Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Syriusly]

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.

In the grand scheme of things, this issue should be at the bottom of the totem pole. What is happening to Mother Earth is far more important than this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think a ruling by the court that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage is pretty important.

The arguments for SSM ( btw it is not about gay marriage) are the same for SSSM.

No- no more than the argument for opposite sex marriage is the same for opposite sibling marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

So much for you saying you were no longer posting on gay threads.

This is what....the the 2nd or 3rd thread he's started lamenting about how many threads there are on gay marriage?

This thread merely asks if gay marriage is the most pressing problem facing this nation. The fact that rather than try to answer the simple question, you on the left always want to get into the right or wrong of gay marriage

Yet you keep arguing about the right or wrong of gay marriage.

You are the one keeping this thread going about the 'right or wrong of gay marriage'

Stop arguing about why gay marriage is wrong and you will stop getting responses to that argument.

 

[Pop23]

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)

Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female.

And this gets to SSM how?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oddly enough- that has been your concern- but not opposite sex siblings.

You appear to be okay with a brother and sister marrying- but opposed to a brother marrying a brother.

Do you have any argument against sibling marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

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)

Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female.

And this gets to SSM how?

I was pretty clear. The court in Loving found that the Loving's had a Constitutional right to marriage- and that the State could not deny that right based upon race

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)

 

[Pop23]

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.

In the grand scheme of things, this issue should be at the bottom of the totem pole. What is happening to Mother Earth is far more important than this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think a ruling by the court that opens the door to same sex sibling marriage is pretty important.

The arguments for SSM ( btw it is not about gay marriage) are the same for SSSM.

No- no more than the argument for opposite sex marriage is the same for opposite sibling marriage.

Ahhhh, opposite sex siblings have been denied marriage because of a compelling governmental interest in denial of those benefits.

The same us not true of same sex sibling marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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)

Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female.

And this gets to SSM how?

I was pretty clear. The court in Loving found that the Loving's had a Constitutional right to marriage- and that the State could not deny that right based upon race

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)

Sorry, you're making a leap. Gender and race are two completely different concepts.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

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'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.

Incorrect. As hundreds of people, including me, have told you. Incest is illegal. Thus, because it's illegal siblings can't marry. It does not matter whether they are sisters or brothers or parents and children.

Shot gun weddings have nothing to do with gay weddings or incest. That is nothing but another deflection of yours.

Why make up so many GD LIES? Not only did I never say I feel that I "have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?" I said THE OPPOSITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. You are just making shit up.

You say, "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." This is just another deflection of yours, now to financial benefits of marriage. Your arguments are ludicrous. There has never been a law against there being a financial benefit of getting married. Just because gays are getting married it's all about the money? Is that why you got married for the money? If not why do you insist gays are just wanting to get married for the money?

People who get married for money are gold diggers. People who get tax breaks when married are married citizens. Getting a tax break is not gold digging.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Oddly enough- that has been your concern- but not opposite sex siblings.

You appear to be okay with a brother and sister marrying- but opposed to a brother marrying a brother.

Do you have any argument against sibling marriage?

After the USSC rules on SSM, and if SSM is legalized nationwide, the same arguments work for SSSM as do for SSM. Of course we would have to wait on a successful SSSM case, which is inevitable, before we can address OSSM.

 

[RKMBrown]

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)

Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female.

And this gets to SSM how?

I was pretty clear. The court in Loving found that the Loving's had a Constitutional right to marriage- and that the State could not deny that right based upon race

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)

Sorry, you're making a leap. Gender and race are two completely different concepts.

As are sexual orientation and incest.

 

[Pop23]

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?

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.

Incorrect. As hundreds of people, including me, have told you. Incest is illegal. Thus, because it's illegal siblings can't marry. It does not matter whether they are sisters or brothers or parents and children.

Shot gun weddings have nothing to do with gay weddings or incest. That is nothing but another deflection of yours.

Why make up so many GD LIES? Not only did I never say I feel that I "have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?" I said THE OPPOSITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. You are just making shit up.

You say, "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." This is just another deflection of yours, now to financial benefits of marriage. Your arguments are ludicrous. There has never been a law against there being a financial benefit of getting married. Just because gays are getting married it's all about the money? Is that why you got married for the money? If not why do you insist gays are just wanting to get married for the money?

People who get married for money are gold diggers. People who get tax breaks when married are married citizens. Getting a tax break is not gold digging.

Good lord, first paragraph. SSM is illegal ........

 

[bodecea]

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)

Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female.

And this gets to SSM how?

Wrong. You don't even know that?

 

[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.

Ever heard of wills and powers of attorney?

Ever heard of wanting to hold the hand of your loved one as they are in pain?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[Pop23]

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)

Wanna drill that down a bit?

Let's start with Loving:

Loving was a case involving a Black Male not being allowed to marry a white woman.

The court found that loving was discriminated against because of race.

Loving (and all black males, could marry any white females) or more to the point, any male could marry any female.

And this gets to SSM how?

I was pretty clear. The court in Loving found that the Loving's had a Constitutional right to marriage- and that the State could not deny that right based upon race

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)

Sorry, you're making a leap. Gender and race are two completely different concepts.

As are sexual orientation and incest.

But out, I'm trying to have an actual discussion

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

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.

Incorrect. As hundreds of people, including me, have told you. Incest is illegal. Thus, because it's illegal siblings can't marry. It does not matter whether they are sisters or brothers or parents and children.

Shot gun weddings have nothing to do with gay weddings or incest. That is nothing but another deflection of yours.

Why make up so many GD LIES? Not only did I never say I feel that I "have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?" I said THE OPPOSITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. You are just making shit up.

You say, "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." This is just another deflection of yours, now to financial benefits of marriage. Your arguments are ludicrous. There has never been a law against there being a financial benefit of getting married. Just because gays are getting married it's all about the money? Is that why you got married for the money? If not why do you insist gays are just wanting to get married for the money?

People who get married for money are gold diggers. People who get tax breaks when married are married citizens. Getting a tax break is not gold digging.

Good lord, first paragraph. SSM is illegal ........

Only in some states. Get over it.

 

[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?

Ever heard of wanting to hold the hand of your loved one as they are in pain?

YES.

I can't go into the hospital and do that with anybody I claim to love.

 

[Pop23]

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?

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.

Incorrect. As hundreds of people, including me, have told you. Incest is illegal. Thus, because it's illegal siblings can't marry. It does not matter whether they are sisters or brothers or parents and children.

Shot gun weddings have nothing to do with gay weddings or incest. That is nothing but another deflection of yours.

Why make up so many GD LIES? Not only did I never say I feel that I "have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?" I said THE OPPOSITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. You are just making shit up.

You say, "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." This is just another deflection of yours, now to financial benefits of marriage. Your arguments are ludicrous. There has never been a law against there being a financial benefit of getting married. Just because gays are getting married it's all about the money? Is that why you got married for the money? If not why do you insist gays are just wanting to get married for the money?

People who get married for money are gold diggers. People who get tax breaks when married are married citizens. Getting a tax break is not gold digging.

Good lord, first paragraph. SSM is illegal ........

Only in some states. Get over it.

You're an idiot then.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right heterofascists are, metaphorically, getting their salads tossed. Are they enjoying it?

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

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.

Incorrect. As hundreds of people, including me, have told you. Incest is illegal. Thus, because it's illegal siblings can't marry. It does not matter whether they are sisters or brothers or parents and children.

Shot gun weddings have nothing to do with gay weddings or incest. That is nothing but another deflection of yours.

Why make up so many GD LIES? Not only did I never say I feel that I "have the right to question a couples motivation to marry?" I said THE OPPOSITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. You are just making shit up.

You say, "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." This is just another deflection of yours, now to financial benefits of marriage. Your arguments are ludicrous. There has never been a law against there being a financial benefit of getting married. Just because gays are getting married it's all about the money? Is that why you got married for the money? If not why do you insist gays are just wanting to get married for the money?

People who get married for money are gold diggers. People who get tax breaks when married are married citizens. Getting a tax break is not gold digging.

Good lord, first paragraph. SSM is illegal ........

Only in some states. Get over it.

You're an idiot then.

Admitting defeat?