Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[PaintMyHouse]

Correct, marriage simply becomes a financial tool, no different than a 401K or a IRA.

Best is the siblings simply keep dating until they find an opposite sex mate, divorce and move on.

I can think of dozens of reasons it becomes financially beneficial. And since there won't be any stigma because the left hate stigma, it could become very accepted.

Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. You've abandoned the topic of same sex marriage again. While running from all your rhetorical babble about 'procreation' and 'the kind of sex that makes babies'.

If I'd been saddled with such useless nonsense in opposition to gay marriage, I'd probably try and change the topic too.

Thankfully, I picked a much more rational and defensible argument: the support of gay marriage.

Is a marriage of two sisters incest? how about two female cousins? how about one male and two female cousins? mother/daughter?, father/son? assume all of them are over the age of majority.

Incest has been defined as male/female sexual activity within familial limits.

you fools say you want SSM, why isn't sister/sister a SSM?

You do realize that, just as some heterosexual couples can't procreate, no same sex siblings can.

So what's the big deal?

Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Again, you're just showing us that you've lost. As you've abandoned your arguments against same sex marriage. And are trying to change the topic to incest.

Which has nothing to do with anything being addressed.

If it's ok to fuck dudes I want to go fuck my brothers, dogs, donkeys, horses, and have 30 wives.

The brothers and wives are okay, but not legal in most cases.

 

[HappyJoy]

Seriously. If 'is a marriage of two sisters incest' is the best they can do, we've reached mercy rules territory.

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

So, are you saying that a couple in their 50s should be legally barred from getting married because they can't bare children? Is that where you are headed?

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously. If 'is a marriage of two sisters incest' is the best they can do, we've reached mercy rules territory.

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

 

[Skylar]

REDFISH SAID:

“Is sister/sister a SSM or not?”

Not.

Marriage law can accommodate only persons not related to each other.

Really? Why is that, especially if as the queers claim marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Indeed, there is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage law that can accommodate two consenting, adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Marriage laws on the books only consider opposite sex couples.

You seem confused. 37 of 50 States recognize gay marriage. And the last 3 states to vote on it have approved it.

Making your claim wrong twice.

Only because some judge overruled the laws on the books, numskull.

In some cases. And in others they voted it in. In either case, in 37 of 50 States, gay marriage is as legally valid as any straight marriage.

 

[Pop23]

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Desperately trying to change the topic is your best argument.

You've already conceded the gay marriage debate. You've already abandoned all your arguments against it.

Remember that.

So what's the compelling reason the government has to deny same sex siblings from marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

no you lying POS. They said marriage isn't ONLY about sex AND reproduction, ya dumb ass piece of shit lying asshole.

Wrong, moron, they said reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. They said it dozens of times.

NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS

Yes, they certainly did.

Marriage has many valid bases. But you don't have to have kids to have a valid basis of marriage. As millions of straight married couples demonstrate with no kids.

I have no idea what a "valid basis" for marriage is. However, I do know the reason it exists: procreation. Any other claims are absurd.

I realize queers like you will never concede that point.

Marriage has never been about children, they are a byproduct, sometimes.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

So, are you saying that a couple in their 50s should be legally barred from getting married because they can't bare children? Is that where you are headed?

Or worse......your marriage license is only valid as long as you're fertile. Menopause hits....and you're no longer married.

I mean, if procreation is the only valid basis of marriage.....then no procreation, no marriage.

Thankfully, procreation is merely A valid basis of marriage. There's a valid basis that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

 

[Skylar]

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Desperately trying to change the topic is your best argument.

You've already conceded the gay marriage debate. You've already abandoned all your arguments against it.

Remember that.

So what's the compelling reason the government has to deny same sex siblings from marriage.

Incest has nothing to do with gay marriage. You're throwing up another red herring, trying to change the topic.

When you're ready to discuss gay marriage...I'll be about.

 

[Pop23]

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr

 

[Pop23]

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

So, are you saying that a couple in their 50s should be legally barred from getting married because they can't bare children? Is that where you are headed?

I don't, they do.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Your obsession with homos is creepy.

Your obsession in caring what "homos:" do probably makes you a "homo wannabe."

Classic queer propaganda technique.

Classic "I don't have anything else to see" rebuttal.

No, I just pointed out your use of classic queer propaganda techniques. The first thing any queer does in an argument about gay marriage is accuse his opponent of being a closet queer.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I don't know if this is a political debate or a them for a letter sent to Penthouse.

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

So, are you saying that a couple in their 50s should be legally barred from getting married because they can't bare children? Is that where you are headed?

Oh they can bare them, but not bear them.

 

[Skylar]

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr

Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with my arguments. I'm discussing gay marriage. You know, the topic where your ass was paddled so badly that you now refuse to even discuss it?

Keep running, Mr. Red Herring.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, moron, they said reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. They said it dozens of times.

NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS

Yes, they certainly did.

Marriage has many valid bases. But you don't have to have kids to have a valid basis of marriage. As millions of straight married couples demonstrate with no kids.

I have no idea what a "valid basis" for marriage is. However, I do know the reason it exists: procreation. Any other claims are absurd.

I realize queers like you will never concede that point.

Marriage has never been about children, they are a byproduct, sometimes.

ROFL! Your Komrades said the queer marriage supporters have never claimed reproduction isn't a reason for marriage. You just did!

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr

Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with my arguments. I'm discussing gay marriage. You know, the topic where your ass was paddled so badly that you now refuse to even discuss it?

Keep running, Mr. Red Herring.

Our argument is that every argument you use for gay marriage opens up so many fucked up things that fall under the same umbrella. If you can't see that then you are a moron. Basically to put it simply, gay marriage is a disgusting thing.

 

[Skylar]

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr

Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with my arguments. I'm discussing gay marriage. You know, the topic where your ass was paddled so badly that you now refuse to even discuss it?

Keep running, Mr. Red Herring.

Our argument is that every argument you use for gay marriage opens up so many fucked up things that fall under the same umbrella. If you can't see that then you are a moron. Basically to put it simply, gay marriage is a disgusting thing.

Oh, look. The slippery slope fallacy. You've gone retro.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr

They seem to be getting frantic, especially that queer skylar. The problem with arguing with these drones is that they are immune to logic.

 

[bripat9643]

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE IF THE USSC rules that same sex marriage is legal

Why exclude opposite sex siblings from marriage if, as the queers claim, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction?

Interesting isn't it. It is their argument. Let's see if they answr

Your obsession with incest has nothing to do with my arguments. I'm discussing gay marriage. You know, the topic where your ass was paddled so badly that you now refuse to even discuss it?

Keep running, Mr. Red Herring.

Our argument is that every argument you use for gay marriage opens up so many fucked up things that fall under the same umbrella. If you can't see that then you are a moron. Basically to put it simply, gay marriage is a disgusting thing.

Oh, look. The slippery slope fallacy. You've gone retro.

It's called "the slippery slope argument." It's not a fallacy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS

Yes, they certainly did.

Marriage has many valid bases. But you don't have to have kids to have a valid basis of marriage. As millions of straight married couples demonstrate with no kids.

I have no idea what a "valid basis" for marriage is. However, I do know the reason it exists: procreation. Any other claims are absurd.

I realize queers like you will never concede that point.

Marriage has never been about children, they are a byproduct, sometimes.

ROFL! Your Komrades said the queer marriage supporters have never claimed reproduction isn't a reason for marriage. You just did!

Don't give a fuck what they say, marriage has never been about children.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously.....this obsession with incest is getting a little creepy.

Then why keep coming up with arguments that could make it legal.

You make no sense

You'd need to explain why homosexuality and incest are the same thing first.

They are not, just the arguments for marital benefits are.

Incest laws were created when males married only females. The state would not want to sponsor law that created defective children as that burdens society, but today we understand that same sex marriages cannot create defective children, so it is a moot point. The Government must have compelling reasons to exclude its citizens from marriage (or so I'm told).

What possible compelling reasoning can there be to exclude same sex siblings from marriage?

ANSWER: NONE

So, are you saying that a couple in their 50s should be legally barred from getting married because they can't bare children? Is that where you are headed?

Or worse......your marriage license is only valid as long as you're fertile. Menopause hits....and you're no longer married.

I mean, if procreation is the only valid basis of marriage.....then no procreation, no marriage.

Thankfully, procreation is merely A valid basis of marriage. There's a valid basis that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

That is an infantile deliberate misconstruction of what people mean why the say marriage exists for the purpose of reproduction.