Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[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.

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.

Ok, everything illegal today must stay illegal forever.

Is that your argument?

 

[Skylar]

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?

You....you do realize that we can actually read the exchange between you and see that you've refused to talk about anything but incest, right?

As I said, I take it as a good sign. Your ilk have had their arguments about same sex marriage shredded so completely than they now refuse to even discuss the topic. You used to babble endlessly about 'procreation' and same sex marriage. Now you won't touch the topic with a 10 foot pole.

You can be taught.

 

[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.

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.

Ok, everything illegal today must stay illegal forever.

Is that your argument?

Dude, you've lost. You've completely abandoned your every argument against same sex marriage. You can't even discuss it now.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't be desperately scrambling to change the topic to anything BUT same sex marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Lame Clayton, the reason for "not too closely related" is because of the risk of defective children". Same sex siblings present no such risk. It is an argument that fails at the most basic level.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Ok, everything illegal today must stay illegal forever.

Is that your argument?

Dude, you've lost. You've completely abandoned your every argument against same sex marriage. You can't even discuss it now.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't be desperately scrambling to change the topic to anything BUT same sex marriage.

^^^ reading comprehension problems

 

[Pop23]

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.

You seem obsessed with me!

Can't blame you, im a helluva catch, but taken

 

[Skylar]

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.

You seem obsessed with me!

Can't blame you, im a helluva catch, but taken

I'm into discussing the topic. You're into obsessing about incest and running from the topic like it were on fire.

You've lost. Your arguments against same sex marriage have failed. You've abandoned them, abandoned all your 'procreation' nonsense, abandoned all your 'the type of sex that makes babies' nonsense.......and now refuse to discuss the topic.

And you know it.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Except that the traditional meaning for excluding brother from marrying brother will no longer exist if the Supreme Court rules in same sex marriage?

Ok, ready for you to deflect again.

GO!

 

[Pop23]

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...

Then why do you want to exclude millions?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Except that the traditional meaning for excluding brother from marrying brother will no longer exist if the Supreme Court rules in same sex marriage?

Ok, ready for you to deflect again.

GO!

When incest becomes legal, call us.

 

[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?

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...

Then why do you want to exclude millions?

Millions?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Except that the traditional meaning for excluding brother from marrying brother will no longer exist if the Supreme Court rules in same sex marriage?

No question being answered by the Supreme Court so much as mentions incest. Let alone answers any questions about it. No one in the Obergefell case is related.

Your obsession with incest is gloriously irrelevant to the same sex marriage issue. And you know it. You've had your ass handed to you on the same sex marriage debate and know you can't win. So you've abandoned the debate and now try desperately to change the topic.

Nope. I'm happy with this one.

Keep running.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And it doesn't.

Then why should incest be an issue for marriage?

Because the law has stated that incest is illegal. Just as the law used to say gay sex is illegal. Just as the law currently says murder is illegal. INCEST IS ILLEGAL Get over it. If you want to make INCEST legal start your fight to make it legal, and get the fuck off gays accusing them of promoting incest. It's a dumb ass argument.

You do realize that the law prohibiting incestuous marriage were the result of marriage being between members of opposing sexes only. You knew that right?

Now, after the federal laws are forced upon the population, the laws prohibiting same sex sibling marriage are no longer applicable. They become just another "tradition" your side threw away.

You realize that, Right.

What legal argument is there to stop teo members of the same sex, even closely related, from the rights and benefits of marriage?

Let's see if you have guts enough to answer, or will you join Seawytch and Skylar in there bigoted avoidance of the question.

There were a number of issues regarding harm done by incest. Yes, you are correct to say that one of those issues was harm done to the progeny through increased risk of birth defects. There were other issues as well. Being gay has nothing to do with incest. There are laws against incest, with or without marriage licenses to screw your child. It's not right for a number of reasons. None of those reasons have anything to do with being gay.

You are incorrect to say "laws prohibiting same sex sibling marriage are no longer applicable." This statement that you keep making has no basis in fact. NONE.

If you want to study up on the harms of incest go ahead, those harms have nothing to do with gay marriage.

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?

Yeah... it turns out that promoting unprincipled behavior... promotes unprincipled behavior. The upsides to which are Listed Here: ___.

 

[Skylar]

Then why should incest be an issue for marriage?

Because the law has stated that incest is illegal. Just as the law used to say gay sex is illegal. Just as the law currently says murder is illegal. INCEST IS ILLEGAL Get over it. If you want to make INCEST legal start your fight to make it legal, and get the fuck off gays accusing them of promoting incest. It's a dumb ass argument.

You do realize that the law prohibiting incestuous marriage were the result of marriage being between members of opposing sexes only. You knew that right?

Now, after the federal laws are forced upon the population, the laws prohibiting same sex sibling marriage are no longer applicable. They become just another "tradition" your side threw away.

You realize that, Right.

What legal argument is there to stop teo members of the same sex, even closely related, from the rights and benefits of marriage?

Let's see if you have guts enough to answer, or will you join Seawytch and Skylar in there bigoted avoidance of the question.

There were a number of issues regarding harm done by incest. Yes, you are correct to say that one of those issues was harm done to the progeny through increased risk of birth defects. There were other issues as well. Being gay has nothing to do with incest. There are laws against incest, with or without marriage licenses to screw your child. It's not right for a number of reasons. None of those reasons have anything to do with being gay.

You are incorrect to say "laws prohibiting same sex sibling marriage are no longer applicable." This statement that you keep making has no basis in fact. NONE.

If you want to study up on the harms of incest go ahead, those harms have nothing to do with gay marriage.

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?

Yeah... it turns out that promoting unprincipled behavior... promotes unprincipled behavior. The upsides to which are Listed Here: ___.

There's nothing 'unprincipled' about gay marriage. Try again.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No question being answered by the Supreme Court so much as mentions incest.

Huh... that's an odd position to take for a gal who sees 'Same Sex Marriage' in the SCOTUS decision regarding Bi-Racial marriage.

(Skylar, that means that you look like an idiot, when you claim that SCOTUS decisions regarding genetic minorities and marriage, are relevant to Behavioral DEVIANCIES... and that is amplified exponentially, where you pretend that you haven't spent years braying that RACE equates to Deviant Behavior... only to now claim that the incest cult will not use the same irrational drivel you conclude that because SCOTUS decided to allow your deviancy, it normalized every pitiful freak to marry whatever the fuck it wants.)

LOL! Which is just EVER so precious... in terms of humiliating shit coming from the mentally disordered.

 

[Pop23]

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...

Then why do you want to exclude millions?

Millions?

How many brother/brother, sister/sister pairs are there in the United states.

Millions

 

[Skylar]

No question being answered by the Supreme Court so much as mentions incest.

Huh... that's an odd position to take for a gal who sees 'Same Sex Marriage' in the SCOTUS decision regarding Bi-Racial marriage.

It is however a superb position for someone to take if they've actually read the questions being answered in Obergefell.

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

Which I have. And you probably still haven't, despite me having posted them here for you.

(Skylar, that means that you look like an idiot, when you claim that SCOTUS decisions regarding genetic minorities and marriage, are relevant to Behavioral DEVIANCIES... and that is amplified exponentially, where you pretend that you haven't spent years braying that RACE equates to Deviant Behavior... only to now claim that the incest cult will not use the same irrational drivel you conclude that because SCOTUS decided to allow your deviancy, it normalized every pitiful freak to marry whatever the fuck it wants.)

I've said that the Supreme Court has cited race based cases of discrimination when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. And between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, they have.

4 times.

See, Keyes......you're hamstrung by one unfortunate fact: you don't actually know what you're talking about. You haven't read the cases, you don't understand the arguments, you don't even understand the questions being answered.

Thankfully, your hapless ignorance binds no one but yourself. And I'm free to read them all to my heart's content.

 

[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?

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...

marriage is not a right, and yes, my marriage is very important to ME and my Wife. one man, one woman in a loving committed relationship.

again, society should decide what forms of human behavior it considers acceptable, and those decisions should be made by majority vote, not minority dictate.

 

[Redfish]

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.

right to bear arms is the second amendment, remind us which amendment mentions gay marriage.

 

[Redfish]

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...

Then why do you want to exclude millions?

Millions?

How many brother/brother, sister/sister pairs are there in the United states.

Millions

and if they could legally marry they could avoid inheritence taxes and reduce their income tax rate. why do libs hate siblings?