Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Pop23]

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.

Here's an interested bit of trivia for ya.

Absolutely nobody is forced to get married.

True story

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

No, same sex siblings will likely be next

Name one case coming up through the courts for same sex siblings. Or is your prediction that same sex siblings is a huge problem facing this country just something you are making up?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So, let's recap. You find that if SSM is codified in the courts, there is no compelling governmental interest in denying either SSSM or opposite sex sibling marriage?

Is the above correct

No- that is your argument.

Do try to keep up.

I am saying that same gender marriage is as unrelated to sibling marriage as is opposite gender marriage, legally, morally and othewise.

I am saying that if you can't think of a reason why sterile siblings should not marry each other, then you are on your way to your court case to argue you should be able to marry your sibling- irregardless of how the Supreme Court rules on same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

Are you actually saying you want a law that blocks blind people from getting married? WTF is wrong with you?

How is stopping gays from getting married in a loving relationship between two consenting adults, the same as blind drivers heading out onto highways and slaughtering people?

Being bigoted against blacks is the same as being bigoted against gays. The only reason you got away with it in both cases was that they were minority groups that jerks like you could pick on.

I said: is it discrimination to deny blind people the right to drive cars? .

Yes- it is legally justifiable discrimination.

Really a particularly idiotic comparison- since marriage is an actual right recognized by the Supreme Court, while driving is of course a privilage- not a right.

That being said- blind people are not denied the right to drive just because they are blind- people who cannot pass the vision test are not allowed to drive- just as people who cannot pass the driving test or the written test.

You still can't come up with an equivelent reason why homosexuals should not be able to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

No, same sex siblings will likely be next

You have every right to go to court right now arguing for your right to marry your sibling.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

You still stumped by my argument? I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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.

No, same sex siblings will likely be next

You have every right to go to court right now arguing for your right to marry your sibling.

Can't. The sis is married, the bro's are married and, well, bro's.

SSM hasnt Ben approved by the USSC yet and that's the first step in a multi part process.

FYI: I don't want to marry a sibling, just bringing forth the argument that you...........,










RUN FROM

 

[Pop23]

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

You still stumped by my argument? I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

Lol, you got it several times. AND FAILED IN YOURE ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT!

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

You still stumped by my argument? I'm still waiting for your rebuttal.

Lol, you got it several times. AND FAILED IN YOURE ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT!

Deflect from what? Your only response to my arguments was to point out that heterosexuals would be banned from gay marriage... IOW your argument is retarded.

 

[MaryL]

152 post on the wall, 152 post on the wall. Add one more, 153 posts on the wall. Gay marriage is up there with fish rights or Amoeba sex, Nothing. Artificial issue created by people with sexual problems.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

I actually believe in gay marriage.... I think gay men should be able to marry whoever they want as long is it is a woman and gay women should be able to marry whoever they want as long as it is a man.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

No, same sex siblings will likely be next

You have every right to go to court right now arguing for your right to marry your sibling.

Can't. The sis is married, the bro's are married and, well, bro's.

You can still go to court to argue for your right to marry your sister or your brothers- and you can argue for polyandry at the same time.

Completely unrelated to same gender marriage- but you can go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

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

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

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'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Gay marriage, or even traditional marriage for that matter, shouldn't even come up as a Presidential issue during a debate. Why would anyone choose the issue of "gay marriage" as their TOP priority for who they want to vote for anyways?

Unless they are afraid the next President will follow suit after Obama, and issue executive decisions that totally leaves Congress out of the loop of any established law that forces change through the power of one man and one branch of government, which is unconstitutional to begin with. There is a reason why the Constitution is set up with checks and balances through very defined separate branches of government, each with very specific roles and defined authority.

ShaklesOfBigGov

Yeah. No other president has ever ever ever signed Executive Orders. Obviously, Obama is operating outside the laws of the United States.

Yes, that's sarcasm. Educate yourself as to what is "constitutional" and what is not.

You might also want to look up how many EOs Obama has signed, compared to other presidents.

Or, alternatively, you could keep saying really stupid stuff like this this post of yours.

I'm sure you would have no problem stating the specific clause under the executive branch portion of the Constitution, where it states the president has the precise authority to set new legislation WITHOUT the need of the Legislative branch. Let's just see you back up your "knowledge" of the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Sorry bigots, but you don't get to play the "it's not natural" card and then when it is shown to be prevalent in nature, play the "some animals are cannibals" card.

Sorry, dipshit, but you don't get to conflate multiple posters and positions and then attribute the resulting mashup to everyone.

Furthermore, shitforbrains, the fact that you can't understand the concept of "it's not natural FOR HUMANS" does not in any way make me responsible for trying to formulate a position that complies with your cockeyed, half-assed viewpoint.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only the Communist Right wants to use Socialism to compel obedience to morals from the Age of Iron without any willful signatories.

Only leftists think "trendy morals" are actually a thing.

 

[Pop23]

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.

They are until the upcoming ruling, then maybe.....

No so much

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

Repeating is not an argument.

Could it be you're stumped?

Since your reply was unrelated to my post- might as well keep posting it.

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'm starting to think it's his parents that he wants to see married.

They died several years ago.

Interesting folks.

You should have met them. At their eldest, both could raise some hell and likely kick your ass.