalist papers are not part of our body of law or our constitution.  

The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional.  it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.  The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear.  The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 4, 2015)

Redfish said:


> The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear.  The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.


God luck finding any competent lawyer, judge, or legal scholar who believes that, since it is entirely untrue.  What they actually meant is a constant debate, since we very often do not know.

And, it wouldn't matter a damn in the end even if we did know.  If they were wrong we have every right in the world to fix it.  They expected us to, and we do, slowly, but we do.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 4, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The federalist papers are are certainly a better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.



> The job of the SC is to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional.  it is not their job to "interpret" the words in the constitution.



And how would the court be able to determine if a lower court ruling was constitutional....if they weren't allowed to glean the meaning of the constitution?



> The words of the document are clear, their intent is clear.  The constitution is not subject to interpretation, it is to be taken literally in accordance with the meaning of the words in the english language.



Oh, their intent is clear. As the Federalist Papers made ludicrously obvious.

And there's no way to use the constitution save through interpretation, as much of it is ambiguous. For example, what is 'probable cause'? "Unreasonable' searches? 'Equal' protections of the law? What are the 'privileges and immunities' specifically? When exactly is a privilege and immunity 'abridged'? What are the 'reserve rights' of the 9th amendment?

These are all terms that mandate interpretation. And the process of adjudication requires that judges answer these questions.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

repeating something that is wrong does not magically make it true.  

1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law

2.  the constitution is not to be "interpreted"  it is to be read, understood, and followed.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 4, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


The "understanding" part, that's the problem.  They didn't leave us a guidebook.

Educate yourself, for once: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 5, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Actually they did. The Constitution was to be interpreted in accordance with Judeo/Christian ethics as practiced by the vast majority of the American Citizens as revealed biblically. To say that the Founding Fathers had no understanding of the Bible --- never read it, or considered the Bible some backward book (having no influence on the designers of the Constitution or its design) is to distort American History and destroy the very fabric of the Constitution.


*The Bible and Government*
*Biblical Principles: Basis for America's Laws*

*PRINCIPLE* *LEGAL DOCUMENT* *BIBLE*
Sovereign authority of God, not sovereignty of the state, or sovereignty of man Mayflower Compact, Declaration, Constitution, currency, oaths, mention of God in all 50 state constitutions, Pledge of Allegiance Ex. 18:16, 20:3, Dt. 10:20, 2 Chron. 7:14, Ps. 83:18, 91:2, Isa. 9:6-7, Dan. 4:32, Jn. 19:11, Acts 5:29, Rom. 13:1, Col 1:15-20, 1 Tim. 6:15
Existence of objective moral values, Fixed standards, Absolute truth, Sanctity of life Declaration ("unalienable" rights—life, etc., "self-evident" truths) Ex. 20:1-17, Dt. 30:19, Ps. 119:142-152,  Pr. 14:34, Isa. 5:20-21, Jn. 10:10, Rom. 2:15,  Heb. 13:8
Rule of law rather than authority of man Declaration, Constitution Ex. 18:24-27, Dt. 17:20, Isa. 8:19-20, Mat. 5:17-18
All men are sinners Constitutional checks and balances Gen 8:21, Jer. 17:9, Mk. 7:20-23, Rom. 3:23, 1 Jn. 1:8
All men created equal Declaration Gen. 1:26, Acts 10:34, 17:26, Gal. 3:28, 1 Peter 2:17
Judicial, legislative, and executive branches Constitution Isa. 33:22 (See Madison)
Religious freedom First Amendment 1 Timothy2:1-2
Church protected from state control (& taxation), but church to influence the state First Amendment Dt. 17:18-20, 1 Kgs. 3:28, Ezra 7:24, Neh. 8:2, 1 Sam. 7:15-10:27, 15:10-31, 2 Sam. 12:1-18, Mat. 14:3-4,  Lk. 3:7-14, 11:52, Acts 4:26-29
Republican form of government and warnings against kings but in favor of Godly rulers

Constitution

Ex. 18:21, Dt. 1:13, Jud. 8:22-23, 1 Samuel 8, Pr. 11:14, 24:6 
Importance of governing self and family as first level of governance First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments Mat. 18:15-18,  Gal. 5:16-26, 1 Cor. 6:1-11, 1 Tim. 3:1-5, Tit. 2:1-8
Establish justice Declaration Ex. 23:1-9, Lev. 19:15, Dt. 1:17, 16:19-20, 24:17-19, 1 Sam. 8:3, 2 Sam. 8:15,  1 Kings 3:28, 10:9, Mic. 6:8, Rom. 13:4
Fair trial with witnesses Sixth Amendment Ex. 20:16, Dt. 19:15, Pr. 24:28, 25:18, Mat. 18:16
Private property rights Fifth Amendment Ex. 20:15-17
Biblical liberty, Free enterprise Declaration Lev. 25:10, Jn. 8:36,  2 Cor. 3:17, Gal. 5:1, James 1:25, 1 Peter 2:16
Creation not evolution Declaration Gen. 1:1
Biblical capitalism not Darwinian capitalism (service and fair play over strict survival of the fittest) Anti-trust laws Ex. 20:17, Mat. 20:26, 25:14-30, 2 Thes. 3:6-15, 1 Pet. 2:16
Importance of the traditional family State sodomy laws, few reasons for divorce Ex. 20:12-14, Mat. 19:1-12, Mk. 10:2-12, Rom. 1:18-2:16, 1 Cor. 7:1-40,
Religious education encouraged Northwest Ordinance Dt. 6:4-7, Pr. 22:6, Mat. 18:6, Eph. 6:4,
Servanthood not political power Concept of public servant Ex. 18:21, Rom. 13:4, Php. 2:7,
Sabbath day holy "Blue laws" Ex. 20:8
Restitution Restitution laws Lev. 6:1-5, Num. 5:5-7, Mat. 5:23-26

Please see: The Bible and Government - Faith Facts


----------



## Skylar (Jun 5, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I'll let my statement that the Federalist Papers are a better source on the meaning of the constitution than you are stand on its own. I'll also assert that Alexander Hamilton is a far better source on the role of the judiciary than you are.

He played a key role in the crafting of the constitution. _You didn't. _He was there when it was crafted. _You weren't._ Thus, his experience is direct and relevant. And your opinions are centuries after the fact and gloriously uninformed. Making you a vastly inferior source on the role of the judiciary than either the Federalist Papers or Alexander Hamilton.



> 1. the federalist papers have no legal validity in US law.



The Federalists Papers are cited by the USSC. The Papers have as much legal validity as the courts credit them with.

*Your opinions on the other hand have no legal validity.* As you're not a legal authority. No court has ever cited you. Nor do you have a sufficient basis of knowledge to be a credible source. Nor can you support your claim logically or factually. When faced with obvious contradictions of your assertions (for example, the half dozen subjective standards that require interpretation), *you merely ignore them.* And your willful ignorance isn't an argument nor is it evidence.

Its an excuse for both.



> 2.  the constitution is not to be "interpreted"  it is to be read, understood, and followed.



Says you, citing yourself. Yet the founders themselves recognized the need for interpretation of the constitution. You say 'uh-uh'.

They wrote the document. And you're nobody. They win. Thus, your baseless assertions are refuted and debunked. In addition to your assertions being factually baseless statements of your own personal opinion. Which is both uninformed and hopelessly subjective.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 5, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Nonsense, total revisionist David Barton nonsense.  There is no freedom of religion in Christianity, let alone guns,  voting, speedy trial, due process, or freedom of speech.  That is liberalism not Christianity.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.



Have you ever changed your mind before?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Nonsense.

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation, including a 'literalist' interpretation.

The mistake you and others on the right make is to believe that the Constitution is the 'beginning,' when in fact it's the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by judges using both its text and history, subject to the crucible of logic and reason, resulting in Constitutional doctrine which have withstood centuries of judicial review, and afford jurists today the guidance to determine whether or not a given law comports with the Constitution and this case law.

It's about objective, documented facts and evidence, it's about what can be proven in a court of law, and it's about what's logical, reasonable, and consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, there is no rational, logical, reasonable motive behind the effort violate the 14th Amendment rights of gay Americans, and there is nothing in the Constitution, its text or history, or in 14th Amendment jurisprudence, which warrants upholding measures whose sole intent is to make gay Americans different from everyone else.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 6, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Institution of marriage was destroyed long before gay marriage was discussed. Back when women could not vote, serve on juries and hold professional jobs. For thousands of years. Gay marriage affects no heterosexual marriage of the "institution" of marriage, WTF that is. Institutions are prisons and asylums so they at least got that part right.
> ...


39 years


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


U have it half right.
Court interprets the Constitution, which is the law of the land, to determine if current state laws comply with the Constitution. What Court should not do is stretch the Constitution, with claims that it is evolving and is a living document, to fit any and all claims of equal rights. Marriage is different in many ways as it is a religious sacred vow to many where in reality it is a legal contract.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 6, 2015)

Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 6, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.


 

bullshit,  the meanings of the words of laws are interpreted in accordance with the definitions of those words in the english language.  

Laws are to be taken literally, a court does not have the charter to try to "interpret" what the drafters of the law were thinking at the time.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 6, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary.   You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.

A gay union, while a valid legal document,  is not a marriage. 

Calling a duck a giraffe does not make it a giraffe.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 6, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation, including a 'literalist' interpretation.



ROFLMNAO!

Relativism ON PARADE!


----------



## Redfish (Jun 6, 2015)

TemplarKormac said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.
> ...


 

thanks, but these radical leftists don't bother me with their insults.   I just consider the source and laugh at them.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well that does demonstrates your rational nature and there's no downside to _THAT!_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 6, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



There is no principle in either law or religion, which precludes a sacred vow from being a legally binding contract.

And the reason is that a legally binding contract, is a sacred vow.  When one give's their word; by say signing a contract, they are pledging the scope of their value, before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Now, did you feel that there was some distinction, that could on some level bring some relevance to pointing out a distinction, for which this is absolutely no difference?


----------



## sealybobo (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


why don't you talk to George W Bush and Ronald Reagan they started it when they aligned with the Moral Majority Christian bible thumpers and made gays God Guns and racism always issues don't you get it they use these issues to divide the masses the sheeple


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary.   You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.



Merriam-Webster Dictionary
*Full Definition of MARRIAGE*
1
_a _ _(1)_ *:*  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law _(2)_ *:*  the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex _marriage_>
Marriage Definition of marriage by Merriam-Webster

Oxford English Dictionary
*Definition of marriage in English:*
* noun*
legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
marriage definition of marriage in Oxford dictionary American English US 


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Sadly, Webster's has recently revised the definition of Marriage to include the joining of homo-gender sexual deviants.

Essentially, Webster's has redefined marriage to mean_ anything to* anyone*_... thus effectively rendering the term meaningless.  Which is the goal, of course.  

It is the same as Leftist claiming themselves to be 'Americans'.  To do so they need only reduce the meaning of the term to meaningless... referencing nothing beyond geography... which is to say someone present in 'The Americas', or at best, equating such with 'citizenship'.  As if being born here, in any way correlates to what America means and adhering to the principles that define such, to rightly claim the title:_ American._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 6, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Look up the word "marriage" in any dictionary.   You will not find any definition that includes same sex couples.
> ...


JINX!


----------



## Redfish (Jun 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

that definition would include sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, cousin marriage, and any other two person relationship.............. since, for now, it limits it to two people.   The next revision will eliminate the two person limitation----------watch.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 6, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

it comes down to what people believe is right and wrong.   Both sides are entitled to their beliefs and to state their case.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yes... it does and it will, because_ it must_.  Effectively rendering Marriage to be without meaning.  Rendering the exercise pointless.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


 

which is the real goal of the left wing gay agenda-----------destroy marriage, destroy religion and make everyone a slave to the state.

whats really sad is that the libs are too stupid to see what is happening.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 6, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





> Marriage:
> noun
> 1.
> (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example,opposite-sex marriage, *same-sex marriage*, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:
> ...



Its not like you know what you're talking about. And its not like contradiction by the dictionary is going to matter to you in the slightest.

As your sole basis of credibility is that a source agree with you. If it doesn't, you ignore it. Including the dictionary on the meaning of words and the Founders on the meaning of the constitution.

And....so what? Its not like the rest of us are obligated to ignore these sources just because they're inconvenient to your argument. Nor does your willful ignorance have the slightest relevance to the law.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 6, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



And....Websters will now be ignored. 

As I said, your only standard is you. Anything that doesn't agree with you is dismissed as invalid. Even the dictionary on the meaning of words.


----------



## Rexx Taylor (Jun 6, 2015)

so long as they are "Lesbian Seagulls" its fine with me.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 6, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.


But right and wrong/good and evil are not defined by what people decide.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 6, 2015)

LittleNipper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Laws are not interpreted by what Websters Dictionary says.
> ...


Where'd you get that nonsense from, Baptist Sunday School?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> W.R. McKeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So your conclusion is then that the argument is straw reasoning: _"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched._

I'll take that concession; _noted and accepted.
_


Skylar said:


> > Well ok... Let's you and I break it down, shall we... (Reader you can go on to bed, as Skylar will now become OBSESSED with something else... ANYTHING ELSE, except this discussion.)
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself. ...



WOW~  So you're going to invoke straw reasoning, after just lamenting straw reasoning? _HYSTERICAL!  

Love the irony.

I'll take THAT concession; noted and accepted._


So you've agreed that you conclude that the reasoning at issue is that of straw, a pretense which I conjured to escape the reality that is your need for sexual deviancy to be sexual normality?



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> Now the reasoning asserts that human physiology is comprised of two genders?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the two respective genders are designed specifically to join with the other?
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the emotional nature of the respective genders compliment the other.
> 
> Are you coming to reject that fact?



Skylar was incapable of advancing any contest to this irrefutable point, thus concedes to this point.  Its concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.



			
				W.R. McKeys said:
			
		

> The reasoning further asserts that the physical and emotional joining common to the purpose of distinct genders; wherein two bodies join into one sustainable body, that such represents the design standard as nature intended, thus the natural standard of the joining of two bodies into one legally recognized body, which is OKA: Marriage.



There is no marriage in nature. [/QUOTE]

Humanity exists in nature... this is incontestable, thus Skylar's only contest is refuted in undeniable terms.

Thus demonstrating Skylar's and by extension, the homo-cult's concession to the reality that in point of unassailable fact, Marriage *IS*, _the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And by virtue of that, there is no potential for a claim of inequity for those seeking to join with people of the same gender, who claim that their being disqualified from marriage, sets them so.

And with that said, Skylar's 6th Concession in a single post; a post wherein she lost the ENTIRETY of this debate... is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_
And _THAT_ Reader is how *THAT* _is done.

This post will be repeated about a million times everyday, until the SCOTUS scuttles the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality._


----------



## Redfish (Jun 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 


Liberals can change the definitions in dictionaries, they can preach and cry and whine and hurl insults.

What they can't do is change human biology and thousands of years of human history.

A gay union is not a marriage

End of story and end of thread--------------please.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 7, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Chickenfish can yell at clouds, tilt at windmills and shake his fist at the moon.

Gays will still be legally married. 

The beginning of happy endings...


----------



## thanatos144 (Jun 7, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Homosexuals not Gay.... None of you perverts are happy.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


ROFL... no it will be a same sex marriage, not a heterosexual marriage but a gay/ssm marriage.  Get over it.  You've lost your war against ssm.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 8, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

maybe, and if so the country and society in general has also lost.   But you fools will have succeeded in bringing down the traditional family unit and the religious beliefs that marriage is based on.

its very clear,  the progressive agenda is the destruction of american society.   We get it.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If your family unit is based on denying marriage to someone else......their marriage isn't your problem. Gay marriage takes nothing from you. It doesn't even involve you directly.

This is the part I don't understand. The adamant opposition despite virtually *no* impact on the individual getting so adamant. You're blessedly irrelevant to this process. No one is demanding that you marry someone of the same sex. Only that someone else be allowed to if they choose.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 8, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

it involves all of society because if gay unions are called marriages then society is telling its children that homosexuality is a normal human condition and they can  choose which way they want to go.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you oppose gay marriage because you oppose homosexuality?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


How is liberty the destruction of American Society?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 8, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


No one ever said being gay is normal.  Quite the opposite.  But that does not mean it's illegal to not be normal.  What's next you folks wanting to make it illegal to be super smart or super dumb?  Anyone not within 10pts of average to be punished?


----------



## kaz (Jun 8, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



How do you chose which sex to be attracted to?  When I hit puberty, I had no doubt who I was fantasizing about when I started choking the chicken


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 8, 2015)

kaz said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


For most gays they didn't either.  Very few people ever make a choice, they just are who they are.


----------



## kaz (Jun 8, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes, that's my point


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 8, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


Terrific, first good one I've ever seen from you...


----------



## kaz (Jun 8, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Who gives a shit?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 8, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


No one, about anything that's said here.

Thought you might enjoy the compliment?  They aren't easy to get from me.


----------



## kaz (Jun 8, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Yes, I like snotty, back handed compliments now that you mention it.  Thanks!


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 8, 2015)

kaz said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


You're lucky you got that much, now, go play with yourself.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 9, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

I don't oppose homosexuality any more than I oppose being bi polar or having dementia.   All are forms of mental disorders that are not normal human conditions.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Calling a mental disorder a normal human condition is damaging to society.    It has nothing to do with liberty.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 9, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

If gay marriage is sanctioned, then that will effectively declare that homosexuality is normal and that kids can simply choose which way to go when they reach puberty.   That IMHO would damage society.

You disagree, and thats fine.   But your opinion no more valid than mine.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 9, 2015)

kaz said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

yeah , me too.   Wonder who Bruce Jenner was fantasizing about.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I am no liberal and have not changed the definition of marriage. Heterosexual marriage here 39 years with grandkids.
Gay marriage has not and will not affect my or any heterosexual marriage. Ever. Gay boogeyman is a myth.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Tell us how you chose your sexuality. How did it go? What was the determining factor that made you chose what you did?
Respectfully, I know no one that chose their sexuality, no one. Sure, there may be some but even Southern Baptist Convention agrees homosexuality is same sex attraction they are born with. They have shifted their stance, redefined it-imagine that, and now state only acting on that is a sin. 
Your claim that parents will tell their kids they can choose which way to go is absurd. No kid, especially with the anti gay crowd alive and well, would choose to be persecuted.
And I do not associate you with the hate the gays crowd.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 9, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

it was not a choice for me,  my hormones are normal, my brain function is normal,  by genetic make up is normal,  my XY chromozones are in normal alignment. 

I agree that some people are born with abnormal sexual genetic makeup.   Some are also born with bi-polar disorders. 

We do not see a movement to declare bi-polar disorders as normal, so why do we have a movement to declare homosexuality as normal?


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 9, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



"We" also don't try to pass laws to prevent people suffering bipolar disorder from civilly marrying. You want to prevent gay people from marrying. You won't be successful.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Homosexuality is not a mental disorder redfish. That has been scientifically established long ago. Sexuality is not one size fits all as folks are born with it. I was born attracted to women, never chose it. Same as you. Now if you did consider other sexual options please tell us about that but I doubt that happened with you. That is what choice is, considering and thinking about all options of sexuality before choosing one. Seriously, we all know that is absurd to claim you, I or most anyone chooses their sexuality.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Mass murderers and terrorists can marry in America and these numb skulls want to ban gay folk from marrying under the banner of "sanctity of marriage".
No credibility.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Mental disorder is the progressive agenda wrt right to marry for all US citizens?  HUH?  Are you on meds?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Effectively declare?  What? You act like liberty is a football game.  OMG if they get marriage the gays win and all hell will break loose. ROFL
OMG kids might have the liberty to grow up and live as they want to... the HORROR of it all...

As for validity... let's be clear... your opinion is the irrational view that liberty is only to be dished in small portions to people that agree to live as the majority demands, and my opinion is that when the mob takes liberty away from minority groups that they don't like, that mob needs to be told to sit down or go back home with their pitch forks before they get thrown in jail.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 10, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


The only people with a "movement" to declare what is normal or not are the folks like you.  The gays in general just want you to leave them the hell alone.... for you to take your JACK BOOT off their neck.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 
If you're not going to post like a coherent adult, you shouldn't be surprised that no one treats you like one.  This was the worst straw man/_non sequitur_ I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying something.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 10, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I think you're not understanding the words you're using. How is my commentary a strawman? Have you followed the thread at all?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I understand the words I used very well.  You're babbling.  If the choice is between other people not reading/understanding, or you sounding like a damned fool, always go with the latter.  The odds are much better.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 10, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Obviously you're not following the thread and know nothing about Chickenfish and his views. 

Chickenfish thinks being gay is like being bipolar. Chickenfish does not think gays should be able to civilly marry because they aren't "normal" in the same way people with bipolar disorder aren't "normal". 

Glad I could help you understand.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 10, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Been there, heard that.  "You don't worship every word I say!  OBVIOUSLY, you just don't understand what's going on!"

Doesn't get any more interesting the 167th time I hear it.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 11, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

Uhhh,  yeah, ok.   So you are saying that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner did not choose to be a male first and then a female?   Chaz Bono?   Come on,  If you have male body parts and a female brain, you are not normal.  That condition is an aberration of human existence. 

I am sorry for such people, but calling them normal does not cure their medical disorder.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 11, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

I don't want 2% of the population dictating what the 98% must believe.   Do you get that?


----------



## Wildman (Jun 11, 2015)

what seems normal here is all libertards are qweer homos and lesbos.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 11, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I'm not at all surprised to hear that you've heard before that you shouldn't dive into a conversation and accuse others of strawmen or non sequiturs when you comment without knowing context. Now that you do know that context and realize that it was not, in fact, a non sequitur or strawman, you attempt to dismiss your faux paux with unconcerned bravado.

Lame.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 11, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


How can anyone dictate what you must believe?
What they are stating and arguing is that they should be treated as equals under the law.  We as citizens do not have the power to dictate to anyone what they must believe.  That strawman does not hunt.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The dictation comes when one is forced to bake a cake or else...Umm that dog done hunted and bit someone's legs more than once now.. You were saying.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 12, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Or else not sell to the public at large.  Public access means if you open your doors to the public, you can't discriminate who you sell too. That is not a dictate that you have to sell to the public... nor is it a dictate that you can't sell privately.  It is a law that you can't harm people by discriminating against them.  No different than age discrimination laws.

You may feel you are being harmed by not being allowed to harm others... but I assure you that liberty is not the liberty to harm others.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


At some point society has got to stand up for some kind of morals and standards in which to live by, and of course believe in, and it has done so, but these days a few want to tear all that down in order to accommodate what it is that (they?) are (pushing) as a minority for whom are wanting to dictate for others now to have to allow for and/or that they must be forced to believe in, but society at large is pushing back, so it will be interesting to see where it all ends up.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 12, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


 

Well said, the current social commentary that "if you aren't gay or running with gays you just aren't cool or tolerant"  is simply BS.   But you are correct, society as a whole is pushing back at being told what they must believe, who they must love, and who they must do business with.

What I find very troubling is that we never hear of the gay mafia attacking a muslim business or demanding that gays be married in a mosque.   Could it be that they are afraid that such an attack would result in losing their heads or being burned alive?

The hypocrisy of the left on this issue is amazing,  and they are too stupid or brainwashed to even realize it.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 12, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Correct.. and the decision was to make public sales, non-discriminatory.  This because no one should be pushed out of a venue that is selling to the public based on skin color, age, gender, and yes perhaps soon even sexual orientation.   You may have a desire to make sure the black folks or the gay folks don't have access to your products but if so... guess what?  Your products are not wanted by the public.    If you want to be a homophobe or a racist your gonna have to do it PRIVATELY, or in the PRESS.  You can say what you want but you can't harm people.  It has been decided that limiting access to the public marketplace is a harm.  Please make your argument that limiting access to the public marketplace is not a harm.   Explain how you would not be harmed if you were personally blocked from purchasing every type product sold to the public in the USA.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Uhmm.. that's your strawman.  I'm not gay and I'm not cool and I'm not running with gays.  I'm fighting for liberty.   I don't expect you, an authoritarian, to understand the concept of fighting for liberty.  But there it is.  It is you that is a hypocrite.. you want liberty for yourself and the people you like... but not for the people you don't like.  That makes you a hypocrite.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 12, 2015)

True liberty is standing up and defending equal rights for those you may despise the most. The Constitution was written on the foundation of the rights of the individual, never the mob rule majority.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 12, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



No one gives a shit what you believe. Your religious morals and standards are great for your family. Government is not for you to dictate them to others.
No one is dictating or forcing you to believe a damn thing. Believe what you want.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jun 12, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


Just don't use my money to fund immorality or governmental sponsored correctness.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 12, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Every time lefties use the word "should", it gives me cold chills up my spine.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 13, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> True liberty is standing up and defending equal rights for those you may despise the most. The Constitution was written on the foundation of the rights of the individual, never the mob rule majority.


 

there is a vast difference between mob rule (Baltimore) and majority rule (democracy).   It amazes me that intelligent people like you don't get it.

Minority rights are established and enforced by majority vote, not by minority dictate.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 13, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

the sentence in red is exactly what is wrong here.   You want to deprive others of their beliefs or to denigrate them if they differ from yours


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 13, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


I'm conservative, much more conservative than you are.  

You should not commit murder.. you might not like the word should but it is an appropriate term when used properly.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 14, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


The harm goes both ways, but you are biased in that you have chosen one side of the issue. Being closed minded and not seeing all harm involved says much about your rational on the matter.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 15, 2015)

beagle9 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


I agree that there is a tangible harm that goes with being personally blocked from purchasing a for public sale product.  I also agree that the people who would commit such harm are determined to demand that they are being harmed when they are not allowed to harm their customers in this tangible way.  However, I do not hold weight to the argument that not being allowed to harm someone is a tangible harm.  What is the harm, a blow to ego?  If a blow to ego is "harm" then you might as well tear down free speech as well cause free speech is used to make that harm on people day in and day out, no?

If your religion says you can't sell to everyone in the public... then don't open a business for selling to public.  Open only for private sales.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > True liberty is standing up and defending equal rights for those you may despise the most. The Constitution was written on the foundation of the rights of the individual, never the mob rule majority.
> ...



No, minority rights and all rights are enforced by the rule of law under The United States Constitution. NO state law trumps The Constitution and many state laws are often ruled unconstitutional.
That is what this case is all about. 
No one can vote away or establish by vote the rights of anyone if it conflicts with Constitution which is the supreme law of the land..


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jun 22, 2015)

A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:

Science vs. the Gay Gene


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 22, 2015)

mikegriffith1 said:


> A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene



 And what peer reviewed journal did this appear in?

And one of the authors was fired for diddling boys.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2015)

mikegriffith1 said:


> A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:
> 
> Science vs. the Gay Gene


Tell us all about how you chose your sexual orientation. Choice means you went over all your options, investigating and contemplating all of them before you made your choice.
So tell us how long did you contemplate liking cock versus pussy. What was the determining factor that made you choose?
I believe you. It did not happen that way with me as I never thought about any choice of cock but if you say it did with you, you would know better than I.
Not in a million years here Mike. I was born straight attracted to women. Unlike you I never had cock as one of my choices.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

The constitution was enacted by majority vote.  Minority rights are always put in place by majority vote in this country.   Except for unborn humans who apparently have no rights.

and you are wrong about states and federal law.   Pot is illegal federally but legal in several states.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Gadawg73 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > A good article on the pseudo-science behind the "born that way" claim:
> ...


 

You are almost getting it.   Do you want pre-pubescent kids taught that they can choose when their hormones begin to flow?   That is the issue here, whether our kids are taught that they can go either way, or both, when they reach puberty.  

I think you are smart enough to realize that that would not be good for society.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The SCOTUS will rule by majority vote. Stop whining. 

And the Feds can still enforce their laws (and still are) despite what the states have done.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...



They go the way they are born whether you tell them not to or not. 

Choosing when you become hormonal? Come on Fishy, you're getting deranged and ridiculous now.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Majority is a very broad term.  It takes much more than a simple majority to amend it and much more than a simple majority enacted it.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

Yes,  technically a majority is 50.1%, and yes a constitutional amendment would require 38 states to ratify it.  

My point is that in every case minority rights have been established by some form of majority vote.  

Would you prefer a system where the minority made such decisions?

Society as a whole should decide issues like these, not the most vocal minority voice.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I'm sorry where did we vote as a majority to take away the rights of minorities to marry? What amendment was that?  Also can you show me the amendment to the constitution that gives any group the right to get married?

The right to "life" exists period.  Getting married is a part of life.. period.  Get over it.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Only important to closeted gays trying to cinvince the world (including themselves) they aren't in fact gay.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 23, 2015)

The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.

"I'm not gay! I reject and deny everything gays want! Who else but someone not gay would do that?"

Someone closeted and in denial springs readily to mind. I'm not into BDSMD/s so don't involve myself with their stuff. I don't oppose it. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it. That's how someone not into something should be. Not spending every waking moment protesting it.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Thats your opinion and you have the right to express it.   Others do not share those opinions and they also have the right to express their opinions and beliefs. 

We disagree on this.   There is nothing wrong with that.   I do not have to accept your opinions and you do not have to accept mine.   BUT, we need to be tolerant of those who do not think as we do.  

Its that tolerance that is missing in the debate on this topic.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 

What a foolish comment.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.
> 
> "I'm not gay! I reject and deny everything gays want! Who else but someone not gay would do that?"
> 
> Someone closeted and in denial springs readily to mind. I'm not into BDSMD/s so don't involve myself with their stuff. I don't oppose it. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it. That's how someone not into something should be. Not spending every waking moment protesting it.


 

So your agenda is to demonize and insult anyone who does not share your beliefs?   Got it !


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You're idea of tolerance, is I let you be intolerant and abusive of gay people's rights.  To be tolerant of intolerance is to be a willing collaborator of intolerance. 

You are an authoritarian... the direct opposite of libertarian.  Given that you like to be a libertarian for your own rights, I'll keep reminding you of the irony of hypocrisy of your stance in this regard.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

The intolerance of liberals is quite evident in this thread.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

wrong again.   I want gays to have full rights and be able to legally commit to each other.   I don't understand why that legal commitment has to be called a marriage.

Admit it, its all about the word "marriage' with you guys.   Its not about rights or equality.  Its about using gove to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

Until you admit the true agenda of the left on this, it will never get resolved.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> The intolerance of liberals is quite evident in this thread.


And well it should be.  There is no room for tolerance of tyrants like you.  Sorry.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > The more you act to deny gays what they want, more everyone assumes you must be gay.
> ...



Scientificly proven. More someone opposes homosexuality, more often they're in fact homosexual. 

Homophobics May Be Hidden Homosexuals Homophobia Anti-Gay Sentiment

Are Homophobic People Really Gay and Not Accepting It Psychology Today

Study Reveals Homophobic Men Are In Fact More Likely To Be Gay

and on and on...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You can call it any thing you want. You can call it a union... you can call it a gay marriage.. you can call it a rainbow loop... (yeah I just made that up.)

You've been explained the reasons for using the word "marriage" and not something else TEN THOUSAND TIMES.  There are tens of thousands of federal and state laws that pertain to marriage, not civil union.

The despicable homophobic gay haters had decades to "rename" their "blessed" word marriage to civil union and never tried, why not?  Easy, cause it's marriage not civil union.  The gays want the right to get married, not the right to form a civil union.   You let government pass out marriage licenses... and now you have to pay the price for that right... by recognizing gay marriages right along side your religious based marriages.  BTW anyone can get married without a priest or church.  Church's don't own the word marriage.  Just because two people get married does not mean it's a marriage blessed by some church.

Agenda?  Yes, there are wackos with agendas in every group.  What's your agenda?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Wrong,  but clearly your idea to tolerance is to ram homosexuality up the asses (excuse the pun) of all americans whether they like it or not. 

Thats the hypocrisy here.   You are totally intolerant of anyone who does not believe as you do.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


ROFL  yeah cause being for liberty is the same as being against liberty.  How old are you 10?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

My agenda?   Freedom of speech and freedom of belief, and freedom of religion.   I oppose government oppression in all forms,  I want the constitution followed,  I want society as a whole to decide societal issues, not some minority interest no matter how vocal. 

As to marriage,  that word has been difined by over 3000 years of human history.  

At the risk of being repetitious,   if a gay union is called a marriage then there will be no valid legal argument to preclude "marriages" of multiple persons, siblings, parents and children.   All such groupings, if called marriages, could be entered into to avoid taxes.

This is a slippery slope no matter how many times you try to deny it.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

In any society,  liberty is defined by the society as a whole.   Minority rights did not just fall from the sky, they were established by a majority vote of the entire society.

Let the people speak,   If a majority want gay marriage, then so be it.   If a majority do not, then so be it. 

What fault do you find with letting the people decide?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 

So, let me see.   Are you saying that obama and hillary were gay when they opposed gay marriage and are now straight?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



OMFG what the HELL MAKES YOU THINK A CHILD IS A CONSENTING ADULT?  WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Politicians doing things isn't typically because of hwo they feel, but what a poll says they should do. But if you need to twist things to feel better about yourself, knock yourself out. Here's a hammer.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


What fault do I have with letting a mob take liberty away from a smaller group? What the hell is wrong with you that you have to even ask such a dumb ass question?  Are you some NAZI or something?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Did I say under age children?  No.   But a parent/child "marriage" could occur between adults over 21 in order to avoid inheritence taxes. 

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


 

So you admit the obozo and the hildebeast are hypocrites on the gay marriage issue?   Is anyone surprised?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


OMFG WHY THE HELL ARE YOU WANTING TO MARRY YOUR CHILD? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Do you realize what you are saying?    You are advocating tyranny by the minority over the majority.   THINK !    Henry VIII would love you.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Grow up, read what I said.     Inheritence taxes could be avoided by a legal trick of an old rich guy "marrying" his 40 year old son or daughter.   I don't want to do it,  but if gay marriage is federally sanctioned, it could not be prevented.

you have no idea the can of worms you are opening.

and responding in all caps with insults just makes you look like a juvenile idiot.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No.  Liberty for EVERYONE is not Tyranny ya fool.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Incorrect, incest is illegal.  Being gay is not the same as INCEST, ya fool.  Being gay is LEGAL NOW. You're gonna have to learn to get over your homophobia.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No- as you well know- that is just frankly a false statement. 

Look at Loving v. Virginia- majority  of Americans- and certainly majority of Virginians opposed mixed race marriages- but minority rights were protected by the courts. 

Other cases?
Lawrence v. Texas. 
Griswald v. Connecticut

Just a sampling- courts have often led in the protection of minority rights in the face of majority opposition.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...



The anti-gay movement is the one telling children that they can 'choose' what gender that they will be sexually attracted to.

We are teaching children not to discriminate against other children if they happen to be attracted to the same gender. 

I would hope you are smart enough to realize that that is good for society.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Amazing isn't it how these authoritarians want to take away the rights of every group but their own so called "majority." 

Every time one of these authoritarians insist on their right to take the rights that they enjoy away from small groups that they don't like... nvm.. just makes me angry.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Everyone discriminates.. it's normal human practice.  The question is, to what end is the discrimination directed.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Admit it, it is all about you wanting to deny marriage to homosexuals. It is all about using government to enforce societal prejudices against homosexuals and to use government to treat homosexuals as abnormal.

Until you admit your true agenda on this, it will never get resolved.

Oh.....and good job about ending your posting on 'gay marriage'....


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Gay marriage will not be 'federally sanctioned'- it will be recognized as 'marriage'- and will change no laws regarding incestuous marriage.

Just more fear mongering by you and your fellow homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


 

Sure, acceptance of all people for who and what they are is good for society.   Calling mental illness normal is not good for society.   Homosexuality is not a normal human mental or physical condition.

The SC church shooter was a mentally ill racist.   Do you think he should be called normal so as not to offend him?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

The Loving case involved one man and one woman.    nice try, but it does not apply


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

for the final time.   minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


wow just wow... I wonder if your mental illness is curable.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Bullshit.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Left handedness is not a normal human physical condition- and for decades schools would beat the 'left handedness' out of kids. We don't do that any more.

Should we be teaching kids that left handedness is abnormal- simply because a small percentage of the population is left handed? Or should we teach kids that whether a person is left handed or not is immaterial- and that we should judge people based upon how they treat others- like whether they go out and murder people or not?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So if it involves mixed race marriage bans- you think- 'to hell with the majority opinion'- but when it comes to 'gay marriage'- you think 'majority opinion' rules.

Thanks for clarifying that your position is based entirely upon your opposition to gay marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

then where did minority rights come from?   did they just fall from the sky?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

Listen carefully---------------------one man/one woman = a marriage


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

of course not,  way back when I was in grade school there were left handed desks.   you have gone quite far afield on this in your failed effort to find a valid analogy. 

I have consistently said that gays should have every right that straights have.    Marriage is not a constitutional right.   If you think it is, quote the language in the constitution where the word 'marriage' appears.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> for the final time.   minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.





RKMBrown said:


> Bullshit.



Well, no, but I would rephrase it to "Minority rights would not exist if the majority did not acquiesce."


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > for the final time.   minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.
> ...


 

no, its not mere acquiesence,  it takes a intentional action by the majority to create and enforce minority rights.   It is, and was, the right thing to do,  the founders and drafters of the constitution got it right.

The problem today is that we are trying to make every form of deviant human behavior a minority with the right to exist and recruit more to its deviancy.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



My point is that if a clear majority were to decide that a particular minority right should not be a right, it would not be.  Ergo, it is certainly a matter of the majority acquiescing.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Wow- you really like to dance. 

left handed is as 'not normal' as homosexuality is. There is a history of abuse to both left handed people and homosexuals- simply for being 'abnormal' in the minds of those in power. You do not want homosexuality taught as being 'normal'- do you also not want 'left handedness to be taught as normal? 

You have consistantly opposed equal treatment of homosexuals- specifically you want to deny actual marriage to homosexuals, offering them instead some form of 'separate but equal' crap.

And marriage is a constitutional right- affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Lawrence v. Texas.
Griswald v. Connecticut


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So if it involves mixed race marriage bans- you think- 'to hell with the majority opinion'- but when it comes to 'gay marriage'- you think 'majority opinion' rules.

Thanks for clarifying that your position is based entirely upon your opposition to gay marriage.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

If you think the majority supports it, then lets have a vote in every state, lets have a consittutional amendment to clarify it once and for all,  lets get 38 states to ratify that marriage is any two people over the age of consent. 

Lets do it,  what are you waiting for?  

I know what you are waiting for,  you won;t do it because you know that you would lose.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 
answer the question,   did the majority vote for minority rights?  yes or no.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The answer is that minority rights were recognized by the courts- in Lawrence v. Texas, in Griswarld v. Connecticut and in Loving v. Virginia. 

Often in the face of opposition by the majority.

But you only care about 'the majority' when it comes to the issue of 'gay marriage'.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Thanks for clarifying that your position is based entirely upon your opposition to gay marriage.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> answer the question,   did the majority vote for minority rights?  yes or no.



There were states that voted to amend their constitution to ban interracial marriage, those votes denied minority rights to civil marriage.  (Georgia and Alabama come to mind as two.)

Those votes were overturned and rights to marriage for interracial couples made available through court action - not a majority vote.


>>>>


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Strawman bull shit.  We don't have to get our rights from anyone, ya fool.   Our rights are ours to be enjoyed, period.   Why do you feel like you have the power to give and take rights?  Who made you god?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > for the final time.   minority rights would not exist if not voted into existence by the majority.
> ...


No.  The rights exist PERIOD.  A person that switches from believing that they are justified in attacking minorities based on bigotry to a recognition that said violence/punishment against minorities is a vile act, is not acquiescence, it's a change of heart.   FYI you don't speak for the majority.  While you may have decided to "hide" your bigotry against gays by acquiescing... for others ... well lets just say we just see you for what you are.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 23, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



My marriage license doesn't hear you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 23, 2015)

I wonder how many more months and posts Redfish will continue to argue about 'gay marriage'- the issue he declared to be a non-issue and that he vowed to stop posting about?


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 23, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I wonder how many more months and posts Redfish will continue to argue about 'gay marriage'- the issue he declared to be a non-issue and that he vowed to stop posting about?



It'll be a new freak out after the SCOTUS rules.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many more months and posts Redfish will continue to argue about 'gay marriage'- the issue he declared to be a non-issue and that he vowed to stop posting about?
> ...


We'll know thursday.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> No.  The rights exist PERIOD.



Alright, word salad.  Let's replace "exist" with "exercisable".  If a right is not exercisable, its existence is moot.



RKMBrown said:


> A person that switches from believing that they are justified in attacking minorities based on bigotry to a recognition that said violence/punishment against minorities is a vile act, is not acquiescence, it's a change of heart.



Who said anything about beliefs or feelies?  It's simple numbers.

If there are ten from Group A who agree, and five from Group B who disagree with Group A, and a matter is put to a vote, Group A wins, unless Group A acquiesces to Group B.  If Group B votes for a right in the absence of Group A, Group B wins, unless Group A declines to acquiesce.



RKMBrown said:


> FYI you don't speak for the majority.



Never claimed to do so, and neither do you.



RKMBrown said:


> While you may have decided to "hide" your bigotry against gays by acquiescing... for others ... well lets just say we just see you for what you are.



My only bigotry is toward stupidity, and your myopia is your personal problem.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 23, 2015)

This thread is still gay...


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > No.  The rights exist PERIOD.
> ...


Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?"  The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.

No it's not simple numbers.

We do not put all things up for vote.

What you are describing is a tyranny led by a majority.  That's not America.  Though I understand there are a great many who wish it was.

My myopia? You were the one that forgot about the plain fact that people can change their minds.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?"  The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.



Jeez.  Taking a trip to crazy land?



RKMBrown said:


> What you are describing is a tyranny led by a majority.  That's not America.



If the current tyranny of minorities continues, it will become so.  Guaranteed.



RKMBrown said:


> My myopia? You were the one that forgot about the plain fact that people can change their minds.



Nah.

Indeed they can.  Certainly, that was not the issue of this thread.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Was the life of your closest dead relative "moot?"  The state of a right is just that .. the state of it.
> ...


The risk of demanding we all live under tyranny of the majority is that you and your piece of shit life might some day no longer be in the majority.

You said the majority will only change it's mind if it acquiesces in an attempt to further piss on gays. That was an incorrect statement.

And yes, this is the issue of the thread.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



I'm done.  Please learn to read and comprehend before entering into debate.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 23, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> We do not put all things up for vote.



Certainly not minority rights.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 23, 2015)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


No shit you're done. FYI my English skills are just fine. But you might want to get a better education if you'd like to the argue with your betters.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 23, 2015)

> *Guy who's argued 80 times in the Supreme Court predicts the outcome of 2 huge cases*
> 
> Phillips said he thinks the court will strike down same-sex marriage bans, and he believes conservative justices may end up joining that majority decision.
> 
> ...



Now where have I heard that before.....


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 23, 2015)

How many has he won?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?   yes or no

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote?  yes or no

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote?  yes or no

Like it or not,  our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes.

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails,  can you explain?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

yes we will,  and I will accept the ruling of the court either way.  Will you?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

WTF is wrong with you?   acknowledging that minority rights are established by majority votes is not  attacking minorities or being a bigot.   Are you a complete fricken lunatic?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?   yes or no  *- Your question is meaningless.  You appear to think you can form questions about actors without nouns.  You appear to think you can use broad meaningless phrases like majority vote without clarifying your question.  You may know what you mean by your question but you can't expect everyone to be able to read your mind.  *

were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote?  yes or no  *Your question is meaningless.  *

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote?  yes or no  *Your question is meaningless.  *

Like it or not,  our constitutional rights were established and are maintained by majority votes.  *No they were not.*

I do not understand why you want a system where the minority opinion prevails,  can you explain? *Yes I can, and I already have numerous times. 

*


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


Says the bigot who relishes with glee over having the power to attack minorities through the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I will accept the ruling of the court as valid either way- doesn't mean I may not agree with it.

But if I disagree, I won't be calling the justices "Black robed Fascists" or any variant thereof as the homophobes have a tendency to do.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

So rather than admit that you are wrong you claim that my questions are too complex for you to respond to.  

But since you like minority rule,  I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

OK,  so every 4 years when we elect a president he is put in power by the "tyranny of the majority" ? 

You have lost your mind.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Great then- I don't know why you are arguing about voting about 'gay marriage'- since you believe 'majority opinion' includes whatever the Supreme Court rules.

We are all in agreement then that pursuing individual rights through the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court is a valid method of pursuing rights, and your call for votes on the issue are unnecessary.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

I don't believe you.   If the court rules against gay marriage you will be on this board calling the all kinds of names.   you know it, I know it,  everyone knows it.

BTW,  homophobe = fear of homosexuals.    No one is afraid of homosexuals.  Do you think anyone fears PeeWee Herman or Caitlyn Jenner?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 24, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

nice try, but thats not even close to what I said.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Okay - let me ask you this question:

Do supreme court decisions come down by majority vote?  yes or no


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Of course you don't believe me. 

But you are a liar and a bigot so not a surprise. 

Lets compare our responses after the ruling is issued. We are both on record. 

If I disagree with the courts ruling- I will not be calling the justices any names. 

Feel free to hold me to that.

Or just lie again- whatever.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Per Webster: 
*homophobe*
_noun_ ho·mo·phobe \-ˌfōb\
: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly

And lots of homophobes are terrified of homosexuals- I don't know what that has to do with Pee Wee Herman or Caitlyn Jenner. Sounds like a personal obsession of yours.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No dumb ass.  I'm saying your questions are fucking stupid.  First question... "Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?"  what vote?  what majority?  What do you think majority vote meant at the time of the ratification.  What the fuck do you mean by majority vote?  Your fucking question is fucking meaningless.  Yes it was ratified by the groups that were required to ratify it.  No the SCOTUS DID NOT VOTE ON IT NOR DID THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATES THAT JOINED UP.

Are you from Iran? or Korea?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


We use an electoral vote system.  And you're a fucking moron.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> nice try, but thats not even close to what I said.



He does that a lot.  I don't know if its a comprehension problem, or intentional twist.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?   yes or no
> 
> were the amendments to the constitution ratified by majority vote?  yes or no
> 
> ...



So when the Supreme Court issues it's ruling next week striking down SSCM's, that will be by a vote.

Using your logic, that won't be a "minority opinion" that prevails, it will be a majority opinion voted on by the SCOTUS.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 24, 2015)

Redfish said:


> But since you like minority rule,  I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.




What minority rule?

Every State that has public accommodation laws has passed such laws based on a majority vote of that States legislature - that is majority rule.

Every SSCM can that has won in the court has been appealed to a Circuit Court and a panel of judges - that is majority rule.

Next week when the SCOTUS issues it's ruling on SSCM bans, that will be a vote of the SCOTUS and the majority of the votes will decide the case - that is majority rule.


>>>>


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Was the constitution ratified by majority vote?   yes or no
> ...


 

it will be a majority vote of the SC, yes, that is correct.   But the citizens of the country will have been denied their right to express their opinions.   So, in effect, we will have a minority of 9 people deciding something that affects 330,000,000 people.

Why do you on the left fear a vote of society as a whole on issues like this?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > But since you like minority rule,  I suggest north korea or Iran as places that you might like.
> ...


 

approval of SSM is a minority view within society as a whole.  and within the entire population of planet earth. 

But rather than risk offending anyone, we will sanction the minority view.   We all know that is what will happen.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You are the one that said votes by the Supreme Court count as votes of a majority.

I'm not a "on the left", I've been a registered Republican since 1978.

My belief is small government means (a) government entities should not discriminate against it's citizens for no compelling reason, and (b) public accommodation laws that apply to private businesses should be repealed.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Again- I refer back to Loving v. Virginia. 

Everything you posted applies to Loving v. Virginia.

Why do you on the Right fear allowing the courts to protect an individuals Constitutional rights?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia........and how the aftermath of Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



There's nothing in Loving that is relevant to *BEHAVIOR... *


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

its not really very complicated, but I guess your left wing bias blocks rational thinking.  

If you don't know how our constitution was ratified then you are not qualified to participate in this discussion because you are posting from ignorance. 

go do some study and then come back when you can make sense.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Marriage is behavior.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


 

OMG, give it a rest.   Loving is about one man and one woman,  that case has nothing to do with gay marriage.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

marriage is a contract between one man and one woman.   How they behave is up to them.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Says you. Yet the Supreme Court cited loving specifically in Windsor v. US as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees.

And have cited 3 other race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is unconstitutional. 

Why would I ignore the Supreme Court on issues of legal relevance....and instead believe you citing yourself?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Blacks could marry.

White could marry.

The  *BEHAVIOR* of interracial marriage was banned.


>>>>


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Or a man and a man or a woman and a woman....in 37 of 50 States.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

so everything the SC has ever said or done is right?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 

and that was wrong. But it has nothing to do with two men or two women marrying.
Human sexual biology is pretty obvious and clear.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Is everything you have ever said or done right? As the contest you're giving me is you v. the USSC on issues of legal relevance. 

You may assume any jibber jabber you type is legally authoritative. But we don't actually use your personal opinion as the arbiter of any of our laws. The USSC on the other hand is much more authoritative in our law.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

Look folks, we just disagree on this.  No one's mind will be changed by continuing the rhetoric.

MODS---------please close this thread.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


rofl  I know how it was ratified... AND YOU'RE QUESTION IS RETARDED.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> The  *BEHAVIOR* of interracial marriage was banned.



The issue in Loving is RACE: *Race is NOT BEHAVIOR...  Loving merely stated that Race could not be considered, PERIOD in the issuing of Marriage Licenses.*

If you want to discuss the BEHAVIOR... LOVING codified that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, as those were the irrepressible terms that were considered in Loving... with NOT A WORD of dissent from the natural stated that such represents.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Look folks, we just disagree on this.  No one's mind will be changed by continuing the rhetoric.
> 
> MODS---------please close this thread.



Your agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the law or the outcome of any court case. The USSC's does. 

"Agreeing to disagree" with the  Supreme Court rulings isn't a meeting of equals.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > The  *BEHAVIOR* of interracial marriage was banned.
> ...



Loving was about interracial marriage. And interracial marriage is a behavior.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

then tell us,  was the constitution ratified by a majority vote in each state?   yes or no.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

interracial marriage partners (man and woman) BEHAVE like same race men and women.   ]

there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Interracial relationships are a behavior.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



That wasn't the basis of the ruling. Marriage being a fundamental civil right was. 



> there is no analogy to a gay marriage in Loving.



Sure there is. As marriage is still a fundamental civil right. If you're going to deny that civil right to same sex couples, you'll need a very good reason, a legitimate legislative end and a valid state interest.

And opponents of same sex marriage have none of these.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I can see why my pointing out that Loving v. Virginia was a minority view, and that the courts sanctioned a minority point of view- and that upsets your entire laughable 'thesis' regarding majority opinions.

Every time you whine again about the 'majority' and the courts- I will point out again Loving v. Virginia- since Loving v. Virginia was after all the courts upholding the Constitutional rights of individuals, despite the opinion of the majority.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Look folks, we just disagree on this.  No one's mind will be changed by continuing the rhetoric.
> 
> MODS---------please close this thread.



Yes Mods- please close this thread- because otherwise Redfish will continue to post on Gay Marriage- a topic he both said was not worthy of posting about and that he was going to stop posting about.

Please Mods- you have to close this thread to help Redfish stop what he cannot stop himself from doing. 

Help Redfish stop being Redfish.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Your question still makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.  You have not said what the hell you mean by majority vote.  Do you mean by the majority of elected representatives?  Do you mean by the majority of people of the state?  Do you mean by majority of citizens of the state?  Do you mean by 51% majority?  Do you mean by 2/3 majority?  Your question still makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.   You have this concept in your head for what you want to ask that you can't translate to a proper question.  We can't read your mind.  Please learn to write with some level of clarity.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States, the District of Columbia and about a dozen other countries in the world.

And marriage is also a behavior.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Redfish defines 'majority' as whatever is convenient for his narrative.

He wants marriage to be up to the majority in States- except of course when Loving v. Virginia is pointed out.

Then he switches gears and wants to talk about how Loving was about race....and doesn't want to talk about what the majority wanted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.  Interracial marriage is a given condition within an essential, long standing institution wherein one man and one woman join as one legal entity.

Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against the interests, or the principles that sustain the people it represents.

Deviant behavior, by definition rejects the standards, rules and laws that govern human behavior, licensing deviant behavior thus strips government of the means to govern...  thus precluding any potential for government to reasonably declare the licensing of deviancy, as being anything remotely within the scope of sound governance, the principles that define America or the interests of the people of the United States.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



The BEHAVIOR of marrying a person of a different race was regulated by the State, that was overturned by Loving.


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States...



Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Marriage is an institution, wherein One Man joins with One Woman.  

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice. 

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against interests, or the people it represents.

Deviant behavior, by definition rejects the standards, rules and laws that govern human behavior, licensing deviant behavior thus strips government of the means to govern... thus precluding any potential for government to reasonably declare the licensing of deviancy, as being anything remotely within the scope of sound governance, the principles that define America or the interests of the people of the United States.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.




Sure it is.


As a white male I can choose to marry a white female (if she will accept).

As a white male I can choose to marry a asian female (if she will accept).

As a white male I can choose to marry a black female (if she will accept).



For it not to be a behavior then you would need to point out where science has discovered an "interracial gene" showing that someone has a biological condition which make them attracted to members of a different race.

Link?

>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States...
> ...


Marriage is a contract between two individuals in 37 States, the District of Columbia and about a dozen other countries in the world.

And marriage is also a behavior.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Interracial marriage is a behavior. Where two people of different races marry. Virginia law prohibited it and had since the early 1700s. Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested for violating this prohibition by engaging in this banned behavior.



> Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.



The interracial marriage ban was a criminal statute. It included potential prison time for offenders.  Virginia failed to recognize the licenses of marriages performed in other states for interracial couples. And criminalized the behavior of interracial marriage.

Both the lack of recognition and the criminalization were unconstitutional, as marriage is a fundamental civil right.



> Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.



The Loving decision never even mentions 'irrational prejudices'. The basis of their ruling was the Equal Protection Clause and marriage being a fundamental right.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally making up your own version of the Loving decision, while ignoring the bases of the actual one. No thank you.



> For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against interests, or the people it represents.



For my argument to have merit, marriage would have to be a fundamental right. And gays would have to be protected under the Equal Protection clause.
*
Both of which the court has already found to be true.* 

Remember, I'm citing the actual ruling. You're citing your imaginary version of it, citing a basis that the court never used. And your imagination has no relevance to any legal standard. As your imagination is objectively meaningless.

In terms of the law, the binding legal precedent is objectively meaningful.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > No Interracial Marriage is NOT behavior.
> ...



So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?  

Because you said Marriage is a behavior... and Loving prohibited Behavior.

Now Loving didn't outlaw Marriage, it only outlawed the refusal to license people of distinct races, who otherwise came to apply within the natural standard of Marriage; as one man and one woman, to join as one legal entity.  

The issue here is the refusal to license people of the same gender... people who engage in DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.  Behavior which falls outside of the human physiological standard of marriage.

There's absolutely NOTHING complex about this...  it just seems that such is beyond your limited intellectual means.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Interracial marriage is a given condition within an essential, long standing institution; wherein one man and one woman join as one legal entity.

Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races. 

Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.

For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against the interests, or the principles that sustain the people it represents.

Deviant behavior, by definition rejects the standards, rules and laws that govern human behavior, licensing deviant behavior thus strips government of the means to govern...  thus precluding any potential for government to reasonably declare the licensing of deviancy, as being anything remotely within the scope of sound governance, the principles that define America or the interests of the people of the United States.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Nope. Laws criminalizing the behavior of interracial marriage are outlaws. As are laws that fail to recognize the marriages of interracial couples.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Interracial marriage is a behavior. Where two people of different races marry. Virginia law prohibited it and had since the early 1700s. Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested for violating this prohibition by engaging in this banned behavior.



> Prior to the Loving decision, governing bodies were legally capable of rejecting licenses from individuals of distinct races.



The interracial marriage ban was a criminal statute. It included potential prison time for offenders.  Virginia failed to recognize the licenses of marriages performed in other states for interracial couples. *And criminalized the behavior of interracial marriage.*

Both the lack of recognition and the criminalization were unconstitutional, as marriage is a fundamental civil right.



> Loving determined that such decisions represented judgment set within irrational prejudices, thus failed the fundamental purpose of government which is the service of justice.



The Loving decision never even mentions 'irrational prejudices'. The basis of their ruling was the Equal Protection Clause and marriage being a fundamental right.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're literally making up your own version of the Loving decision, while ignoring the bases of the actual one. No thank you.



> For your argument to have merit, the court would have needed to declare that the government has no vested interests in marriage, as marriage bears no liability against interests, or the people it represents.



For my argument to have merit, marriage would have to be a fundamental right. And gays would have to be protected under the Equal Protection clause.
*
Both of which the court has already found to be true.*

Remember, I'm citing the actual ruling. You're citing your imaginary version of it, citing a basis that the court never used. And your imagination has no relevance to any legal standard. As your imagination is objectively meaningless.

In terms of the law, the binding legal precedent is objectively meaningful.


----------



## Spinster (Jun 25, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Gay and lesbian unions isn't just rhetoric for discussion. Obummer passed a law, on his own accord, last June, that effective the 1st, all same sex partners living together became automatically married. The reason for this insanity was so these partners would have access to health care benefits available through the employed partner's workplace to cover the non-working partner. Really? Just what we need, more free stuff for those who don't turn their hand. This, IMHO, was an atrocity! Not only the insurance benefits, but now these partners, forced into marriage, ultimately qualify for an IRS tax break. Yaah! Exactly what we needed, NOT!!!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So then Marriage was outlawed in Loving?



Nope.

Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites.

Marriage wasn't outlawed, the behavior of interracial marriages was limited.

Because you said Marriage is a behavior... and Loving prohibited Behavior.



Where_r_my_Keys said:


> people who engage in DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.  Behavior which falls outside of the human physiological standard of marriage.



At the time...

................... interracial marriage was considered - you got it - DEVIANT BEHAVIOR.



>>>>


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



And what law is this?


----------



## Spinster (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage, I'd like to know. Reading this complete change from one post to another made me think I'd maybe had a stroke or something, but no, it really did occur.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Gay and lesbian unions isn't just rhetoric for discussion. Obummer passed a law, on his own accord, last June, that effective the 1st, all same sex partners living together became automatically married. The reason for this insanity was so these partners would have access to health care benefits available through the employed partner's workplace to cover the non-working partner. Really? Just what we need, more free stuff for those who don't turn their hand. This, IMHO, was an atrocity! Not only the insurance benefits, but now these partners, forced into marriage, ultimately qualify for an IRS tax break. Yaah! Exactly what we needed, NOT!!!




OK, gotta ask.

Please explain how Obummer, all on his own, passed a law that magically made all homosexuals living with another homosexual civilly married?


>>>>


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage,



That is a result of the invalid nature of the sexual deviant argument.  Which seeks to glom onto otherwise irrelevant judicial decisions, based upon implication that the refusal to accept sexual deviancy as acceptable behavior, is the same thing as racial discrimination.

It's desperation, plain and simple.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



It didn't shift. Accurate comparison are made between prohibitions on interracial and same sex marriages.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Jun 25, 2015)

Time to let this fight go kiddos, for life.  Let's mush on, please...


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...



What law would that be? 

I mean the horror of treating married gay couples the same as married straight couples- I can see why you would object to homosexuals getting the same benefits as straight people- but I have never heard of your law- so please provide the citation.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



If you read the entire thread or even the last two pages its pretty obvious.

Or maybe you did have a stroke.


----------



## Wake (Jun 25, 2015)

When I hear that a majority of people have their minds in support of something, I begin to doubt the importance of it, because there are more stupid people than intelligent people in any society in existence. The most important issue regarding America is likely something that a minority of Americans are aware of. Popularity does not necessarily equate importance.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



The Supreme Court cited the Loving v. Virginia decision as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees in Windsor v. US. Windsor v. US is a famous recent case in which gay marriage bans were overturned.

Many opponents of same sex marriage have said that the Loving Decision has nothing to same sex marriage. We're pointing out how they're wrong.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > How did this thread shift from gay/lesbian marriage to one of interracial marriage,
> ...



No, its the results of you making factually inaccurate statements about the Loving decision. And being corrected by folks who have actually read it.

The basis of the Loving decision was the Equal protection clause and marriage being a fundamental civil right. Which is the exact same basis that opponents of same sex marriage bans are arguing before the court. 



> Which seeks to glom onto otherwise irrelevant judicial decisions, based upon implication that the refusal to accept sexual deviancy as acceptable behavior, is the same thing as racial discrimination.



You say the Loving decision is irrelevant. The Supreme Court itself cited the Loving decision as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees when they made the Windsor ruling overturning same sex marriage bans.

In a contest between you and the Supreme Court on legal relevance, the Supreme Court wins.



> It's desperation, plain and simple.



I'm perfectly comfortable with the odds of success in the Obergefell ruling next week. You're the one who has started babbling about the 'responsibility to eradicate homosexuals' and other insanely reactionary bullshit.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Wake said:


> When I hear that a majority of people have their minds in support of something, I begin to doubt the importance of it, because there are more stupid people than intelligent people in any society in existence. The most important issue regarding America is likely something that a minority of Americans are aware of. Popularity does not necessarily equate importance.



It's worse than THAT... popularity has no potential correlation to validity.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> The Supreme Court cited the Loving v. Virginia decision...



IS IRRELEVANT where the issue is sexual deviants interjecting themselves into marriage, where they demand that people of the same gender should be licensed for such, BECAUSE: 

*MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.*​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> No, its the results of you making factually inaccurate statements...



So this thread is the result of lil' old ME?

Well ain't I special?

LOL!
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Skylar said:


> You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.



It is irrelevant where the issue is Sexual Deviants demanding to interject people of the same gender, into an institution which exists as an extension of the Human Physiological Standard.

Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE...  Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage.

And... you should know.  Roberts gave obama his healthcare scam... which means that you idiots are FUCKED.

Be sure you're here tomorrow, when the SCOTUS returns to AGAIN uphold the Human Physiological Standard intrinsic to Marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > You say the Loving decision is irrelevant.
> ...



You are deluded- the court never found any such thing.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You could have stopped at "you're deluded". It's pretty much a given in Keyes case. Can't wait for the meltdown.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Keys is going to be waving his walker in a threatening fashion at everyone in the home when the decision comes out.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



MAN!

The default concessions are comin' steady now.

I think the cult's figured out that the SCOTUS gave up the obamaScare racket, and will be gropin' to take back some credibility by rinsing the pretense of marriage from those '37' States... returning the issue forever, back to the States, where it belongs. 

Which is only reasonable, given that one State cannot obligate other states to accept contracts which are otherwise illegal in those states, which is what the Cult is demanding: _"We're here, we queer, tolerate us *or ELSE!*"._

And part and parcel of that, is they intend to hide behind the black robes of mommy jurist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 25, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh I will probably breath a big sigh of relief.

Roberts is a douche, but he's not suicidal.  

obama sold you clowns down the river for his legacy bill... Roberts took the hit on obamascare and tomorrow he gets back a fair bit of that line, reelin' back in a fair bit of his credibility, by throwing you people under the collective bus.

I base that upon the _SCOTUS Watch_ having not _reported_ that Roberts is missing in action, while Scalia is otherwise inexplicably locked in his office, as noxious fumes of Clorox fills the halls.


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

RKMBrown said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...


 

Damn, you are one stupid redneck.   a majority elects representatives, a majority of representatives make laws.  constitutional amendments were ratified by a super majority of the states (2/3).   The 14th amendment was put in force by a majority vote.   Minority rights were made law by majority votes.

The alternative would be making law by minority votes-----------is that what you think happened?


----------



## Redfish (Jun 25, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


 

yes, but that has nothing to do with same sex marriage, or man/dog marriage, or sibling marriage, or parent/child marriage, or group marriage.   Loving was a ruling on interracial marriage between one man and one woman.


----------



## Spinster (Jun 25, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Not getting into a pissing contest over this, but, yes, it did shift. And, no, accurate comparisons can't be made between interracial and same sex marriages. They are diametrically opposed, interracials can and the other is ill equipped with the same "stuff". Duh!!!


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Because Loving heard argument set upon RACE...  Wherein the Court determined that a Male of ANY Race, was legally entitled to marry a Female of any race; which affirmed the Human Physiological Standard of Marriage.



The court never mentions the 'human psychological standard of marriage' in the Loving Decision. You've never read Loving. You're just making this shit up as you go along. And your relativism and imagination are irrelevant to the outcome of any ruling.



> Be sure you're here tomorrow, when the SCOTUS returns to AGAIN uphold the Human Physiological Standard intrinsic to Marriage.



You do realize that in Windsor.....they _overturned _same sex marriage bans, yes?

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nope. He's just hallucinating his own Loving decision. And then insisting that if he can imagine it, it must be reality.

Keyes is, without a doubt, the most hopelessly relativistic poster on this board.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I'd say there's a 50-50 chance of a 6-3 ruling on Obergefell. With Roberts siding with the Liberal wing and Kennedy in defense of gay marriage. I'd say there's even a chance at a 7 to 2 ruling. Which is at least the margin in every denial of cert by the court when preserving lower court rulings that overturned same sex marriage bans.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You're a moron.  Each person in this country is a single vote, a minority.  That single vote is not the majority.  Each person in this country has the same rights.  Rights were not made by ANYONE OR ANY LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY YOU DUMB ASS.  You can only take away rights THROUGH ACTS OF FORCE.  You can't make rights ya moron.

And no the 14th was not put in force by majority vote.  It was put in force via cannon fire and threat of death.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Keys right this moment is waving his walker and threatening the staff with his sippy cup.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Turns out.....you were deluded.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I was hoping Roberts would be in the majority, but I am fine with a 5:4 win.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > No, its the results of you making factually inaccurate statements...
> ...



The shift to the Loving Decision this time around certainly was. As you misquoted it. Giving us a bullshit basis, an imaginary foundation, and citing passages that didn't exist.

And those with vastly more command of the topic corrected you. 

Oh, and for the record: the Obergefell decision predictably cited the Loving decision as part of its ruling. In fact, the legal precedent of the 1st of 4 principles upon which gay marriage is recognized.

Exactly as I said they would.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



I thought it was possible. The man does prioritize legacy. And he just wrote his. That dissent will be what he's remembered for.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Spinster said:
> ...



Actually we can make accurate comparisons.

When Loving v. Virginia was decided, the majority of Americans opposed mixed race marriage bans- not just the majority of Virginians- the majority of Americans. It took over 20 years before the majority of Americans approved of mixed race marriages.  

Today's decision though- the majority of Americans have switched from opposing gay marriage to supporting it by the time this decision was reached. 

So in a way you are right- there is no comparison- today's court decision actually reflects the opinion of the majority of Americans, whereas Loving v. Virginia went against it.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Loving was the court over-riding a State's marriage laws, in defiance of the majority opinion, to support the individuals right to marriage.

And guess what- today's court decided the same thing- except the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

Redfish said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Once again- Redfish demonstrating he is all for what the majority wants- when it comes to gay marriage. 

But when it comes to anything else- such as mixed race marriage- he believes that the courts should step in.

Redfish's opposition is all based upon 'gay'.


----------



## rcfieldz (Jun 26, 2015)

Impeach Obama Now US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 26, 2015)

rcfieldz said:


> Impeach Obama Now US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Related to 'gay marriage' exactly how?

Or do you think that President Obama is on the Supreme Court?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 26, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why would I do that?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman and an irrational decision by an Activity Judiciary doesn't change that.

We'll now simply suffer the unenviable consequences of such foolishness, people will be severely injured by the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy and as is always the case, life goes on.

This time next year we'll be in here debating the age of a child that adult homosexuals can reasonably pursue for sexual gratification, which even today they code as _'Caring relationship by a loving adult'_ .

No one won anything here.  The Evil animating Relativism merely advanced its tentacles deeper into a decaying culture... and NO ONE has EVER come out ahead, for long, through that.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 26, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Marriage is whatever we say it is. And in our nation its includes one man and one man or one woman and one woman. 

Get used to the idea.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 26, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
Fascinating how marriage is now "whatever we say it is", but that wasn't the case when the "we" in question included people who disagreed with you.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Jun 27, 2015)

Last thread eh?


----------



## candycorn (Jun 28, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...



Not any more. The Supreme Court corrected you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> ...


 
Good luck with that whole "We got what we wanted, and now IT'S OVER FOR ALL TIME.  YOU HAVE TO SHUT UP!"  You hypocrites don't accept actual, legally-passed laws as the final, settled word on a subject, so I can't imagine why you think we're going to accept crappy, agenda-driven judicial legislating as the end of the argument.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Nothing hypocritical with cheering on the Supreme Court for protecting the rights of Americans.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


 
Something very hypocritical about expecting others to accept what you wouldn't have if the roles were reversed.

And if I'm supposed to think deliberate obtuseness is a clever argument, you have the wrong girl for that.  Pretending to be as dumb as I already think you are anyway is not going to be effective.


----------



## Seawytch (Jun 30, 2015)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Not at all. If you disagree with the ruling you can try for a constitutional amendment. That's what I'm doing over Citizens United...I'm donating to organizations and candidates that seek campaign finance reform. Good luck!

(Who do you think has a better chance?)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Jun 30, 2015)

Seawytch said:


>



ROFLMNAO!

Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?

The get FIVE out of NINE Votes are the SCOTUS... because THEY COULD NOT GET BUT 12 STATES TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE IS ANYTHING BUT THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN and they need to point to POPULARITY POLLS, which IF SUCH WERE TRUE...  THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STUCK WITH 12 of 50 STATES.

LOL!  

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the unholy trinity at the hollow core of Relativism._


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 16, 2022)

Redfish said:


> Come on people.  We have some real problems in this country
> 
> 18 trillion in debt
> half the country on some form of govt handout
> ...


Did you know that until about 200 years ago people didn't marry for love?  It was a business arrangement.


----------

