Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the goal posts are moved yet again.The argument was...What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?
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.
Now POPs wants the compelling interest in blocking "heterosexual" male "siblings" from marrying just to get tax breaks. ROFL Your strawman is full of shit POP why don't you send me a list of people who got married just for tax breaks. I'll wait.
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.
The dividers, of course, and most of the rest of the world that we are too busy to fuck with because we are fighting amongst ourselves. A divided US is good, for everyone but the US.Who benefits from a divided USA?
Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to compel obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
wrong, we want the people to decide these kinds of things. we want the people to be
Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?No. This country is not about harming people by the will of the majority.Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to compel obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
wrong, we want the people to decide these kinds of things. we want the people to be able to vote their beliefs in each state of via a constitutional amendment.
Since the constitution is silent on gay marriage, it is not right that 9 old farts in black robes decide something that affects 300 million people.
Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?
minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote. No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage. If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.
Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?
blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to compel obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
wrong, we want the people to decide these kinds of things. we want the people to beIncorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?No. This country is not about harming people by the will of the majority.wrong, we want the people to decide these kinds of things. we want the people to be able to vote their beliefs in each state of via a constitutional amendment.
Since the constitution is silent on gay marriage, it is not right that 9 old farts in black robes decide something that affects 300 million people.
Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?
minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote. No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage. If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.
Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?
blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability
Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways.
It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground.
In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else.
I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word.
Amazing really
wrong, we want the people to decide these kinds of things. we want the people to beIncorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?No. This country is not about harming people by the will of the majority.
minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote. No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage. If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.
Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?
blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability
Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways.
It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground.
In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else.
I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word.
Amazing really
Civil unions would be fine if they applied to all couples. You're advocating for 2nd class citizenship status for gays only. No thanks.
The dividers, of course, and most of the rest of the world that we are too busy to fuck with because we are fighting amongst ourselves. A divided US is good, for everyone but the US.Who benefits from a divided USA?
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?
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.e.
Please provide a link to the same sex sibling marriage case that the SCOTUS is reviewing. Or are you a liar?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
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.
No. This country is not about harming people by the will of the majority.Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to compel obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.
wrong, we want the people to decide these kinds of things. we want the people to be able to vote their beliefs in each state of via a constitutional amendment.
Since the constitution is silent on gay marriage, it is not right that 9 old farts in black robes decide something that affects 300 million people.
Let the people decide. I will accept the will of the people, will you?
minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote. No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage. If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.
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?
Wow- someone discovered the caps key.
Same gender marriage changes nothing- as I pointed out- a sterile opposite gender brother and sister have exactly the same reproductive capabilties as a same gender sibling couple.
If you cannot figure out any reason to deny marriage to sterile opposite sex siblings, then your problem is that you can't come up with an argument against sibling marriage- when reproduction is not an issue.
Please provide a link to the same sex sibling marriage case that the SCOTUS is reviewing. Or are you a liar?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
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.
The two are completely unrelated.
But I look forward to seeing you have your day in court arguing that you have the right to marry your sibling.
I provided the compelling governmental interests, you just choose to ignore them or move the goal posts.And the goal posts are moved yet again.The argument was...What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?
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.
Now POPs wants the compelling interest in blocking "heterosexual" male "siblings" from marrying just to get tax breaks. ROFL Your strawman is full of shit POP why don't you send me a list of people who got married just for tax breaks. I'll wait.
Guess you can't come up with a compelling governmental interest in blocking same sex sibling couples from the benefits of marriage ( you did realize the the genders come in different sexualities, Right? Seems to me you should be aware that same sex simply means couples of the same gender.
If that's changing the goalpost, then sad for you.
Oh, unless you can come up with the compelling governmental interest, your question is moot.
I provided the compelling governmental interests, you just choose to ignore them or move the goal posts.And the goal posts are moved yet again.The argument was...What argument? That it isn't anyones business what people do in the bedroom but keep harping about it?
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.
Now POPs wants the compelling interest in blocking "heterosexual" male "siblings" from marrying just to get tax breaks. ROFL Your strawman is full of shit POP why don't you send me a list of people who got married just for tax breaks. I'll wait.
Guess you can't come up with a compelling governmental interest in blocking same sex sibling couples from the benefits of marriage ( you did realize the the genders come in different sexualities, Right? Seems to me you should be aware that same sex simply means couples of the same gender.
If that's changing the goalpost, then sad for you.
Oh, unless you can come up with the compelling governmental interest, your question is moot.
Correct. Doing so, however, did make it so.I provided the compelling governmental interests, you just choose to ignore them or move the goal posts.And the goal posts are moved yet again.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.
Now POPs wants the compelling interest in blocking "heterosexual" male "siblings" from marrying just to get tax breaks. ROFL Your strawman is full of shit POP why don't you send me a list of people who got married just for tax breaks. I'll wait.
Guess you can't come up with a compelling governmental interest in blocking same sex sibling couples from the benefits of marriage ( you did realize the the genders come in different sexualities, Right? Seems to me you should be aware that same sex simply means couples of the same gender.
If that's changing the goalpost, then sad for you.
Oh, unless you can come up with the compelling governmental interest, your question is moot.
Saying so don't make it so
Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?minority rights were, and are, established by majority vote. No one is harmed if the people of each state decide whether to sanction gay marriage. If you are gay and want to marry someone of the same sex, move to a state that allows it.
Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?
blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability
Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways.
It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground.
In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else.
I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word.
Amazing really
Civil unions would be fine if they applied to all couples. You're advocating for 2nd class citizenship status for gays only. No thanks.
I'm honestly curious how a piece of paper with no rights, only obligations makes YOU second class.
If a opposite sex couple wanted to be both married AND civilly United, the cost would be more and the benefits ONLY EQUAL.
For that matter why do we allow Married people more rights than Singles? My preference is to remove all marriage laws. I'm good with civil contracts between groups of people for the purpose of managing shared assets. But I don't see why we need or want government regulating marriage at all. Their job should be as an arbiter in the contracts, not as an arbiter of what relationships consenting adults are allowed to form.Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?
Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?
blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability
Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways.
It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground.
In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else.
I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word.
Amazing really
Civil unions would be fine if they applied to all couples. You're advocating for 2nd class citizenship status for gays only. No thanks.
I'm honestly curious how a piece of paper with no rights, only obligations makes YOU second class.
If a opposite sex couple wanted to be both married AND civilly United, the cost would be more and the benefits ONLY EQUAL.
Did the same water come out of black and white water fountains?
If YOU don't want gays to have civil MARRIAGE, change it for all couples, not just the gay ones.
Incorrect, discriminating against minorities is against the Constitution. How about if we decide that everyone your age is to be put in a home for the elderly for your own good, and that all of your assets are to be confiscated to pay for it? Why not, after-all your are in the minority? Right?
Why stop with harming gays by not letting them get married? Why not the irish too? Why not put the ban in for interracial marriages again? Hey let's bring back Jim Crow laws, they are only harming blacks and well those blacks are just a small minority that seem to go to jail alot. Let the states decide, right?
blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability
Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways.
It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground.
In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else.
I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word.
Amazing really
Civil unions would be fine if they applied to all couples. You're advocating for 2nd class citizenship status for gays only. No thanks.
I'm honestly curious how a piece of paper with no rights, only obligations makes YOU second class.
If a opposite sex couple wanted to be both married AND civilly United, the cost would be more and the benefits ONLY EQUAL.
Did the same water come out of black and white water fountains?
If YOU don't want gays to have civil MARRIAGE, change it for all couples, not just the gay ones.
For that matter why do we allow Married people more rights than Singles? My preference is to remove all marriage laws. I'm good with civil contracts between groups of people for the purpose of managing shared assets. But I don't see why we need or want government regulating marriage at all. Their job should be as an arbiter in the contracts, not as an arbiter of what relationships consenting adults are allowed to form.blind people are a minority too. is it discrimination to not allow them to drive cars?
and mixing race into this only defeats your arguments, race and homosexuality are not analogous.
It is a very good point, no matter how RK deflects. It's about ability
Since the blind man does not have the physical ability, we exclude him from obtaining a drivers license, but allow him to travel by bus, train, taxi or a myriad of ways.
It's interesting though fish, I started a thread in current events about finding a middle ground.
In that thread I offered the idea that we gut marriage into an empty shell with no legal or financial benefits attached, only the expense of the license, nothing else.
I then offered a civil union option for all with all the benefits of marriage and all I've gotten so far is that it appears the left is hung up on the word.
Amazing really
Civil unions would be fine if they applied to all couples. You're advocating for 2nd class citizenship status for gays only. No thanks.
I'm honestly curious how a piece of paper with no rights, only obligations makes YOU second class.
If a opposite sex couple wanted to be both married AND civilly United, the cost would be more and the benefits ONLY EQUAL.
Did the same water come out of black and white water fountains?
If YOU don't want gays to have civil MARRIAGE, change it for all couples, not just the gay ones.
That said, since that's not gonna happen we just tackle the constitutionality of a state singling out gays to not have the right to marriage. Once we have gays then off to plural marriages since that is a similar problem in my view.
