Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.
Thanks for the honesty in your answer
As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.
I've answered your question.
I already provided a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage. It was argument number two (2). You ignored it. Which tells me you lost and just want to ask the question, not listen to the answer.I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?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 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.
Vile doesn't mean illegal. It's vile to piss on someone for sexual pleasure but it's not illegal, nor should it be, it's just fucking disgusting but that is not a basis for laws.I already provided a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage. It was argument number two (2). You ignored it. Which tells me you lost and just want to ask the question, not listen to the answer.I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?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 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.
Nonsense.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.
I already provided a compelling governmental interest in denying a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage. It was argument number two (2). You ignored it. Which tells me you lost and just want to ask the question, not listen to the answer.I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?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 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.
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.
I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?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 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.
What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?No, there is not, and why do you give a fuck? If you do then you find the damn compelling interest.Is there a compelling govermental interest in denying two same sex siblings the benefits of a marriage license.
Thanks for the honesty in your answer
As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.
I've answered your question.
This one Pop23To 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.
only the Right is morally challenged when it comes to natural rights and Individual Liberty and any potential shadow of any of valley of any abstractions or even their slippery slopes.What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?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
As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.
I've answered your question.
Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce.
It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US.
OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.
Bullshit. You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.only the Right is morally challenged when it comes to natural rights and Individual Liberty and any potential shadow of any of valley of any abstractions or even their slippery slopes.What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?I've said such a thing many times. Now answer the question? Why is this any of your business?Thanks for the honesty in your answer
As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.
I've answered your question.
Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce.
It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US.
OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.
You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.
two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?
Bullshit. You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.only the Right is morally challenged when it comes to natural rights and Individual Liberty and any potential shadow of any of valley of any abstractions or even their slippery slopes.What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?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.
Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce.
It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US.
OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.
You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.
two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?
i call bullshit on Your bullshit, bullshitter.Bullshit. You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.only the Right is morally challenged when it comes to natural rights and Individual Liberty and any potential shadow of any of valley of any abstractions or even their slippery slopes.What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?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.
Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce.
It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US.
OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.
Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.
two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?
I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.
a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?
Either way, nobody's business but theirs.You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?Incest is not related to marriage equality. To suggest such is a fallacy.
two sisters marrying is not incest. its same sex marriage. Why do you want to infringe on their rights to happiness and freedom?
I don't have a sister. it was your sister I was screwing.
a marriage of two sisters does not have to involve sex, does it?
Are you claiming Clinton is on the right?i call bullshit on Your bullshit, bullshitter.Bullshit. You are nothing but a dumb ass troll.only the Right is morally challenged when it comes to natural rights and Individual Liberty and any potential shadow of any of valley of any abstractions or even their slippery slopes.What part of these laws is a a problem for you? What part of adults being equal before the law regardless of what junk is in their underpants? What is more important to you, tradition or equality?As a citizen, the laws that govern this country is my business.
I've answered your question.
Marriage equality would cause pop to get a divorce.
It will cause the total breakdown of the new-Q-ler family in the US.
OTOH, straight divorce, absentee fathers, single mothers struggling to feed their families - its all good.
I already provided it... Why did you ignore the arguments? Cause you lost?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 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.
Pop23
"...you apparently think that same sex siblings can procreate..."
You apparently think they can't.
In this age of easily accessible information, its just astounding to see how ignorant some people are.
