Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Redfish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duh, two people vs multiple people.

 

[Seawytch]

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care

 

[Pop23]

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care

And, is there a point?

Note: there are millions of unmarried couples that must have a medical directive if they want their partner given the right to make medical decisions on their behalf, AND

A hospital does not automatically know I am my wifes spouse, believe it or not, at request I MUST PROVE IT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Pop23 is going to find out that "life pays itself out" when SCOTUS rules against the far right next month.

 

[Seawytch]

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care

And, is there a point?

Note: there are millions of unmarried couples that must have a medical directive if they want their partner given the right to make medical decisions on their behalf, AND

A hospital does not automatically know I am my wifes spouse, believe it or not, at request I MUST PROVE IT.

You are arguing for a legal familial relationship that already exists within the law. This is not true for gay couples. Civil Marriage provides this to non familial couples.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

And that is Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duh, two people vs multiple people.

Then you have yout answer regarding the precedent not set by either same gender marriage or mixed raced marriage.

 

[Redfish]

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

Pop23 is going to find out that "life pays itself out" when SCOTUS rules against the far right next month.

they may rule as you want, but that will be a ruling for the far left, not against the far right. It will also be a ruling against the majority of americans, and a majority of the world.

 

[Redfish]

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

And that is Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duh, two people vs multiple people.

Then you have yout answer regarding the precedent not set by either same gender marriage or mixed raced marriage.

No it just validates the point that pop and I have been making. SSM will lead to SSSM. It will happen, count on it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Pop23 is going to find out that "life pays itself out" when SCOTUS rules against the far right next month.

they may rule as you want, but that will be a ruling for the far left, not against the far right. It will also be a ruling against the majority of americans, and a majority of the world.

SCOTUS will rule for all Americans, and certainly the majority of Americans agree with marriage equality. Your rump minority of the minority matters not.

Go try to marry your sister, be denied, sue, and lose. Finis. Count on it.

 

[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)

total horseshit.

interracial marriage, and all the court cases on it, involve opposite sex couples. Its not the same as SSM
.

LOL- I know when you start swearing you have realized you have no argument.

Your 'argument' such as it was- applies equally to mixed race marriage as it does to same gender marriage.

Your only argument so far is- 'no it doesn't- and once again- neither mixed race marriage no same gender marriage have anything to do with- nor will they be precedent for marriage between siblings or polygamy.

 

[Pop23]

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care

And, is there a point?

Note: there are millions of unmarried couples that must have a medical directive if they want their partner given the right to make medical decisions on their behalf, AND

A hospital does not automatically know I am my wifes spouse, believe it or not, at request I MUST PROVE IT.

You are arguing for a legal familial relationship that already exists within the law. This is not true for gay couples. Civil Marriage provides this to non familial couples.

The relationship becomes hubby hubby from bro bro. A new family is formed.

You realize your arguing traditions, correct.

There is no compelling governmental interest in denying this new familial group, unless of course you only want to deny them the benefit of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

And that is Bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duh, two people vs multiple people.

Then you have yout answer regarding the precedent not set by either same gender marriage or mixed raced marriage.

No it just validates the point that pop and I have been making. SSM will lead to SSSM. It will happen, count on it.

Yeah- as if you and pop have been making any 'point'- you have just been making spurious claims.

Just like opposite sex marriage(OSM) has lead to opposite sex sibling marriage.

You bigots are all the same- fear mongers.

 

[Syriusly]

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care

And, is there a point?

Note: there are millions of unmarried couples that must have a medical directive if they want their partner given the right to make medical decisions on their behalf, AND

A hospital does not automatically know I am my wifes spouse, believe it or not, at request I MUST PROVE IT.

You are arguing for a legal familial relationship that already exists within the law. This is not true for gay couples. Civil Marriage provides this to non familial couples.

There is no compelling governmental interest in denying this new familial group, unless of course you only want to deny them the benefit of marriage.

If that is what you believe, you can make that argument right now for marrying your opposite gender sibling anywhere in the United States.

 

[Pop23]

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

Pop23 is going to find out that "life pays itself out" when SCOTUS rules against the far right next month.

they may rule as you want, but that will be a ruling for the far left, not against the far right. It will also be a ruling against the majority of americans, and a majority of the world.

SCOTUS will rule for all Americans, and certainly the majority of Americans agree with marriage equality. Your rump minority of the minority matters not.

Go try to marry your sister, be denied, sue, and lose. Finis. Count on it.

Sooooo compelling.

Must be that throwing the baby out with the bath water is best for the bath water?

 

[Pop23]

Siblings already fall within the legal hierarchy for Medical decisions:

Advance directives specified by the patient before (s)he became incapacitated prevail, even over the contrary wishes of guardians and other surrogate decision-makers

The decisions of the guardian or of a surrogate designated in an advance directive prevail over all others except in the presence of a written advance directive

Decisions of surrogates, including guardians, should be guided by:

Substituted judgment (if the incapacitated person's wishes were known but not formalized in an advance directive)
Best interest of the patient, based on clinical evidence, prognosis, life expectancy, risk and benefit of proposed treatments, comfort and dignity
Family members and friends take precedence next, usually in the following order

Spouse
Adult children
Siblings
Other family members
Friend
Health care providers follow, in the absence of other decision-makers (not optimal)

AMDA Governance - Resolutions and Position Statements - White Paper on Surrogate Decision-Making and Advance Care Planning in Long-Term Care

And, is there a point?

Note: there are millions of unmarried couples that must have a medical directive if they want their partner given the right to make medical decisions on their behalf, AND

A hospital does not automatically know I am my wifes spouse, believe it or not, at request I MUST PROVE IT.

You are arguing for a legal familial relationship that already exists within the law. This is not true for gay couples. Civil Marriage provides this to non familial couples.

There is no compelling governmental interest in denying this new familial group, unless of course you only want to deny them the benefit of marriage.

If that is what you believe, you can make that argument right now for marrying your opposite gender sibling anywhere in the United States.

No, same sex sibling marriage must come first. See it's a process, you know that, Right?

Now, there IS A Compelling governmental reason to deny, after SSM, then SSSM, then.......

It's a crap shoot.

 

[Redfish]

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)

total horseshit.

interracial marriage, and all the court cases on it, involve opposite sex couples. Its not the same as SSM
.

LOL- I know when you start swearing you have realized you have no argument.

Your 'argument' such as it was- applies equally to mixed race marriage as it does to same gender marriage.

Your only argument so far is- 'no it doesn't- and once again- neither mixed race marriage no same gender marriage have anything to do with- nor will they be precedent for marriage between siblings or polygamy.

for one final time. If SSM is sanctioned by the SC. What legal arguments will you bring to deny sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, and multiple person marriage?

What will you say when those people demand "marriage equality" as you are now doing?

if you have no answer, just admit it.

 

[Syriusly]

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)

total horseshit.

interracial marriage, and all the court cases on it, involve opposite sex couples. Its not the same as SSM
.

LOL- I know when you start swearing you have realized you have no argument.

Your 'argument' such as it was- applies equally to mixed race marriage as it does to same gender marriage.

Your only argument so far is- 'no it doesn't- and once again- neither mixed race marriage no same gender marriage have anything to do with- nor will they be precedent for marriage between siblings or polygamy.

for one final time. If SSM is sanctioned by the SC. What legal arguments will you bring to deny sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, and multiple person marriage?

What will you say when those people demand "marriage equality" as you are now doing?

if you have no answer, just admit it.

Just pointing out- 12 days after Redfish says he was done arguing about gay marriage- here he is in his own thread- still arguing about gay marriage.

LOL

 

[Pop23]

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

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

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

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

Duh, two people vs multiple people.

Then you have yout answer regarding the precedent not set by either same gender marriage or mixed raced marriage.

No it just validates the point that pop and I have been making. SSM will lead to SSSM. It will happen, count on it.

Yeah- as if you and pop have been making any 'point'- you have just been making spurious claims.

Just like opposite sex marriage(OSM) has lead to opposite sex sibling marriage.

You bigots are all the same- fear mongers.

You're really quite simple aren't you?

Opposite sex sexual incest can cause defective children. The state finds that icky.

 

[Syriusly]

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)

total horseshit.

interracial marriage, and all the court cases on it, involve opposite sex couples. Its not the same as SSM
.

LOL- I know when you start swearing you have realized you have no argument.

Your 'argument' such as it was- applies equally to mixed race marriage as it does to same gender marriage.

Your only argument so far is- 'no it doesn't- and once again- neither mixed race marriage no same gender marriage have anything to do with- nor will they be precedent for marriage between siblings or polygamy.

for one final time. If SSM is sanctioned by the SC. What legal arguments will you bring to deny sibling marriage, parent/child marriage, and multiple person marriage?
.

The same legal arguments I would have used after mixed race marriages bans were outlawed by the Supreme Court.

Mixed race marriage
same gender marriage
sibling marriage- parent/child marriage
multiple person marriage

All legally separate issues- all made illegal in different portions of the law.

And if you can't think of a reason to ban parent/child marriage- that has nothing to do with same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

Duh, two people vs multiple people.

Then you have yout answer regarding the precedent not set by either same gender marriage or mixed raced marriage.

No it just validates the point that pop and I have been making. SSM will lead to SSSM. It will happen, count on it.

Yeah- as if you and pop have been making any 'point'- you have just been making spurious claims.

Just like opposite sex marriage(OSM) has lead to opposite sex sibling marriage.

You bigots are all the same- fear mongers.

You're really quite simple aren't you?

Opposite sex sexual incest can cause defective children. The state finds that icky.

I have to keep my arguments simple and type slow for people like you.

So you think that opposite sex incest would be okay if both siblings were sterile?