Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[Pop23]

You have no idea what legal precedents are.

How does defining marriage, legally, as one man one woman prevent a brother and sister from claiming the right to marry?

related people cannot legally marry now.

if gay marriage is legalized on the basis that the civil rights of gays have been denied to them regarding marriage-------then that exact same legal argument will be made for bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage".
Using gay marriage as a civil rights precedent, those groups will win in court.

Brother/sister marriage is not same sex marriage.

You never addressed the post

 

[GreenBean]

Boy, there are a lot of people that don't have any idea what a slippery slope fallacy is...or they just don't care.

Then answer the questions in post 647.

Don't have time to look it up - lot of scrolling there Pops,... anyway I'm heading to Church to prostrate myself b4 the Lord and Mother Earth . {No you filthy minded faggots THATS Prostrate NOT Prostate}

 

[NYcarbineer]

related people cannot legally marry now.

if gay marriage is legalized on the basis that the civil rights of gays have been denied to them regarding marriage-------then that exact same legal argument will be made for bigamy and polygamy and other forms of "marriage".
Using gay marriage as a civil rights precedent, those groups will win in court.

Brother/sister marriage is not same sex marriage.

You never addressed the post

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So taking the slippery slope theory out of the context in which you are attempting to frame it we could safely say that if

A = Applying Pesticide and Z= DDTs in the food chain, and hence our food supply

or

A = Continued use of Fossil fuels Z = Global Warming

or

A = I punch you in the Mouth B- You Bleed C. You Cry D. You shout "Hate Crime" Z = You don't punch me Back because that would tend to disproove your slipperyslope horse shit

You simply can not dismiss the analysis of Cause and effective relationships , with a simple off handed reference to Slippery Slopes and Dominoes - sometimes the analysis of what could happen really could happen - but it's still just speculation from ewither side of the fence.

You're arguing slippery slope as a legal precedent. Legal precedents do not create slippery slopes. If they did, then something like the 1st amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press would have created a slippery slope to legalizing child pornography.

Did it? Will it?

 

[Pop23]

Brother/sister marriage is not same sex marriage.

You never addressed the post

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incest and Pedophilia - The next Domino on that slippery slope.

So you wanna marry your Sister ? You sick little Puppy.

The ban on Incestual Marriage is based on the actuality of Marriage being the societal foundation of the Family and procreation - breeding and child rearing - The products of incest are demonstrably geneticall inferior human beings- prone to an inordinbate amount of Birth Defects and Mental issues - much like Homosexuals.

Marriage down to the age of 13 is legal in some states already. What caused that 'slippery slope'?

13 can get you 20 - in more modernized states . Back in the day - when life expectancy was around 30 or 35 it was more common for country folk to start early - 13 was nearly halfway through life . Going back even further in history it was the norm - The Jews consider 13 to be the magical number when Boys are Bar Mitzvahed , and in modern times Girls Bat Mitvahed . Getting into Fag society - Me thinks they'dprefer to lower the age of consent to the moment a chiild is weaned offf its mamas teats.

What hasn't the legalization of minors getting married led to the legal right to marry 10 year olds or 5 year olds,

via that slippery slope that you claim runs through all legal marriage issues?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You never addressed the post

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

That's not where any 'precedent' has been set. Some states allow first cousin marriage, some don't.

How would that be possible if a legal precedent against legal 'too closely related' marriages had been established?

 

[Redfish]

Marriage down to the age of 13 is legal in some states already. What caused that 'slippery slope'?

13 can get you 20 - in more modernized states . Back in the day - when life expectancy was around 30 or 35 it was more common for country folk to start early - 13 was nearly halfway through life . Going back even further in history it was the norm - The Jews consider 13 to be the magical number when Boys are Bar Mitzvahed , and in modern times Girls Bat Mitvahed . Getting into Fag society - Me thinks they'dprefer to lower the age of consent to the moment a chiild is weaned offf its mamas teats.

What hasn't the legalization of minors getting married led to the legal right to marry 10 year olds or 5 year olds,

via that slippery slope that you claim runs through all legal marriage issues?

you are either ignoring the basic question regarding precedent or you are too stupid to understand it----which is it?

 

[Redfish]

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

That's not where any 'precedent' has been set. Some states allow first cousin marriage, some don't.

How would that be possible if a legal precedent against legal 'too closely related' marriages had been established?

the precedent we are talking about is legalizing gay marriage based on the argument that their civil rights are being taken from them regarding marriage. The exact same argument can be made for bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of marriage.

any group can claim that their civil rights are being denied them because they can't marry who they choose. Gay marriage precedent will be used as a valid argument

 

[NYcarbineer]

You never addressed the post

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

Wasn't there once a legal precedent that states had the right to prohibit interracial marriage?

 

[Gadawg73]

"Allowing gays in the military will destroy unit cohesion"
You folks bought that bull shit also and used that as your opposition.
Same as the bull shit you are offering now.
Because that is all you are left with is:
Bull shit.

 

[Redfish]

"Allowing gays in the military will destroy unit cohesion"
You folks bought that bull shit also and used that as your opposition.
Same as the bull shit you are offering now.
Because that is all you are left with is:
Bull shit.

you have a right to express your opinion, as flawed as it may be.

Remember when the gun turret blew up on the Iowa class battleship? That was the direct result of having gays in a military unit. the incident was the result of gay jealousy. The Navy tried to cover it up, but the truth did come out.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Or maybe even better than that, when they were denied the Vote?...

How about someone telling me when Gays were Slaves in this Country and were regularly Whipped by their Owners?...

I'll be here waiting, because I am certain all of the people who continue to Dishonestly compare the "struggle" of Gays making their Homosexuality as public as possible Analagous to what Blacks have Suffered in this Country for hundreds of years can explain to me how they are even remotely comparible...

Honest people KNOW they are not.



peace...

Congratulations, this thread is a finalist in the "Most Bigoted" and "The Most Hateful" thread of the month. Rarely is one thread honored by being nominated in two categories and then found to be a finalist in both. Most voters noted the subtle nature of your intolerance and hate, one commented that most of the haters on the USMB are not covert. Keep up the good work, attacking an entire set of human beings without knowing all of them is pure talent and something for all of us to envy.

Remember, the winner of either of these awards is entered into finals for "Most Bigoted" and "Most Hatful" for the year. The winner of those coveted awards win a trip to the deep south and a personal lunch with David Duke all expenses paid by our friends at the New KKK. Remember, sheets don't make the man, such display is anathema to real bigots.

 

[rightwinger]

"Allowing gays in the military will destroy unit cohesion"
You folks bought that bull shit also and used that as your opposition.
Same as the bull shit you are offering now.
Because that is all you are left with is:
Bull shit.

you have a right to express your opinion, as flawed as it may be.

Remember when the gun turret blew up on the Iowa class battleship? That was the direct result of having gays in a military unit. the incident was the result of gay jealousy. The Navy tried to cover it up, but the truth did come out.

Damn

Blame the fag was disproved decades ago

 

[Pop23]

Yes I did. Heterosexual monogamous marriage is already legal. Brother/sister marriage is heterosexual monogamous marriage,

therefore,

if one form of marriage can set a civil rights precedent, then the precedent for brother/sister marriage has ALREADY BEEN SET.

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

Wasn't there once a legal precedent that states had the right to prohibit interracial marriage?

Interracial males and females. The dynamics of the demographic group did not change.

Answer the questions in post 647 and let's see who's correct

I'm using your argument as proof

What compelling state interest is there to deny any group listed from a marriage license endorsed by the state or for the state to allow multiple licenses?

 

[Gadawg73]

"Allowing gays in the military will destroy unit cohesion"
You folks bought that bull shit also and used that as your opposition.
Same as the bull shit you are offering now.
Because that is all you are left with is:
Bull shit.

you have a right to express your opinion, as flawed as it may be.

Remember when the gun turret blew up on the Iowa class battleship? That was the direct result of having gays in a military unit. the incident was the result of gay jealousy. The Navy tried to cover it up, but the truth did come out.

Maybe so but one case.
Let me tell you of all the fragging cases in Viet Nam my man.
Are you trying to shit us into believing all of those were from "gay jealousy"?
1969-1972 right at a little over 1000.
Shit happens with men and ammo no matter if they are gay or straight.
Thanks for providing evidence that proves my point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, the precedent set has been that a male may marry a female as long as the are not too closely related.

You want to include a new dynamic to this and call it the same. YOU are setting the precedent. At least claim victory where the credit is due. The precedent is all yours.

Wasn't there once a legal precedent that states had the right to prohibit interracial marriage?

Interracial males and females. The dynamics of the demographic group did not change.

Answer the questions in post 647 and let's see who's correct

I'm using your argument as proof

What compelling state interest is there to deny any group listed from a marriage license endorsed by the state or for the state to allow multiple licenses?

The dynamics certainly changed.

Incest by the sexual act alone is illegal in almost every state. Gay sex is not.

Why didn't the legalization of gay sex lead, via your slippery slope, to the legalization of incest?

 

[Gadawg73]

"Allowing gays in the military will destroy unit cohesion"
You folks bought that bull shit also and used that as your opposition.
Same as the bull shit you are offering now.
Because that is all you are left with is:
Bull shit.

you have a right to express your opinion, as flawed as it may be.

Remember when the gun turret blew up on the Iowa class battleship? That was the direct result of having gays in a military unit. the incident was the result of gay jealousy. The Navy tried to cover it up, but the truth did come out.

Funny, the Navy first went with that with no facts to back it up and then when the Navy conducted a full investigation they issued their reports based on the facts.
The cause of the explosion could not be determined. It was admitted also that the initial investigation was cooked with false information and that Commodore Milligan had a hidden agenda as Milligan altered or expunged key testimony of eye witnesses. NIS agents attempted to get Navy men to lie about the incident which failed. Those lies were what was first spread but after the full investigation the Navy admitted the allegations of gay jealousy were false.
Talk about having an "opinion".
More like rumor that was proven false.
Try again.

 

[GreenBean]

So taking the slippery slope theory out of the context in which you are attempting to frame it we could safely say that if

A = Applying Pesticide and Z= DDTs in the food chain, and hence our food supply

or

A = Continued use of Fossil fuels Z = Global Warming

or

A = I punch you in the Mouth B- You Bleed C. You Cry D. You shout "Hate Crime" Z = You don't punch me Back because that would tend to disproove your slipperyslope horse shit

You simply can not dismiss the analysis of Cause and effective relationships , with a simple off handed reference to Slippery Slopes and Dominoes - sometimes the analysis of what could happen really could happen - but it's still just speculation from ewither side of the fence.

You're arguing slippery slope as a legal precedent. Legal precedents do not create slippery slopes. If they did, then something like the 1st amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press would have created a slippery slope to legalizing child pornography.

Did it? Will it?

How did yo derive a legal prec. from that, it was prely from a logical point of view.

Did it? Will it?

It is a step in that direction

“intergenerational romance” for “minor-attracted” adults is a major aspect of queer domination.

Homosexual bigots and pedophile enablers are fond of vomiting the Homosexual Agenda psych-ops script denying that queers are working to reduce or remove age of consent laws.

They spew hate laced bigotry at anybody that raises the flags warning society what homosexual pedophiles are perpetrating.

 

[Pop23]

Wasn't there once a legal precedent that states had the right to prohibit interracial marriage?

Interracial males and females. The dynamics of the demographic group did not change.

Answer the questions in post 647 and let's see who's correct

I'm using your argument as proof

What compelling state interest is there to deny any group listed from a marriage license endorsed by the state or for the state to allow multiple licenses?

The dynamics certainly changed.

Incest by the sexual act alone is illegal in almost every state. Gay sex is not.

Why didn't the legalization of gay sex lead, via your slippery slope, to the legalization of incest?

The dynamic of a male to a female certainly did not change. Males interacted with females in exactly the same way, before and after.

The change was merely superficial.

Where did you find incest in my questions?

Your continued deflection indicates you are scared to answer them. Wonder why?