Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[bodecea]

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

Oh....this is where they cry that we are "shoving gay marriage down their throats"?

 

[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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Such cannot subvert family law that gives such powers to family members when one is incapacitated.

You are, knowingly, telling a lie, and, secondly, quite hypocritically, suggest a back door to civil unions. Too late, loser.

 

[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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Me? You just said anything illegal MUST stay illegal.

You're an idiot for admitting you lost all ability to actually think!

You: it's illegal, that's why.......

Good lord, call the USSC and tell them to go home cuz RK says their wasting their time.

 

[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?

Such cannot subvert family law that gives such powers to family members when one is incapacitated.

You are, knowingly, telling a lie, and, secondly, quite hypocritically, suggest a back door to civil unions. Too late, loser.

Those who late for the last minute?

 

[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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Me? You just said anything illegal MUST stay illegal.

You're an idiot for admitting you lost all ability to actually think!

You: it's illegal, that's why.......

Good lord, cal the USSC and tell them to go home cud RK says their wasting their time.

Liar. I did not say "anything illegal MUST stay illegal." Why do you keep making up dumb ass lies out of left field?

I'm not the idiot in this conversation.

Yes, incest is illegal.

 

[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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly

You think incest is silly? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly

You think incest is silly? WTF is wrong with you?

It's as repulsive as your answer

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly

You think incest is silly? WTF is wrong with you?

It's as repulsive as your answer

Make up your mind. You either agree with my answer (2) or disagree. You can't have both.

 

[Pop23]

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

Only in some states. Get over it.

You're an idiot then.

Admitting defeat?

Me? You just said anything illegal MUST stay illegal.

You're an idiot for admitting you lost all ability to actually think!

You: it's illegal, that's why.......

Good lord, cal the USSC and tell them to go home cud RK says their wasting their time.

Liar. I did not say "anything illegal MUST stay illegal." Why do you keep making up dumb ass lies out of left field?

I'm not the idiot in this conversation.

Yes, incest is illegal.

AS IS SAME SEX MARRIAGE DUMBASS.

 

[Pop23]

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly

You think incest is silly? WTF is wrong with you?

It's as repulsive as your answer

Make up your mind. You either agree with my answer (2) or disagree. You can't have both.

You want to rebutt my answer, I refuse to debate myself (although it would probably accomplish more than a conversation with you)

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

No you can't.

In the event of a catastrophic illness/accident, and in the absence of a medical directive from the individual (which for young people probably isn't in place in the case of accidents) - you need to be an immediate family member to go into ICU. Civil Marriage establishes a legal family member status.

Just walking up the reception desk in the hospital, saying "I'm Pop23 and I live John Doe (or Jane Doe) and I want access to his (her) room cause I love him" ain't going to hack it.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

Only in some states. Get over it.

You're an idiot then.

Admitting defeat?

Me? You just said anything illegal MUST stay illegal.

You're an idiot for admitting you lost all ability to actually think!

You: it's illegal, that's why.......

Good lord, cal the USSC and tell them to go home cud RK says their wasting their time.

Liar. I did not say "anything illegal MUST stay illegal." Why do you keep making up dumb ass lies out of left field?

I'm not the idiot in this conversation.

Yes, incest is illegal.

AS IS SAME SEX MARRIAGE DUMBASS.

Incorrect, same sex marriage is not illegal, not in all states. Why are you making shit up? Please cite federal law banning same sex marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

I already provided my answer. It's (2) above. You know, the argument that you keep ignoring.

Here, I'll copy it a fourth time for you:

The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is:

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.

Cutting and pasting a silly argument does not make it less silly

You think incest is silly? WTF is wrong with you?

It's as repulsive as your answer

Make up your mind. You either agree with my answer (2) or disagree. You can't have both.

You want to rebutt my answer, I refuse to debate myself (although it would probably accomplish more than a conversation with you)

Is that a yes or no? Do you or do you not agree with my answer (2) above?

Yes or no Pop23 The governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings is: 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.

 

[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?

YES.

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

Actually you cannot if the doctor orders otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Last sentence.

What is the governments compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the right to those tax benefits.

That is your affirmation to prove, no one else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pop knows that but will deny it, WW.

 

[Pop23]

You're an idiot then.

Admitting defeat?

Me? You just said anything illegal MUST stay illegal.

You're an idiot for admitting you lost all ability to actually think!

You: it's illegal, that's why.......

Good lord, cal the USSC and tell them to go home cud RK says their wasting their time.

Liar. I did not say "anything illegal MUST stay illegal." Why do you keep making up dumb ass lies out of left field?

I'm not the idiot in this conversation.

Yes, incest is illegal.

AS IS SAME SEX MARRIAGE DUMBASS.

Incorrect, same sex marriage is not illegal, not in all states. Why are you making shit up? Please cite federal law banning same sex marriage.

You do realize it's before the USSC right