Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[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

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.

It seems the "individual" you so ardently want to defend end with those the libs created the arguments for. Same sex includes siblings.

Please state the compelling goverment interest in denying them the right to marry.

Thanks in advance.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Rights come from your god for YOU...rights come from my gods for ME....we are not all tied to YOUR god no matter how much you want that to be. Get it?

 

[bodecea]

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

So...why do all states recognize the marriage of underaged people from one state where it's acceptable? Why did all states recognize divorces from Nevada even when their divorce laws were more stringent?

 

[rdean]

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

To families with children, taking care of children is their most important issue.

To a straight couple where one of them is sick, insurance is the most important issue. So they get married.

For gays with children. For gays who have a sick partner, marriage is certainly their most important issue.

Many, if not the majority of Republicans want gays dead, so for those that want gays dead, gay marriage is also the most important issue. They want gays to suffer, so they want to stop anything that could help gay people.

I hope I cleared that up.

 

[Dot Com]

gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Well, you sure are a clear thinking soul.

 

[Pop23]

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

To families with children, taking care of children is their most important issue.

To a straight couple where one of them is sick, insurance is the most important issue. So they get married.

For gays with children. For gays who have a sick partner, marriage is certainly their most important issue.

Many, if not the majority of Republicans want gays dead, so for those that want gays dead, gay marriage is also the most important issue. They want gays to suffer, so they want to stop anything that could help gay people.

I hope I cleared that up.

So you favor marriage rights to same sex siblings I take it?

 

[Pop23]

gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.

Do you agree then that those "civil rights should extend to same sex sibling marriage?

 

[bodecea]

When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted. When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted. When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?

 

[Pop23]

When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted. When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted. When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?

I have a feeling that when same sex siblings want "civil rights" you will resist.

 

[bodecea]

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

To families with children, taking care of children is their most important issue.

To a straight couple where one of them is sick, insurance is the most important issue. So they get married.

For gays with children. For gays who have a sick partner, marriage is certainly their most important issue.

Many, if not the majority of Republicans want gays dead, so for those that want gays dead, gay marriage is also the most important issue. They want gays to suffer, so they want to stop anything that could help gay people.

I hope I cleared that up.

So you favor marriage rights to same sex siblings I take it?

Quite trying to piggy back on our civil rights cause. Work on your own court cases.....and if they are as solid as our gay marriage cases, then good luck to you.

 

[Dot Com]

gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.

Do you agree then that those "civil rights should extend to same sex sibling marriage?

is that the subject of the OP? and how did you come up w/ that?

 

[bodecea]

When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted. When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted. When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?

I have a feeling that when same sex siblings want "civil rights" you will resist.

You have a feeling. Well, that sure is solid. If you go thru the legal processes like we gays have and can show the Constitutionality, then more power to you. I sure as hell won't be quoting christian scripture as if it has some kind of legal standing.

 

[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?

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.

What a lying piece of shit you are. You dumb asses have nothing left but wallowing in your own bile.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Yes they could. Yet there is a risk nonetheless of them doing it the old fashioned way, no? Additionally you ignored my 2nd argument, you know, the one with the number 2 on it.

 

[RKMBrown]

NO THEY DIDN'T YOU LYING POS

Yes, they certainly did.

NO.

Your buddy PMH just said it twice.

No.

Adding monkeys to your post won't make it right.

 

[Statistikhengst]

When blacks wanted equal civil rights, the Right (in the form of the Southern Democrats) resisted. When women wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted. When the Handicapped wanted their equal civil rights, the Right resisted......now Gays want our equal civil rights................see a pattern here?

It's all Obama's fault.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[bodecea]

gay rights are civil rights. One would think that OP would see the importance of civil rights in this great nation's history.

Do you agree then that those "civil rights should extend to same sex sibling marriage?

is that the subject of the OP? and how did you come up w/ that?

Pop can't argue against gay marriage....so he keeps trying to slide the discussion to incest.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You're a lying POS. There are as many people on the left that piss on gays as there are on the right. The only difference is the left needed the votes in 2008 and some folks on the right are stubborn as hell.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Incorrect. Marriage is a right. Life is a right and marriage is a part of life. This is old established law.

What you are talking about is pissing on gays cause, well cause you are in the Majority vote. That's called tyranny of the Majority. We do not live in a country where people are arbitrarily punished by majority vote. We live in a constitutional republic where even minority groups of one are protected from angry authoritarian jerks like you.

remind us, which constitutional amendment makes gay marriage a right, must have missed that one.

yes, we live in a constitutional republic and representative democracy. We elect our representatives by majority vote and they pass laws by majority vote. The majority view does prevail in this country, minority rights are established by majority vote

14th due process clause.

please quote where the words "gay marriage" show up in the 14th.

You're having reading problems again? Why don't you go back to school and have someone explain the 14th Amendment to you.

What you're struggling with Karl, is the inability to show any element of the Constituion which defends a right to marry anything you want.


But in fairness to you, ya have a good reason for it... Given that there is no potential for a right to marry anything ya like. And that's because Marriage is defined by nature, through the human physiological design, as the Joining of One Man and One Woman.