Every Argument made for Gay Marriage applies to Mother's Marrying Daughters who...

[Howey]

OK.

So tell us, Malformed....

What exactly does marriage have to do with raising a child?

Already did...

Actually, it doesnt

Actually, it does...

Here's the List...

Do a Mother and Daughter Love each other?... Yep.

Are they Caring for a Child together?... Yep.

Do they Share Responsibilities regarding things like the Hopsital and School functions?... Yep.

If they Live together and share Expenses or one Works and the other Cares for the Child at Home, are they EXACTLY like many Gay Adoptive Couples?... Yep.

Do they need Insurance?... Yep.

What are some of the other Arguments FOR Gay Marriage?...

Please share them and we'll see if they apply to Siblings.

And no Sex is not part of this because as we've been told, Gay Marriage isn't about Sex.



peace...

Now what are the Reasons Gays need Marriage that is Equal to Man and Woman?...



peace...

Marriage has nothing to do with raising children. Gay marriage has nothing to do with raising children.

Understand, dimwit?

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, it doesnt

Actually, it does...

Here's the List...

Do a Mother and Daughter Love each other?... Yep.

Are they Caring for a Child together?... Yep.

Do they Share Responsibilities regarding things like the Hopsital and School functions?... Yep.

If they Live together and share Expenses or one Works and the other Cares for the Child at Home, are they EXACTLY like many Gay Adoptive Couples?... Yep.

Do they need Insurance?... Yep.

What are some of the other Arguments FOR Gay Marriage?...

Please share them and we'll see if they apply to Siblings.

And no Sex is not part of this because as we've been told, Gay Marriage isn't about Sex.



peace...

Is incest legal? No

Case closed

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

Yes, ideally and to be fully constitutional where no one can argue there is religious bias,
the state should only oversee CIVIL CONTRACTS that could be for ANY legally responsible consenting adults.

Anything to do with marriage is technically personal private religious or spiritual
and should not be in govt hands; the exception being if all people in a state AGREE to a policy, that is not imposing a religious bias if everyone is equally represented and consents.

But this is such theoretical/technical only.

In reality, people can't focus on "rights for ALL PEOPLE/Groups in general"
but go for political expedience and convenience "one target issue at a time" to mobilize through public media.

If you look at Equal Voting rights, when campaigns pushed for the rights for Blacks and for Women combined together as Human Rights,
this was too much for people to respond to and follow. Advocates broke the suffrage issue into two separate battles in order to win either one.en

Blacks won the right (15th Amendment in 1870) to vote before Women did (19th Amendment in 1920).

What we SHOULD do is use the Gay Rights agenda, and 'right to health' propoganda
to argue for Equal Political Freedom for all views: right to life, right to secede, right to free market health care
as political beliefs protected under the First and Fourteenth from discrimination by creed, same as gays and singlepayer advocates who believe in their agenda.

It seems as though you don’t understand.

The issue concerns only secular marriage contract law, not marriage in the context of a given religious dogma.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local governments, not private individuals or organizations such as churches. Consequently the issue has nothing to do with marriage as religious dogma, only the civil contract law is in play.

The people of a given state or jurisdiction have neither the authority to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, or to compel private religious entities to accommodate same-sex couples in religious marriage dogma.

 

[Plasmaball]

Dude youve been bitched slapped on three different forums on this subject. The gay rights movement has taken less punishment than you on this subject. You talk in circles and your arguments are weak.

Are you "s0nin'" me there Shorty?...

Let me know when you can counter the points I've made... Otherwise go crawl back up your Master's ass you Fisted Fuck.



peace...

Been there done this dance with you. You have nothing

 

[mal]

Actually, it doesnt

Actually, it does...

Here's the List...

Do a Mother and Daughter Love each other?... Yep.

Are they Caring for a Child together?... Yep.

Do they Share Responsibilities regarding things like the Hopsital and School functions?... Yep.

If they Live together and share Expenses or one Works and the other Cares for the Child at Home, are they EXACTLY like many Gay Adoptive Couples?... Yep.

Do they need Insurance?... Yep.

What are some of the other Arguments FOR Gay Marriage?...

Please share them and we'll see if they apply to Siblings.

And no Sex is not part of this because as we've been told, Gay Marriage isn't about Sex.



peace...

Is incest legal? No

Case closed

So Marriage IS about Sex... when you finally say something you almost always kill the Left's Arguments.



peace...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Mal = Troll.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, it does...

Here's the List...

Do a Mother and Daughter Love each other?... Yep.

Are they Caring for a Child together?... Yep.

Do they Share Responsibilities regarding things like the Hopsital and School functions?... Yep.

If they Live together and share Expenses or one Works and the other Cares for the Child at Home, are they EXACTLY like many Gay Adoptive Couples?... Yep.

Do they need Insurance?... Yep.

What are some of the other Arguments FOR Gay Marriage?...

Please share them and we'll see if they apply to Siblings.

And no Sex is not part of this because as we've been told, Gay Marriage isn't about Sex.



peace...

Is incest legal? No

Case closed

So Marriage IS about Sex... when you finally say something you almost always kill the Left's Arguments.



peace...

Incest is not legal. Conservatives insist on it

Homosexuals break no laws ( even though conservatives wish it did )

Case closed

 

[NYcarbineer]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

So what? A man and his sister can argue for one man one woman marriage rights without any reference to gay marriage.

 

[kaz]

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

Ummm....newsflash!


Your aunt is a lesbian.

No, she's not, but you're an idiot.

I would have no problem if she was, but she isn't. And I don't appreciate that BS.

 

[kaz]

I agree. My aunt has been caring for years for her long time female friend and former roommate who is dying. Why should they not have the benefits of marriage?

Ummm....newsflash!


Your aunt is a lesbian.

It's really too bad that so many of you Deviants have to make everything about Sexuality when Love is capable without Sexual Attraction.

How Fucking Tragic your Existence must me.



peace...

They don't do anything unless there's something in it for them. Usually money, in this case sex. My aunt cared for my grandmother for decades until she died at 96. She cared for her father until he died. She's a wonderful woman. That she needs money or sex to help someone is a sick accusation.

What's even more incredible for all the time she cared for my grandmother is that she and my uncle never married. He died of a brain tumor in his twenties during the 1960s. They were already engaged when he found out. He was in the air force. She wanted to get married right away and spend the time they had together. He didn't want to make her a widow and refused. She spent the next 50 years being as much or more my aunt than any of my other aunts. No insult to any of them, I'm blessed with a great family. My uncle who died's name is my middle name. He died when I was about three.

 

[mal]

Dude youve been bitched slapped on three different forums on this subject. The gay rights movement has taken less punishment than you on this subject. You talk in circles and your arguments are weak.

Are you "s0nin'" me there Shorty?...

Let me know when you can counter the points I've made... Otherwise go crawl back up your Master's ass you Fisted Fuck.



peace...

Been there done this dance with you. You have nothing

I've provided plenty... you've Countered ZERO...

Move along ((((((FAGGOTRON))))))



peace...

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's funny is that the author of thread already lost this argument in another thread, and then ran off to start this one on the same subject.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What's funny is that the author of thread already lost this argument in another thread, and then ran off to start this one on the same subject.

Troll. Sorry, correction, stupid troll...

 

[jknowgood]

Every Argument made for Gay Marriage applies to Mother's Marrying Daughters who care for a Child together.

It must be time for you to exhibit your ignorance of the law again, as well as your general stupidity.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage (contract) law, written by the states and administered by state courts, where either same- or opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract.

No other type of relationship is eligible to enter into the marriage contract, because the law isn’t written to accommodate any other type of relationship, including mothers and daughters ‘marrying.’

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, when states seek to deny gay Americans their right to marry, those states are in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

And your thread premise fails accordingly, a consequence of your ignorance and unwarranted hatred of gay Americans.

Same sex marrige isn't made it into law yet, just like family marrige isn't, but give it a few years and sick people, like yourself will be for it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

A mother and daughter, two sisters, two brothers, a grandfather with his son's son. . . if all of these unions are between 2 consenting adults, then yes, the government's view on them should be consistent.

I'm all for legalizing incest, even though I find the concept pretty revolting. If you want to marry your sister, the only way I could see myself objecting to that is if I also wanted to marry your sister.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Every Argument made for Gay Marriage applies to Mother's Marrying Daughters who care for a Child together.

It must be time for you to exhibit your ignorance of the law again, as well as your general stupidity.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage (contract) law, written by the states and administered by state courts, where either same- or opposite-sex couples are eligible to enter into the marriage contract.

No other type of relationship is eligible to enter into the marriage contract, because the law isn’t written to accommodate any other type of relationship, including mothers and daughters ‘marrying.’

Because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, when states seek to deny gay Americans their right to marry, those states are in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

And your thread premise fails accordingly, a consequence of your ignorance and unwarranted hatred of gay Americans.

Lemme preface: Personally, I'm all for gay marriage being legalized everywhere. That said, your argument is seriously flawed.

First off, your justification for why gay marriage and incestuous marriage are different is BS. You say that incestuous marriage is different because the law hasn't been written to accommodate it. Is that not the case with gay marriage? There's only a couple states in the Union now with laws that -do- accommodate same sex marriage.

Ah, of course, in the case of homosexuals it's different because, in their case, when the law doesn't accommodate them, the law is in violation of the equal protection clause and is therefore invalid.

"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."

Only thing is, I don't see anything in that clause distinguishing the government's right to discriminate against people who are incestuous. IF equal protection under the law means the right to marry anyone of your choosing, AND the equal protection clause makes no distinction between homosexuality and incest (doesn't mention either at all, in fact), then isn't the fact that the law isn't written to accommodate incestuous marriages JUST as contrary to the Equal Protection Clause as is the fact that they aren't written to accommodate same sex marriages?

Or maybe I'm missing something. If you can find the legal distinction that makes one protected and the other not, I'm all ears.

Also, your Equal Protection Clause argument, in general, is pretty f'in weak.

First off, look at the wording: ". . . nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the equal protection of the laws part shall not be denied to any -PERSON-. This is an important distinction. Person, not people. Person. Individual. Not collective.

Given that distinction, not allowing homosexual marriage actually does -not- violate this clause. Why? Simply because each individual person -does- have the same rights and protections as each other individual person.

If I'm straight, I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not blood related to myself.

If you're gay, you also have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who is not blood related to yourself.

See how that works? Every individual has the same option under the law. Though I agree with your ultimate point, that gay marriage should be viewed equally by the government (which, in my view, should mean that gay marriage is shown no consideration whatsoever, just as straight marriage should be shown no consideration whatsoever by the government. Not sure why Uncle Sam felt it was his duty to reward people for finding mutual attraction), your supporting arguments are invalid.

Here's an interesting thought, though. Rather than trying to tight-rope this line between love in marriage and the government's more financially vested reasoning for being involved in marriage, why don't we just stop complaining and let the growing cultural fissure just separate the concepts completely.

You can have your government husband or wife, whoever it is you choose to enter into a legal union with for tax-based reasons and financial expediency. . . basically a non-career business partner. . . someone who has nothing to do with the type of living you make, just someone with similar income and a comparable credit score to your's, with whom its convenient to trade job benefits and things of this nature.

Then you can have your husband or wife that you're tied to emotionally and romantically, the person with whom you want to form a family. Since most of the relevant rules and statutes tend to extend to step-children anyway, it wouldn't even require more paper-work.

Gay people are already doing this, and it's fucking BRILLIANT given the level of government intervention into marriage. I don't even know why they're fighting so hard to legally combine these concepts for themselves. . . in my view, the dual-marriage situation that they've stumbled upon is actually a wiser manipulation of the current statutes, more convenient than what we straights have concocted for ourselves. If I were gay, I'd be banking on a faux-straight-marriage's bene's with a military lesbian and we'd be driving past gay marriage rallies laughing our balls off on our way to the bank, my boyfriend and her girlfriend right there in tow.

Think about how awesome it'd be not to have to take finances into account when deciding who you're going to be with romantically? Get that shit sorted out with your financial spouse. . . choose your better half for love.

 

[mal]

What's funny is that the author of thread already lost this argument in another thread, and then ran off to start this one on the same subject.

You didn't Counter anything there and you Fail to here also.



peace...

 

[KNB]

Republicans are the only ones who jump from "same-sex marriage" to "incest and bestiality".

No one is suggesting marriage for a mother and a daughter. That wouldn't be in the law. No one is suggesting that a duck marry a toaster. That wouldn't be in the law. Two adults, man, woman, man, man, woman, woman, whatever, can get married to each other. Marriage is only between two PEOPLE.

Why is that so difficult to understand? The Bible is wrong and that's why it does not have authority over American law.

 

[bodecea]

Republicans are the only ones who jump from "same-sex marriage" to "incest and bestiality".

No one is suggesting marriage for a mother and a daughter. That wouldn't be in the law. No one is suggesting that a duck marry a toaster. That wouldn't be in the law. Two adults, man, woman, man, man, woman, woman, whatever, can get married to each other. Marriage is only between two PEOPLE.

Why is that so difficult to understand? The Bible is wrong and that's why it does not have authority over American law.

It does get a little scary how many of them cannot tell the difference between consent and inability to give consent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...care for a Child together.

If Marriage is a Right between (2) Adults then it has to be Expanded Equally in Law to all variations of Consenting Aged Adults.

It is Unconstitutional to Deny people Rights without Due Process.

Explain to me how Two Lesbians and a Mother and Daughter or Two Sisters of Consenting Age are different when it comes to Deserving Marriage Rights.



peace...

A mother and daughter, two sisters, two brothers, a grandfather with his son's son. . . if all of these unions are between 2 consenting adults, then yes, the government's view on them should be consistent.

I'm all for legalizing incest, even though I find the concept pretty revolting. If you want to marry your sister, the only way I could see myself objecting to that is if I also wanted to marry your sister.

This is about as idiotic as the OP.

You make the same mistake as others opposed to equal protection rights for same-sex couples, you incorrectly view the issue as same-sex couples seeking something ‘new’ or ‘special,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into the identical marriage law as opposite-sex couples, unaltered and unchanged; where mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters are not eligible.

Consequently the nonsense expressed by the OP is mere demagoguery.