Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Luddly Neddite]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay marriage, or even traditional marriage for that matter, shouldn't even come up as a Presidential issue during a debate. Why would anyone choose the issue of "gay marriage" as their TOP priority for who they want to vote for anyways?

Unless they are afraid the next President will follow suit after Obama, and issue executive decisions that totally leaves Congress out of the loop of any established law that forces change through the power of one man and one branch of government, which is unconstitutional to begin with. There is a reason why the Constitution is set up with checks and balances through very defined separate branches of government, each with very specific roles and defined authority.

ShaklesOfBigGov

Yeah. No other president has ever ever ever signed Executive Orders. Obviously, Obama is operating outside the laws of the United States.

Yes, that's sarcasm. Educate yourself as to what is "constitutional" and what is not.

You might also want to look up how many EOs Obama has signed, compared to other presidents.

Or, alternatively, you could keep saying really stupid stuff like this this post of yours.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

so, what you are saying is that the dem/libs patronized the gays in order to get their votes and they really don't give a shit about gay marriage. Do the gays know that?

Yes, they do. They also know that the libertarian conservatives are on their side. And they know that most republicans are also on their side. The only people who are not on their side are authoritarian dinosaurs on the left and right who were told by their parents that gays were the devil.

you are simply wrong, but thats OK, its a free country, you can believe whatever you want.

Wrong about what? You seem confused.

 

[RKMBrown]

Such an utterly stupid, worthless comment. Who cares what you think about it, bub? What of worth can you say about the OP.

It's disgusting and it shouldn't be allowed. A good comparison for gay marriage would be allowing people to shit in our streets. Just a gross.

Now your senseless comments simply make you look simple. What you think does not matter in the sum of things about Marriage Equality.

I like it how libs use the term "Marriage Equality" whenever marriage is between a man and a woman. The truth is giving homo fags tax breaks. That's what they want and that's how they should present it.

All people of good will use Marriage Equality for all marriages, straight or gay. That you can't accept that this is happening means nothing at all.

It's not marriage unless it's between a man and woman. That's the fact and the way it was forever up until very recent history where liberal fags decided to attempt to redefine it. If you deny that then you're a fag.

Says the piece of shit troll.

 

[RKMBrown]

It is you that is arguing for it. If any two can marry then that means any two eh?

Yep, no compelling government interest in denying them.

Go ahead, express the compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.

You won't, you can't.

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Such an utterly stupid, worthless comment. Who cares what you think about it, bub? What of worth can you say about the OP.

It's disgusting and it shouldn't be allowed. A good comparison for gay marriage would be allowing people to shit in our streets. Just a gross.

Now your senseless comments simply make you look simple. What you think does not matter in the sum of things about Marriage Equality.

I like it how libs use the term "Marriage Equality" whenever marriage is between a man and a woman. The truth is giving homo fags tax breaks. That's what they want and that's how they should present it.

All people of good will use Marriage Equality for all marriages, straight or gay. That you can't accept that this is happening means nothing at all.

It's not marriage unless it's between a man and woman. That's the fact and the way it was forever up until very recent history where liberal fags decided to attempt to redefine it. If you deny that then you're a fag.

Wrong again.


Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."

Read the rest at the link and please, do feel free to post proof that this link is incorrect. Pleas also feel free to prove this graphic is not true.

 

[RKMBrown]

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...

Hey, ya dumb ass. In this case the dems are FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY NOT SOCIALISM. You are the assholes fighting against liberty and for social control by government. You are the ones using Alinsky's rules.. duh!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.

No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...

Hey, ya dumb ass. In this case the dems are FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY NOT SOCIALISM. You are the assholes fighting against liberty and for social control by government. You are the ones using Alinsky's rules.. duh!!

Liberty for themselves, not others.

 

[RKMBrown]

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...

Hey, ya dumb ass. In this case the dems are FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY NOT SOCIALISM. You are the assholes fighting against liberty and for social control by government. You are the ones using Alinsky's rules.. duh!!

Liberty for themselves, not others.

What others? Plural marriage advocates? Sure bring that on too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...

Hey, ya dumb ass. In this case the dems are FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY NOT SOCIALISM. You are the assholes fighting against liberty and for social control by government. You are the ones using Alinsky's rules.. duh!!

Liberty for themselves, not others.

What others? Plural marriage advocates? Sure bring that on too.

Any others. As long as it's white and Christian on top, fuck everyone else is their attitude.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys is a far right wing progressive Alinksy model: he wants Big Government to defeat Marriage Equality.

 

[RKMBrown]

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...

Hey, ya dumb ass. In this case the dems are FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY NOT SOCIALISM. You are the assholes fighting against liberty and for social control by government. You are the ones using Alinsky's rules.. duh!!

Liberty for themselves, not others.

What others? Plural marriage advocates? Sure bring that on too.

Any others. As long as it's white and Christian on top, fuck everyone else is their attitude.

Not all of them but many, yes. Funny how they scream for liberty for themselves, huh?

 

[danielpalos]

Is bearing True Witness to Article 4, Section 2 too much of a moral challenge for the Right?

Should we ask Judge Moore.

 

[Pop23]

Yep, no compelling government interest in denying them.

Go ahead, express the compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.

You won't, you can't.

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling gevernmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.

Why Do You Care? Why Are You Being Irrational? What Does Gay Incest Or Marriage Have To Do With You?

 

[Pop23]

Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.

No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.

Thanks for the honesty in your answer

 

[Pop23]

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling gevernmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.

Why Do You Care? Why Are You Being Irrational? What Does Gay Incest Or Marriage Have To Do With You?

You've answered the question. Thanks

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.

No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.

Thanks for the honesty in your answer

I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?

I think my favorite part of your answer was where you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate, followed closely by how traditional norms must apply to marriage.

Now, try supplying a compelling gevernmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage.

Why Do You Care? Why Are You Being Irrational? What Does Gay Incest Or Marriage Have To Do With You?

You've answered the question. Thanks

I have but you haven't. Why Do You Care? What Is It To You?

 

[Pop23]

Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.

No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.

Thanks for the honesty in your answer

I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?

As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.

I've answered your question.