Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[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..

I am pretty confident that will turn out not to be true......

 

[Redfish]

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.

Ok, real slow. If a same sex sibling couple asks for marriage equality why will you deny it to them? Why would you discriminate against them and not a same sex unrelated couple? neither can have kids so the incest argument fails, what will you tell them?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Of course I do. You do realize why it's before the USSC right? You think the SC is weighing on legality of same sex marriage? heh.. no it's not. What they are weighing in on is the constitutionality of states banning SSM. There is no federal law banning same sex marriage.

And banned means?

And "ALL" MEANS?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

It won't be against the majority of Americans, not even close, and, even if it was, who gives a fuck? We are not a democracy, for the 108th time.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Ok, real slow. If a same sex sibling couple asks for marriage equality why will you deny it to them? Why would you discriminate against them and not a same sex unrelated couple? neither can have kids so the incest argument fails, what will you tell them?

I would say exactly what I would say today- and what I would have said after the Loving decision and what I would have said before the Loving decision.

The argument remains the same- regardless of whether or not mixed race marriages are banned or legal, or whether same gender marriages are banned or illegal.

So I ask you- do you think that any sibling couple that is unable to reproduce should be able to marry?

 

[Pop23]

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?

Nice deflection, how did I know that would happen?

You contend that same sex sibling marriage won't happen because after millenia of only opposite sex marriage, opposite sex sibling marriage has never happened:

Opposite sex sibling marriage has been banned because marriage was ONLY BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES THEREFOR INCEST WITHIN MARRIAGE COULD ONLY BE MALE/FEMALE and THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST TO DENY THE BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE TO THEM..

SSM changes this. Two heterosexual brothers, simply wanting to marry for the financial benefits that marriage brings are equally likely to CREATE A DEFECTIVE CHILD AS ANY SAME SEX COUPLE WOULD.

What is the STATES COMPELLING INTEREST to deny marriage benefits to a HETEROSEXUAL SAME SEX COUPLE OF SIBLINGS?

It's a paradox, ain't it?

 

[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.

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.

The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?

 

[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.

The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?

Arguing tradition is such a yesterday thing to do.

What is the compelling state interest in allowing a same sex sibling couple the benefit of starting a new familial unit?

Answer? None I can think of, except tradition of course.

 

[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.

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.

The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?

Arguing tradition is such a yesterday thing to do.

What is the compelling state interest in allowing a same sex sibling couple the benefit of starting a new familial unit?

Answer? None I can think of, except tradition of course.

It has already been pointed out to you that Constitutionally you cannot grant civil marriage only to same sex siblings. It has been pointed out to you that gay couples seek the legal protections of a family, granted by a civil marriage license and that those protections already exist within familial relationships like siblings.

If you think you still have valid legal grounds for a challenge, go for it, but you're spamming because you're a bigot. We all know it, you should just own it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

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

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

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

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

You did provide answers to a question not asked.

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

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

1) Harm, harm to the infants that are possible outcomes of such bindings is the reason to block said marriages. (*** this is the one that you think is empty because there is no possibility of having a child between two same sex partners. However your argument is without merit, because there is no REQUIREMENT for marriages to produce children. Marriages do not have to have a productive PURPOSE. Productive purposes may be a benefit of marriage. Productive purposes may be some reason used to argue for tax breaks. But that does not mean the only reason government allows you to get married is because you will produce children. This argument is LUDICROUS on face. It's a ridiculous argument proffered by infantile people.)

2) Harm to a child who gets married to a family member through parent and / or sibling influence. Children should be allowed the opportunity to find a marriage outside the family. The opportunity to raise children if they so desire. Parents and / or siblings can have a powerful influence on children. A Father telling his little girl that she will be his wife when she is of age and home tutoring her...? That's sick. There is a bond between family members that should not be exploited for sex. That you do not UNDERSTAND THIS makes you sound like a really really sick person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why now? It may be too late.

Pop23

"same sex siblings have been my concern from the start"

Really?

How many do you think there are?

Maybe a tenth of one percent?

Why would that concern you?

 

[Pop23]

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.

The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?

Arguing tradition is such a yesterday thing to do.

What is the compelling state interest in allowing a same sex sibling couple the benefit of starting a new familial unit?

Answer? None I can think of, except tradition of course.

It has already been pointed out to you that Constitutionally you cannot grant civil marriage only to same sex siblings. It has been pointed out to you that gay couples seek the legal protections of a family, granted by a civil marriage license and that those protections already exist within familial relationships like siblings.

If you think you still have valid legal grounds for a challenge, go for it, but you're spamming because you're a bigot. We all know it, you should just own it.

Can't until the ruling of the court. Then there is no compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage.

I love the traditional familial status argument. Like the traditional family = Husband and Wife at a minimum, the upcoming ruling blows that sucker OUT OF THE WATER!

Gonna be fun

 

[Lilah]

Not to most people. The fags and the progessives want it real bad though because changing society is what rocks their world and gives them a reason for living.

Ellen DeGeneres and Portia di Rossi, a gay couple, are married. How does their love for one another and their marital union affect you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

Again, marriage is not about children or the ability of either party to have them. Never has been.

ROLF! Aside from ignoring 10,000 years of human history, that pretty much shoots down any argument against incestuous marriages.

Nope.

How many times does the proof have to be posted?

Marriage has changed many times and will continue to change.

Once would be nice. I have yet to see anyone "prove" - or even specifically, categorically state - that marriage has ever been anything except male/female. Even in the rare exceptions that have had polygamous marriage, the configuration has still been male/female.

 

[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, if we could discuss that, then we could still down, but regardless, same sex siblings is an incestuous relationship, only when sex is involved (in the classical sense).

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

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

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

Why now? It may be too late.

Pop23

"same sex siblings have been my concern from the start"

Really?

How many do you think there are?

Maybe a tenth of one percent?

Why would that concern you?

Or millions once the financial benefit to those entering them come to light!

Marriage could become simply a lucrative financial tool!

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?

Arguing tradition is such a yesterday thing to do.

What is the compelling state interest in allowing a same sex sibling couple the benefit of starting a new familial unit?

Answer? None I can think of, except tradition of course.

It has already been pointed out to you that Constitutionally you cannot grant civil marriage only to same sex siblings. It has been pointed out to you that gay couples seek the legal protections of a family, granted by a civil marriage license and that those protections already exist within familial relationships like siblings.

If you think you still have valid legal grounds for a challenge, go for it, but you're spamming because you're a bigot. We all know it, you should just own it.

Can't until the ruling of the court. Then there is no compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage.

I love the traditional familial status argument. Like the traditional family = Husband and Wife at a minimum, the upcoming ruling blows that sucker OUT OF THE WATER!

Gonna be fun

Please provide a link to the same sex sibling marriage case that the SCOTUS is reviewing. Or are you a liar?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

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.

How about women who want to marry their dogs, horses and trees? thats something Hillary can run on.

 

[Gracie]

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


No. Folks need to keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves and the public needs to stop trying to see what is going on in the bedroom. People are starving right here in the usa. They are homeless. Our vets are dying from lack of medical care. Weather is a major issure right now. Race relations are at an all time low.

Enough already with the LGBT's. Live and let live.

 

[HappyJoy]

No one here has shown why the state does not have a compelling interest to keep incestuous marriage illegal. No paradox exists.

Until that happens, all the talks is just nonsense.

According to PMH and other members of the GAYstapo, "Marriage has nothing to do with procreation or sex." That's one of the main arguments they use to justify so-called "gay marriage."

Again, marriage is not about children or the ability of either party to have them. Never has been.

ROLF! Aside from ignoring 10,000 years of human history, that pretty much shoots down any argument against incestuous marriages.

Nope.

How many times does the proof have to be posted?

Marriage has changed many times and will continue to change.

Once would be nice. I have yet to see anyone "prove" - or even specifically, categorically state - that marriage has ever been anything except male/female. Even in the rare exceptions that have had polygamous marriage, the configuration has still been male/female.

It's been legal for years now in some states, we are beyond this now.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

The legal relationship a already exists for siblings. This is not true for non familial couples. Your argument fails...again. What's next on your fallacy spam list?

Arguing tradition is such a yesterday thing to do.

What is the compelling state interest in allowing a same sex sibling couple the benefit of starting a new familial unit?

Answer? None I can think of, except tradition of course.

That's really very funny cuz that's all you've been doing.

And you consistently got it wrong.

Carry on.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?


No. Folks need to keep what they do in the bedroom to themselves and the public needs to stop trying to see what is going on in the bedroom. People are starving right here in the usa. They are homeless. Our vets are dying from lack of medical care. Weather is a major issure right now. Race relations are at an all time low.

Enough already with the LGBT's. Live and let live.

As I posted in a new thread, they really are less than 5% of our population.

WHat they do does not touch anyone else.

Live and let live is right.

Edited to add - What's important is that all Americans have the very same rights.