Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Redfish]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do they know you are homophobic?

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

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do they know you are homophobic?

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

What an asswipe.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

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.

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.

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.

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

It's not merely a nomenclature issue.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
t.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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

Really? What case?