Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[RKMBrown]

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.

Where are people starving? Why don't they get a job?

Where are veterans dying from lack of medical care? We spend more on veteran medical care than any other segment of the population.

Where is weather an issue? Huh?

Race relations are where the democrats want them to be... in the gutter.

Enough with gays? Why are you against gays getting married? Live and let live...? The republicans won't let the gays get married, marriage is a part of life, can't live to the fullest if you are in a republican dominated state that hates gays. It's not the most important issue... people getting off their lazy asses and working for a living vs. living off the sweat of others is. But that does not excuse what the republicans are doing to the gays, nor what the democrats were doing to the gays just 7years ago.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Can't. Same sex sibling cases can't become eligible until after SSM is codified. It is, after all, the opening act to this multi act play.

This is gonna be interesting.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Can't. Same sex sibling cases can't become eligible until after SSM is codified. It is, after all, the opening act to this multi act play.

This is gonna be interesting.

You and I both will be long gone and buried before the incest laws are thrown out with the bath water.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Can't. Same sex sibling cases can't become eligible until after SSM is codified. It is, after all, the opening act to this multi act play.

This is gonna be interesting.

You and I both will be long gone and buried before the incest laws are thrown out with the bath water.

Oh, I hope you aren't ill.

You are relying on the traditional meaning of incest. In this world we are redefining ancient concepts.

Can you imagine a couple stripper or porn types:

Sister wifes do Dallas!

And there is no compelling state interest to deny them the benefits of marriage!

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Can't. Same sex sibling cases can't become eligible until after SSM is codified. It is, after all, the opening act to this multi act play.

This is gonna be interesting.

You and I both will be long gone and buried before the incest laws are thrown out with the bath water.

Oh, I hope you aren't ill.

You are relying on the traditional meaning of incest. In this world we are redefining ancient concepts.

Can you imagine a couple stripper or porn types:

Sister wifes do Dallas!

And there is no compelling state interest to deny them the benefits of marriage!

As I said, I provided you the compelling state interest. Why do you keep ignoring the argument?

 

[Gracie]

What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?

 

[RKMBrown]

What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?

The argument was...

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.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

We're not an oligarchy either.

 

[Pop23]

What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?

The argument was...

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.

I did, you need to rebutt, but you won't.

The basis of your argument just doesn't work unless you want to use ancient moral norms. You just want to redefine ideas that fit your need.

Tell me RK, how does two sibling heterosexual males marrying fit into your definition of incest.

1. They're heterosexual which means they do not have sex with males.

2. They only want the financial benefits that come with marrige, nothing physical involved. Lower income tax rates, married partner insurance benefits, multi car insurance discount and possibly, by combining income, better mortgage terms.

Explain to everyone the compelling interest the state would have in denying this couple the benefits that come with marriage.

 

[Pop23]

What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?

Why would same sex siblings have to do anything in the bedroom? They might be straight, most are.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

Why do they argue against inclusiveness?

They change marriage from male/female to same sex but want to exclude heterosexual same sex siblings from its benefits?

Marriage tradition can change when it serves their purpose, but siblings who won't ever be sexual with each other, cuz they're hetrosexual is still considered incest?

Bizarre

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

If we didn't you guys would still be pissing yourselves over mixed race marriages.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

Why do they argue against inclusiveness?

They change marriage from male/female to same sex but want to exclude heterosexual same sex siblings from its benefits?

Marriage tradition can change when it serves their purpose, but siblings who won't ever be sexual with each other, cuz they're hetrosexual is still considered incest?

Bizarre

You can do whatever you want with your brother.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

If we didn't you guys would still be pissing yourselves over mixed race marriages.

Who is "you guys?"

You're a Nazi asshole.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

If we didn't you guys would still be pissing yourselves over mixed race marriages.

Who is "you guys?"

You're a Nazi asshole.

I'm a Nazi asshole because you can't figure out who I am referring to? Overreact much?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

If we didn't you guys would still be pissing yourselves over mixed race marriages.

Who is "you guys?"

You're a Nazi asshole.

I'm a Nazi asshole because you can't figure out who I am referring to? Overre
act much?

You're a Nazi asshole because you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist.

I wanted you to make it explicit who you are accusing of being racist instead of just alluding to it like a cowardly Nazi asshole normally does.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

If we didn't you guys would still be pissing yourselves over mixed race marriages.

Who is "you guys?"

You're a Nazi asshole.

I'm a Nazi asshole because you can't figure out who I am referring to? Overre
act much?

You're a Nazi asshole because you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist.

That's not the definition of a Nazi. You're not very bright.

I wanted you to make it explicit who you are accusing of being racist instead of just alluding to it like a cowardly Nazi asshole normally does.

Hitler was famous for pointing out the racism in others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, the fish are going down on their own sex. The purpose may be that it helps those male fish to become more popular with the ladies, it's still a gay act. Technically it's sodomy.

It's just part of their heterosexual mating behavior. No male fish ever fertilized the "eggs" of another male fish.

Interestingly enough, the science says it is homosexual behavior.

Hmmm, no. Ideological cranks say that.

Actually the title of the fucking thing is:

Homosexual behaviour increases male attractiveness to females

Stop lying.

Ever go to a strip club? And two of the dancers are exceptionally close to each other? Skin on skin, lips on skin, tits on skin, ass to ass, Vejay to vejay...maybe even more going on? Yeah, that's a lesbian act being performed for the sake of it's heterosexual male clientele.

No, that's just an attempt to bilk the suckers of their cash.

Of course it is, that's why I used the word "clientele" rather than "mate" or "partner". Are you going to tell me that lesbian acts are not committed on and off stage at a strip club? Pshaw.

Some queer biologist calls fish behavior "homosexual" and you think we're all just supposed to fall down and believe it without question?

I don't think I much care if fish are gay or not . . . since I'm not a fish. That would make it . . . what's the word? Irrelevant.

There are animals, lots of them, who naturally engage in cannibalism, but I'm pretty sure no one advocates us practicing that as natural behavior ourselves. At least, I hope not.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Somehow every issue is closed once it goes the liberal way.

Funny how that works.

Why do they argue against inclusiveness?

They change marriage from male/female to same sex but want to exclude heterosexual same sex siblings from its benefits?

Marriage tradition can change when it serves their purpose, but siblings who won't ever be sexual with each other, cuz they're hetrosexual is still considered incest?

Bizarre

You can do whatever you want with your brother.

Thanks to the upcoming USSC decision I guess

That's progress?