Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Redfish]

No, please, be my guest, show me the physical or mental harm done by siblings marrying.

Let's start with same sex heterosexual males marrying so they can have a reduced tax load, multi car insurance reductions and, since one has very low cost health insurance with spousal benefits HOW THIS COUPLE IS BEING HARMED, physically or emotionally.

We will proceed with the rest as this discussion progresses.

Don't you love the irony?

WOW ^DUMB ASS POS THINKS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SIBLINGS GETTING MARRIED

No, I think it's a horrible idea, but once you "rainbow" types get "your" law change completed, ain't gonna be nothing to stop it.

You do speak English, right? Or do you need an interpreter?

Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying?

Tell us or STFU.

Yeah cause if heterosexuals are allowed to get married then why can't brothers and sisters right? I MEAN WHAT THE HELL? WHY CAN OTHER PEOPLE GET MARRIED IF BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN'T? ROLLS EYES... Oh wait... that didn't work before did it? Wow I wonder why if heteros have been getting married for centuries, why is it that brothers and sisters can't? ROLLS EYES...

yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.

what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling.

I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages, but you seem unable to find an answer.

Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to? Why do you hate polygamists? Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?

and before you say it, I do not support polygamy or any other form of deviant marriage, I am speaking from a legal standpoint only when I ask you these questions

 

[Redfish]

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?

WOW LEGALIZATION OF INCEST. You heard it here. Pop23 says incest will be legalized. That's right, Pop23 says the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild will be thrown out with the bathwater if gays get married.

Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it.

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

WOW ^DUMB ASS POS THINKS THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SIBLINGS GETTING MARRIED

No, I think it's a horrible idea, but once you "rainbow" types get "your" law change completed, ain't gonna be nothing to stop it.

You do speak English, right? Or do you need an interpreter?

Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying?

Tell us or STFU.

Yeah cause if heterosexuals are allowed to get married then why can't brothers and sisters right? I MEAN WHAT THE HELL? WHY CAN OTHER PEOPLE GET MARRIED IF BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN'T? ROLLS EYES... Oh wait... that didn't work before did it? Wow I wonder why if heteros have been getting married for centuries, why is it that brothers and sisters can't? ROLLS EYES...

yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.

what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling.

I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages, but you seem unable to find an answer.

Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to? Why do you hate polygamists? Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?

and before you say it, I do not support polygamy or any other form of deviant marriage, I am speaking from a legal standpoint only when I ask you these questions

I have no intention of making a case against incest. It's already illegal. Nor do I have a desire to make a case "for" incest. But thank you for asking.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

WOW LEGALIZATION OF INCEST. You heard it here. Pop23 says incest will be legalized. That's right, Pop23 says the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild will be thrown out with the bathwater if gays get married.

Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it.

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

 

[Redfish]

No, I think it's a horrible idea, but once you "rainbow" types get "your" law change completed, ain't gonna be nothing to stop it.

You do speak English, right? Or do you need an interpreter?

Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying?

Tell us or STFU.

Yeah cause if heterosexuals are allowed to get married then why can't brothers and sisters right? I MEAN WHAT THE HELL? WHY CAN OTHER PEOPLE GET MARRIED IF BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN'T? ROLLS EYES... Oh wait... that didn't work before did it? Wow I wonder why if heteros have been getting married for centuries, why is it that brothers and sisters can't? ROLLS EYES...

yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.

what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling.

I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages, but you seem unable to find an answer.

Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to? Why do you hate polygamists? Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?

and before you say it, I do not support polygamy or any other form of deviant marriage, I am speaking from a legal standpoint only when I ask you these questions

I have no intention of making a case against incest. It's already illegal. Nor do I have a desire to make a case "for" incest. But thank you for asking.

So you admit that SSM will open the door for all variations of marriage. BTW its only incest if the law defines it as such.

But lets talk about that. Why would you object to cousins or siblings who are too old to have kids getting married? Why would you deprive them of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get from the govt?

I am trying to get you libs to THINK. I am trying to get you to open your minds and realize the implications of what you are asking for..

 

[Redfish]

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?

WOW LEGALIZATION OF INCEST. You heard it here. Pop23 says incest will be legalized. That's right, Pop23 says the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild will be thrown out with the bathwater if gays get married.

Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it.

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

 

[RKMBrown]

Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying?

Tell us or STFU.

Yeah cause if heterosexuals are allowed to get married then why can't brothers and sisters right? I MEAN WHAT THE HELL? WHY CAN OTHER PEOPLE GET MARRIED IF BROTHERS AND SISTERS CAN'T? ROLLS EYES... Oh wait... that didn't work before did it? Wow I wonder why if heteros have been getting married for centuries, why is it that brothers and sisters can't? ROLLS EYES...

yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.

what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling.

I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages, but you seem unable to find an answer.

Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to? Why do you hate polygamists? Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?

and before you say it, I do not support polygamy or any other form of deviant marriage, I am speaking from a legal standpoint only when I ask you these questions

I have no intention of making a case against incest. It's already illegal. Nor do I have a desire to make a case "for" incest. But thank you for asking.

So you admit that SSM will open the door for all variations of marriage. BTW its only incest if the law defines it as such.

But lets talk about that. Why would you object to cousins or siblings who are too old to have kids getting married? Why would you deprive them of the "cash and prizes" that married couples get from the govt?

I am trying to get you libs to THINK. I am trying to get you to open your minds and realize the implications of what you are asking for..

No I don't admit that SSM will open the door for all variations of marriage, you are a liar.

I'm the opposite of lib. You, are a liar.

I'm a conservative libertarian who believes in liberty.

The law clearly defines what incest is, and it's not being gay.

I object to incest even in cases where they can't get pregnant. I also object to murder, even in cases where the murderer and his victim can't get pregnant together.

Cash and prizes? WTF is wrong with you?

The implications of the SCOTUS throwing out tyrannical laws against gay marriage, is that bigoted people like you will have to find some other group to piss on.

 

[RKMBrown]

WOW LEGALIZATION OF INCEST. You heard it here. Pop23 says incest will be legalized. That's right, Pop23 says the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild will be thrown out with the bathwater if gays get married.

Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it.

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

 

[Redfish]

Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it.

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REDFISH SAID:

“yes, marriage for centuries has consisted or one man and one woman. that is the norm for humanity. On that there is nothing for the SC to rule on.”

Wrong.

That something is perceived to be 'historic' or 'traditional' is not 'justification' to deny citizens their civil rights:

“[T]hat the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

REDFISH SAID:

“what you are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand is the legal precedent that would be set by a SSM ruling.
I have asked you several times what legal arguments you would make to prevent sibling, parent/child, and multiple person marriages, but you seem unable to find an answer.”

The answer is very clear and obvious: marriage is the union of two consenting, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex.
Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, requiring no changes in marriage law; that's not the case for siblings or parents and children, because current marriage law can accommodate only persons not related to each other.

The same is true for multiple persons, as current marriage law can accommodate only two persons.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive the issue as somehow 'changing' marriage, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Marriage law will in no way 'change' should the Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit; same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, they've been marrying for more than ten years now – marriage unaltered, unchanged, and not 'redefined.'

REDFISH SAID:

“Why would you support discrimination and withholding or rights from people who only want to marry who they love and want to commit to? Why do you hate polygamists? Why do you consider them to be second class citizens?”

Unlike same-sex couples, marriage law is not written to accommodate three or more persons; consequently, there is no 'discrimination,' one cannot be 'discriminated against' by denying them access to a law that doesn't exist.

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with 'changing marriage,' or 'allowing' those ineligible to marry to do so; the issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are now eligible to marry, where the states are seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The law has now been comprehensively explained to you, each of your questions answered and addressed, each of your 'arguments' in opposition to allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law eviscerated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.

 

[Redfish]

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.

this is not a liberty issue, its a cultural or societal issue. As such the people of the culture or society should decide what is to be considered right or wrong. 9 old farts in black robes should not be deciding how over 300 million people must live. Let the people vote, let the will of the people be heard. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.

this is not a liberty issue, its a cultural or societal issue. As such the people of the culture or society should decide what is to be considered right or wrong. 9 old farts in black robes should not be deciding how over 300 million people must live. Let the people vote, let the will of the people be heard. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

The people were never supposed to have a vote in this case. We are not a democracy.

 

[thanatos144]

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.

this is not a liberty issue, its a cultural or societal issue. As such the people of the culture or society should decide what is to be considered right or wrong. 9 old farts in black robes should not be deciding how over 300 million people must live. Let the people vote, let the will of the people be heard. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

It is very much a liberty issue. As in the liberty to practice religion and whether states have the liberty to self govern

 

[PaintMyHouse]

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.

this is not a liberty issue, its a cultural or societal issue. As such the people of the culture or society should decide what is to be considered right or wrong. 9 old farts in black robes should not be deciding how over 300 million people must live. Let the people vote, let the will of the people be heard. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

It is very much a liberty issue. As in rye liberty to practice religion and whether states have the liberty to self govern

Baking cakes for a living isn't serving Jesus, and the states don't get make all their choices since the Feds matter more.

 

[RKMBrown]

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

Legally it would be exactly the same. But tell us, what do you see as the difference? careful, your answer may destroy your entire argument.

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Because life is pretty important, and marriage is a pretty big part of life. Do we have more important issues? I suppose if you think your marriage is insignificant...

 

[Pop23]

No, I think it's a horrible idea, but once you "rainbow" types get "your" law change completed, ain't gonna be nothing to stop it.

You do speak English, right? Or do you need an interpreter?

Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying?

Tell us or STFU.

Ok, tell us why you cannot argue gay marriage on its own merits and have to default to your pet cause?

Ummm, we are

No...you keep defaulting to YOUR pet cause. I guess because you already have conceded that gay marriage is a fact and yet you still can't marry your sibling legally.

AND, you can't post a reason that I'm wrong.

 

[Skylar]

You're talking nonsense. Irregardless of the fact that people have been getting married for CENTURIES, incest is against the law. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

SSM is also against the law in many places, but you want those laws abolished. What makes your cause more just?

Gay marriage is not "my" cause. Liberty is my cause.

Look dude, we just disagree on this, time will tell who is right.

but as I said in the OP, is this really important enough for the country to spend so much time and effort on? Don't we have more important issues to deal with? Why do we let this take precedence over the real problems we are facing?

Yes – and again – when American citizens are denied their civil rights, when government acts in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, it is an important and significant issue, as important as any other issue facing the Nation, where government overreach must be checked every time it manifest to ensure the liberty of all Americans is preserved.

this is not a liberty issue, its a cultural or societal issue. As such the people of the culture or society should decide what is to be considered right or wrong. 9 old farts in black robes should not be deciding how over 300 million people must live. Let the people vote, let the will of the people be heard. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

And yet if 9 'old farts' decide to override state laws related to hand gun restrictions.....they should be deciding it.

Judicial authority doesn't exist ONLY when you agree with it. Surely you understand this.

 

[Pop23]

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?

WOW LEGALIZATION OF INCEST. You heard it here. Pop23 says incest will be legalized. That's right, Pop23 says the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild will be thrown out with the bathwater if gays get married.

Dummy, that would be the Supreme Court legalizing incest, not me advocating it.

Are you really that stoopid?

Yes, I'm afraid you are.

Bullshit asshole, you are claiming TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE OF THE SAME SEX IS THE SAME AS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT'S THE DUMBEST ARGUMENT EVEN YOU HAVE EVER TRIED TO MAKE

God, you are lame.

Do you even think before you post.

And why are you obsessed with sibling sex?

 

[Skylar]

Where's your proof THAT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NOTHING TO STOP SIBLINGS FROM GETTING MARRIED CAUSE GAYS CAN?

OK, then tell us what legal arguments you will bring that will deny sibling marriage if SSM marriage is sancioned by SCOTUS?

If SSM is made legal because of equality, rights, discrimination, and the inability to marry who you choose, then exactly what legal arguments will you make to prohibit siblings who are of legal age and love each other from marrying?

Tell us or STFU.

Ok, tell us why you cannot argue gay marriage on its own merits and have to default to your pet cause?

Ummm, we are

No...you keep defaulting to YOUR pet cause. I guess because you already have conceded that gay marriage is a fact and yet you still can't marry your sibling legally.

AND, you can't post a reason that I'm wrong.

You haven't posted a reason why your obsession with incest is relevant.