Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Pop23]

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.

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.

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]

Tell us, Pop, when SC rules in June and GM goes legal all over the US, will you continue to argue this issue?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You want to distract to your fav form of marriage so bad. Get your own lawyers to work on it.

 

[Pop23]

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]

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.

You want to distract to your fav form of marriage so bad. Get your own lawyers to work on it.

And your argument is that there is only one marriage.

Bigot

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

There would be so few incestuous marriage 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.

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]

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?

There would be so few incestuous marriage 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.

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?

What part of "any two adults" in my post did you miss?

 

[Pop23]

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.

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

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]

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?

There would be so few incestuous marriage 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.

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?

What part of "any two adults" in my post did you miss?

Baby out with the bath water.

Thanks.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

We should just view homosexuality as a mental illness and send them to the psych ward.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

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

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?

Good lord, which states recognize sibling MARRIAGE?

From what I've read, they are voided.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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

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?

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.

Changing the subject is so boring. Siblings are not cousins, are they?

 

[Seawytch]

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]

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.

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

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?

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.

Changing the subject is so boring. Siblings are not cousins, are they?

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]

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.

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

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?

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.

Changing the subject is so boring. Siblings are not cousins, are they?

Which makes your babble about incest all the more pointless.

You've conceded the same sex debate, running from it and refusing to discuss it.

Which speaks volumes.

I'm here, you?

Not so much.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.