Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[RKMBrown]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.

Incest... no.

The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest.

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

Pop I numbered the arguments since you can't get past 1. FYI 2 comes after 1.

 

[bodecea]

Why do you want to ban infertile couples from getting married? That is so big government of you.

Oh, I don't lil fella, see same sex siblings are by nature, infertile.

Try to keep up will ya

Pop thinks gay marriage means incest marriage, only incest is illegal here, not to mention incest marriage.

And 15 years ago same sex marriage was illegal.

Your arguments that changed one, might change both

Still curious why you run from creating such tranforming arguments

Plural marriage yes the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages. Incest... no. The arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays will not work in cases of incest. Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children.

Then you ramble on about TRADITIONS.

The argument failed in the courts the first time, then must fail in future hearings.

I'll give you credit though.

You tried

So?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, and Keyes....the majority doesn't have the authority to strip the minority of rights.

True... because 'right' comes from God. And as such are intrinsic to the being, thus are inseparable from the being.

Of course, you're using the word 'right', where there is no potential for such.

Ya see scamp, there is no right to claim that deceit, is truth. And that is what the claim that Homosexuality is normal sexuality: IS. When in truth, homosexuality is a mental disorder presenting through sexual deviancy.

And it is through that disordered mind that you claim a right to advance that which is not true, as truth. In simple terms you and your besties, suffer from a severe form of subjectivism, OKA: Relativism. A profound species of Sociopathy, the "ITS ALL ABOUT ME!" disease. And that's why you felt that your rights trump the responsibilities of the normal people. Responsibilities which sustain their real, thus very true: GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.

Incest... no. ...

Based upon WHAT?

Meaning that you're claiming to possess a sound justification to preclude incest, even as you authorize other variations of the same mental disorder; presenting as sexual deviancy.

What, Pray Tell... is that justification?

 

[RKMBrown]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.

Incest... no.

Based upon WHAT?

Meaning that you're claiming to possess a sound justification to preclude incest, even as you authorize other variations of the same mental disorder; presenting as sexual deviancy.

What, Pray Tell... is that justification?

Editing my post by deleting out what I said is not the same as debating what I said. You do know it is against forum rules to edit someone's post right?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?

Wrong.

The District Court ruling was at a judge bench trial.

That ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court and upheld. (3 Judge panel)

The proponents then requested an en banc review which was denied by the appeals court. (A majority vote against by the 29 Judges on the Appeals court.)

That ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS who accepted the case and then ruled on standing, BUT - they vacated the Circuit Court ruling but left the District Court ruling in place. They could have ordered a retrial by the District Court. Since the original District Court Judge had retired by this time it would have been with a different Judge. (9 Justices of the Supreme Court.)



That means a majority of the 42 Judges/Justices heard or reviewed the case with a majority vote in each case being that Prop 8 was unconstitutional or that the District Court ruling was left in place.

Saying "One Judge" making the decision is wrong.


>>>>

So you've come to argue the monumental distinction, wherein Redfish claimed that the Laws voted by the Majority of the those elected by the majority of Californians, were overturned, by an infinitesimal minority... claiming that the minority was NOT ONLY ONE PERSON, BUT IS IN REALITY, THUS IN TRUTH!: THREE PEOPLE!; OKA: AN INFINITESIMAL MINORITY.

ROFLMNAO!

You people are HELPLESS!

 

[danielpalos]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>

something similar could be said of any marriage Contract.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To pop's question will the arguments used by gays work for other situations.

Plural marriage yes, the arguments used to throw out tyrannical laws against gays should work to throw out the tyrannical laws against plural marriages.

Incest... no.

Based upon WHAT?

Meaning that you're claiming to possess a sound justification to preclude incest, even as you authorize other variations of the same mental disorder; presenting as sexual deviancy.

What, Pray Tell... is that justification?

Editing my post by deleting out what I said is not the same as debating what I said. You do know it is against forum rules to edit someone's post right?

Meaning, that you are incapable of stating the basis for the justification you're claiming.

LOL! Classic...

The Reader should notice the trend, wherein the Left claims a right, absent any responsibility... and sense of reality. Understand, the reason I asked the would-be 'contributor' to state her justification, was to establish that she has no justification, which is not already rinsed by the addled, subjective reasoning justifying the Normalization of Sexual Deviancy.

 

[thanatos144]

By what right does a minority of perverse people to circumvent the Constitution? Because it is up to the states to make and enforce marriage laws. Also it is not in their power to stop a person's peaceful religious practice

 

[Redfish]

The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?

Wrong.

The District Court ruling was at a judge bench trial.

That ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court and upheld. (3 Judge panel)

The proponents then requested an en banc review which was denied by the appeals court. (A majority vote against by the 29 Judges on the Appeals court.)

That ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS who accepted the case and then ruled on standing, BUT - they vacated the Circuit Court ruling but left the District Court ruling in place. They could have ordered a retrial by the District Court. Since the original District Court Judge had retired by this time it would have been with a different Judge. (9 Justices of the Supreme Court.)



That means a majority of the 42 Judges/Justices heard or reviewed the case with a majority vote in each case being that Prop 8 was unconstitutional or that the District Court ruling was left in place.

Saying "One Judge" making the decision is wrong.


>>>>

OK, I stand corrected. a 42 judge minority vs how many million people in Cal?

 

[Pop23]

Interpretation for the left: he can't answer the argument

What argument? Your proposal that being gay is the same as having sex with your siblings? Your argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE. You might as well be arguing that if gays can get married, people who love their dogs will soon be demanding marriage with animals. The argument is LUDICROUS ON FACE.

It's your proposal big fella.

I never developed the SSM arguments after all, and it is those arguments that opens the door to SSSM.

Such a brilliant debater you are.


NOT

You're idea of debating is you pissing into your toilet then running around in a circle claiming victory.

Huh, it's working cuz you still can't come up with a single compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings the right to marry.

I know you must be frustrated.

You developed a paradox and MUST stand by it or your liberal cause fails.

Ignoring my arguments is not the same as overcoming them. As I stated the issue of incest is not solely based on risk of birth defects. See my other arguments above.

Your only argument that I did not address because it has zero relevance once SSM is codified is that couples should be able to raise children.

That is simply false since a same sex sibling couple could raise children the same way that SSM couples could.

EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

 

[Pop23]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>

The basis for your argument is the tradition based on procreation and the need to establish a "new" unit so that defective gene pools are not sanctioned by the state.

When same sex marriage is codified that argument is moot with same sex siblings.

 

[bripat9643]

Only the Right is morally challenged by homosexuals and Individual Liberty

Only the right has morals. Forcing businesses to serve you is the opposite of individual liberty. BTW.

 

[Redfish]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>

The basis for your argument is the tradition based on procreation and the need to establish a "new" unit so that defective gene pools are not sanctioned by the state.

When same sex marriage is codified that argument is moot with same sex siblings.

and with mother/daughter, father/son, and multiple person "marriages". The libs and gay mafia have no idea what they are opening up

 

[bripat9643]

The blue state of Cal voted down gay marriage twice, but the will of the people was overturned by one judge, if that isn't minority rule, what is it?

Wrong.

The District Court ruling was at a judge bench trial.

That ruling was appealed to the Circuit Court and upheld. (3 Judge panel)

The proponents then requested an en banc review which was denied by the appeals court. (A majority vote against by the 29 Judges on the Appeals court.)

That ruling was appealed to the SCOTUS who accepted the case and then ruled on standing, BUT - they vacated the Circuit Court ruling but left the District Court ruling in place. They could have ordered a retrial by the District Court. Since the original District Court Judge had retired by this time it would have been with a different Judge. (9 Justices of the Supreme Court.)



That means a majority of the 42 Judges/Justices heard or reviewed the case with a majority vote in each case being that Prop 8 was unconstitutional or that the District Court ruling was left in place.

Saying "One Judge" making the decision is wrong.

>>>>

So a bunch of liberal judges overturned it. Yeah, that makes a difference. NOT.

 

[Pop23]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>

The basis for your argument is the tradition based on procreation and the need to establish a "new" unit so that defective gene pools are not sanctioned by the state.

When same sex marriage is codified that argument is moot with same sex siblings.

and with mother/daughter, father/son, and multiple person "marriages". The libs and gay mafia have no idea what they are opening up

Note that the strongest arguments that they have against SSSM is traditional values and procreation.

It is a paradox.

 

[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.

NO.

Your buddy PMH just said it twice.

No.

 

[danielpalos]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>

The basis for your argument is the tradition based on procreation and the need to establish a "new" unit so that defective gene pools are not sanctioned by the state.

When same sex marriage is codified that argument is moot with same sex siblings.

and with mother/daughter, father/son, and multiple person "marriages". The libs and gay mafia have no idea what they are opening up

Why does the Right have so little Faith along so little clue and so little Cause? Is Individual Liberty too much of a moral challenge for the Right.

 

[Redfish]

Then present a single argument, used to legalize same sex marriage that does not work for same sex sibling marriage.

If you can't you are simply agreeing with my argument.

The paradox continues

Marriage establishes a family relationship where one did not exist before. This applies to same-sex couples and different-sex couples. However there is already a family relationship that exists between siblings.

Pretty much the same things with parents and adoption. When a child is born to a couple (same-sex or different-sex) the spouse doesn't have to adopt a child born in wedlock because the law already established (under assumed parentage laws) that the spouse of the woman giving birth is the legal co-parent of the child. No adoption needed. Adoption is only needed to establish a legal parent relationship to a non-related child.


>>>>

The basis for your argument is the tradition based on procreation and the need to establish a "new" unit so that defective gene pools are not sanctioned by the state.

When same sex marriage is codified that argument is moot with same sex siblings.

and with mother/daughter, father/son, and multiple person "marriages". The libs and gay mafia have no idea what they are opening up

Why does the Right have so little Faith along so little clue and so little Cause? Is Individual Liberty too much of a moral challenge for the Right.

Individual liberty includes the freedom to believe that gay marriage is wrong and bad for society as a whole. Why should we allow 2% of the population to change our morals?

you in the gay mafia what government to dictate societal acceptance of something that a majority of humans on planet earth find morally and biologically wrong. you want minority dictate as a form of government.

 

[Redfish]

Based on 90 pages so far, I have to conclude that gay marriage is the one issue that divides americans like no other.

There seems to be no middle ground, no room for compromise from the left.

Could it be that this issue is representative of the kind of change progressives and liberals want and conservatives believe will damage our civilization?

As I have said several times, let the people of each state vote, or try to pass a constitutional amendment. Otherwise this will go on for generations and we will waste huge amounts of time and money on this,.