Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Pop23]

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?

You are so screwed up in the head. How long have you been having sex with your sister?

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?

Maybe you should start a revolution to get the laws on incest thrown out.

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

It's now LGBTSSS

 

[Pop23]

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

HUH? Will gays have to get a divorce if they don't have sex?

 

[Pop23]

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

You understand that's an argument used against SSM.

 

[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.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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. ** this one applies to SSSM whatever the hell that means where you come from. Can't believe you are actually pushing for same sex sibling marriage. Nutz.

 

[RKMBrown]

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

You understand that's an argument used against SSM.

Incorrect.

 

[Pop23]

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.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

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.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

I've successfully rebutted each, ignore the rebuttle if you want, or answer.

 

[Pop23]

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

You understand that's an argument used against SSM.

Incorrect.

Wow, deep answer

 

[Redfish]

the gay mafia has already started that revolution. If SSM is sanctioned then SSSM must also be sanctioned. (the 3rd S stands for sibling)

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

Nope, its you on the left who have redefined it. Do you think two gay men living together is not a "living arrangement" ? Now, when does the arrangement become a marriage in your small mind?

 

[RKMBrown]

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

I've successfully rebutted each, ignore the rebuttle if you want, or answer.

Incorrect. You overcame (1) by moving the goal posts from incest to same sex sisters and brothers getting married. You have completely ignored argument (2) other than to agree with me that it's sick. Number (2) applies to same sex sisters and brothers. Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Complete nonsense. What are you 5years old?

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

Nope, its you on the left who have redefined it. Do you think two gay men living together is not a "living arrangement" ? Now, when does the arrangement become a marriage in your small mind?

Incorrect again you lying piece of shit. I'm on the right. I'm more conservative than you are.

All marriages may or may not include a living arrangement, as is taking a dog home from the pound. Marriage is not "just" a living arrangement. OMFG you don't know what a marriage is? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[candycorn]

It's fun to watch the circular firing squad that is the GOP.

Meanwhile...when one of the two political parties wants to deny Americans who have violated no specific law of their rights, this is a large issue. Would the right wing idiot who started this thread feel the same way if his party wanted to deny blacks the chance to raise children, get married, enjoy survivor benefits, or even freaking visit one another in the hospital if they got sick...in other words, if it were based on skin color you may (or may not) find abhorrent is it any different than behavior you may (or may not) find abhorrent? If so...tell us how.

 

[Pop23]

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

I've successfully rebutted each, ignore the rebuttle if you want, or answer.

Incorrect. You overcame (1) by moving the goal posts from incest to same sex sisters and brothers getting married. You have completely ignored argument (2) other than to agree with me that it's sick. Number (2) applies to same sex sisters and brothers. Try again.

Oh no, same sex siblings have been my concern from the start, if we could discuss that, then we could still down, but regardless, same sex siblings is an incestuous relationship, only when sex is involved (in the classical sense).

You then assume that all such relationships would be based on other than love or financial benefit.

I pointed out that duress cannot be a part of a valid contract.

You however want to butt into their business and additionally want the government in their business.

Why now? It may be too late.

 

[Pop23]

It's fun to watch the circular firing squad that is the GOP.

Meanwhile...when one of the two political parties wants to deny Americans who have violated no specific law of their rights, this is a large issue. Would the right wing idiot who started this thread feel the same way if his party wanted to deny blacks the chance to raise children, get married, enjoy survivor benefits, or even freaking visit one another in the hospital if they got sick...in other words, if it were based on skin color you may (or may not) find abhorrent is it any different than behavior you may (or may not) find abhorrent? If so...tell us how.

Ever heard of wills and powers of attorney?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

This one Pop23

You realize that to enter into a contract one cannot be in a position of duress.

But you are also excluding the many for the few. Most would enter into a same sex sibling NOT about sex (which is the same sex argument) but for either love or the financial benefits of marriage.

I agree it's sick, that's why I don't want it happening, but you do realize that there are many with the very real opinion that "what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business", that "If it doesn't effect my marriage, why should I care what they do".

Since we have safeguards in place against "shotgun weddings", what is the compelling government interest in denying same sex sibling couples the benefits of marriage?

you can expect to be called a name rather than receive a response to your very logical queston.

I skipped over it because, just like your posts, he said stupid things.

Many opposite sex couples divorce because of financial benefits.

And, for Pete's sake, sisters marrying would be incest. And, IF THEY ARE CONSENTING ADULTS, none of your business. Nor the business of Big Government RWs.

 

[RKMBrown]

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

I provided my two very valid answers above, I'm not sure why you are ignoring them.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

I've successfully rebutted each, ignore the rebuttle if you want, or answer.

Incorrect. You overcame (1) by moving the goal posts from incest to same sex sisters and brothers getting married. You have completely ignored argument (2) other than to agree with me that it's sick. Number (2) applies to same sex sisters and brothers. Try again.

Oh no, same sex siblings have been my concern from the start, if we could discuss that, then we could still down, but regardless, same sex siblings is an incestuous relationship, only when sex is involved (in the classical sense).

You then assume that all such relationships would be based on other than love or financial benefit.

I pointed out that duress cannot be a part of a valid contract.

You however want to butt into their business and additionally want the government in their business.

Why now? It may be too late.

Pointing out that I'm correct in so far as duress not being part of a valid contract, is agreeing with argument (2) not disagreeing with argument (2).

I don't want to "butt" into anyone's business. I'm answering your question, which is what is the government interest.

Why now, what? You are the one asking for same sex marriages for sisters and brothers. You and the other people crying in your milk about gays getting the right to marry.

 

[Lakhota]

'The HuffPost Show' Explains: The Rise Of Ass Play (NSFW)

Tossing salad, backdoor action, rim job, anal, taking a trip to brown town... whatever you call it, ass play is certainly having a cultural moment. Whether on "Girls", "The Mindy Project", or even as the subject of a Harvard course , butt play popped up everywhere in the last year. So how did we come to this ass-centric state of affairs? "The HuffPost Show" presents the official explainer on the rise of ass play.

VIDEO: The HuffPost Show Explains: The Rise Of Ass Play (NSFW)

Wow, everyone's getting into ass play. Be there or be square.

 

[Pop23]

why is it nonsense? If SSM is legalized, what would prevent two sisters from marrying. Please answer the question.

Because incest is illegal and being gay is legal.

define incest. is it incest when two sisters decide to live together to share expenses? Allowing them to calll their living arrangement a marriage would save them money, why would you discriminate against them?

You are attempting to redefine marriage as a simply a "living arrangement." ROFL It's the dumbest argument yet.

Nope, its you on the left who have redefined it. Do you think two gay men living together is not a "living arrangement" ? Now, when does the arrangement become a marriage in your small mind?

Incorrect again you lying piece of shit. I'm on the right. I'm more conservative than you are.

All marriages may or may not include a living arrangement, as is taking a dog home from the pound. Marriage is not "just" a living arrangement. OMFG you don't know what a marriage is? WTF is wrong with you?

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

What is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?

I'm not sure why this is going over your head. You ask, "what is the compelling governmental reason to deny a same sex sibling couple the benefits of marriage?" I have provided two compelling governmental reasons. They are labeled (1) and (2). Here is yet another copy of them for you to read in context:

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.

I've successfully rebutted each, ignore the rebuttle if you want, or answer.

Incorrect. You overcame (1) by moving the goal posts from incest to same sex sisters and brothers getting married. You have completely ignored argument (2) other than to agree with me that it's sick. Number (2) applies to same sex sisters and brothers. Try again.

Oh no, same sex siblings have been my concern from the start, if we could discuss that, then we could still down, but regardless, same sex siblings is an incestuous relationship, only when sex is involved (in the classical sense).

You then assume that all such relationships would be based on other than love or financial benefit.

I pointed out that duress cannot be a part of a valid contract.

You however want to butt into their business and additionally want the government in their business.

Why now? It may be too late.

Pointing out that I'm correct in so far as duress not being part of a valid contract, is agreeing with argument (2) not disagreeing with argument (2).

I don't want to "butt" into anyone's business. I'm answering your question, which is what is the government interest.

Why now, what? You are the one asking for same sex marriages for sisters and brothers. You and the other people crying in your milk about gays getting the right to marry.

You seem to agree then, that same sex siblings cam marry thanks, since shotgun weddings are illegal.

Why do you feel you have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?

They must attest that they FREELY wish to join. I know "join" has a different meaning now, but joining because you simply want the financial benefit of such unions today seems to be acceptable.

In the good old days, those doing that were considered gold diggers, today?

Not so much.

 

[Syriusly]

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage.

For you information, the ACLU is already working on taking polygamy to the SC using gay marriage as precedent.

You, my friend, know nothing about how our legal system works.

Bullshit. Apparently, I know a helluva lot more about our legal system than you do. Anyone can make any argument, that does not mean the court will hear or agree with their argument.

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.
.

Reasons for approving mixed race marraige
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will be made for all forms of marriage, using mixed race marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

If the courts allow mixed race marriages- then the court is opening the door to incest.......

(paraphrasing the arguments of the State of Virginia- 1967)

race and sexual orientation are not analogous.

Of course you don't like your 'logic' turned against you- but if 'gay marriage' is a legally binding precedent(which it isn't) then mixed race marriage would be also(which it isn't)

Reasons for approving gay marriage:
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will, be made for all forms of marriage, using gay marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

Reasons for approving mixed race marraige
equality
freedom to marry who you love
fairness
discrimination

those exact same arguments can, and will be made for all forms of marriage, using mixed race marriage as a valid binding legal precedent.

If the courts allow mixed race marriages- then the court is opening the door to incest.......

(paraphrasing the arguments of the State of Virginia- 1967)

 

[Syriusly]

So you admit that your opposition is based upon your bigotry towards homose
So you admit that this is all about your bigotry towards homosexuals, and how you want force society to discriminate against them based upon your own personal bias?

No, for the final time. I want gays to have equal rights, I want them to be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized in every state as equal in all ways to a man/woman marriage.

But, a gay civil union is not, and will never be, a marriage under current law.

If we call a gay union a marriage then there will be no way to legally prohibit multiple person marriages, sibling marriages, parent/child marriages, and any other combinations that people can come up with. The legal precedent would be set by gay marriage and there would be no legal argument that could be brought to prohibit the others. Thats my issue.

Now, the solution: pass a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage consists of two people over the age of consent who are not related by blood. Get 38 states to ratify it and this whole thing is over.

Nonsense. You wouldn't know legal precedent from a hole the ground. Gay marriage between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS is not the same as incest, plural marriage, or sex with children. OMFG

Bullshit, if the SC rules that gay marriage is to be sanctioned in every state, that ruling would set a valid legal precedent for all forms of marriage. .

And that is Bullshit.

The Supreme Court ruled that mixed race marriage bans were unconstitutional- that did not make a precedent making every other form of marriage legal- it did make clear that the Supreme Court has the authority to look at any State marriage law and decide whether or not it is constitutional.

The reason why the State of Virginia lost in Loving v. Virginia was, in part, because they could not provide any compelling state interest that was achieved by denying them their rights to marriage.

This is the essential question in this case: Is there any compelling State interest in preventing same gender couples from marrying?

And that would be the same question asked for any other kind of marriage bans, regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court rules in favor of same gender marriage.

If you cannot provide a compelling State interest in preventing a polygamous marriage- why exactly do you oppose polygamous marriage?

a mixed race marriage is ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. Thats why the SC ruled as it did. "Loving" in no way sets a precedent for same sex marriage.

Its not up to me to provide a reason to oppose polygamy, that is the question for you. If you favor SSM, on what grounds do you oppose polygamy?

Loving in no way set a precedent for same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage in no way sets a precedent for polygamy

If you favor mixed race marriage- on what grounds do you oppose polygamy?

 

[Syriusly]

How come people can't fuck consenting animals? I vote that we have a big gay public orgy with animals. That's what the liberals want.

You appear to be the one wanting a 'big public orgy with animals'- not anyone else.

Sigh- another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.