Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Skylar]

Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. ...

ROFLMNAO!

Reader, recognize the perversion of reasoning which brought us: "National Socialism is not socialism."

... Same sex sibling marriage ...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman...

....and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman.

False.

Says you. See, Keyes....you just keep citing yourself as some sort of authority. And you're nobody. I'm citing the situation as it is. And you keep denying reality. Pretending that if you deny hard enough, that gays won't be getting married in 37 of 50 States.

Alas, reality is gloriously independent of your wants or desires. And same sex marriages are being performed hundreds, if not thousands of times a day.

And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's how irrelevant you are to this process.

You see, Nature defines Marriage through its design of the human species. Wherein Nature designed the human physiology with two distinct, but complimenting genders; with each respectively designed to join with the other.

Nope. We define marriage. As we invented it. Nature has nothing to say on the matter, as there is no marriage in nature.

Your version of the 'laws of nature' are just a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy, with you insisting your every subjective opinion must be objective natural law.

Nope. Subjective is not objective. You can't get around that.

In this we know the purpose of the genders, thus the purpose for the legal joining of two individuals, one male, one female, in legal terms, so as to provide the highest of probabilities that the offspring intrinsic to such, will be well rounded, sound and capable of repeating the process, thus assuring the viability of the species.

You're describing fucking. Not marriage. No matter how much you ignore this fact, they two still aren't the same thing. Fucking happens regardless of marriage. Nor does marriage require procreation or the ability to procreate.

0 of 50 States require a couple procreate or be able to procreate to marry. Your 'defining standard' simply doesn't exist. Not in our laws. Not in nature.

Its just you, citing you. And you're nobody.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, I am. I have an IQ that would give you a nose bleed if you could only fathom it.

Yes... the quantum verse is largely a mystery.

 

[Syriusly]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

And there is no COMPELLING state interest in denying gays or for that matter straight same sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Actually I've been chatting with a few others on this board and they can't find a compelling state interest in denying those rights to same sex siblings, rather straight or gay, or opposite sex siblings when one or the other can't procreate. Strange. Isn't it?

Nope, because as you have been shown up, your argument fails.

Funny, cuz my arguments are those used by same sex marriage proponents.

Nope- your arguments are those used by those who oppose same sex marriage- i.e.- same sex marriage opens the doors to brothers marrying brothers.

Here let me help you:
There is no compelling state interest in preventing homosexuals from marrying.

If you cannot find a compelling state interest in preventing a brother from marrying a sterile sister, then you lack an argument irrespective of 'gay marriage'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys, once again, you are no more an authority on these issues than is Howdy Doody. You have your say, and that is yhe extent of it.

and your authority comes from --------------------- clarabell or Mr green jeans?

See, you are back to personal opinion as authority. There is no way you or Clarabell Keys is going wiggle out of this.

both sides are expressing opinions, WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing with me. Opinions are like butts, we all got one. Keys' thinks is crap is authoritative is his his problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow- that is exactly the reason why I support equality for same gender couples.

great, thats what you support, are others allowed to disagree with that falacy?

Sure- you are allowed to support your fallacy- which is what i was responding to, with my own well formed opinion.

Right, there is a big difference of opinion on this within this forum and the american people.

While those on the left denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far left progressive bullshit, most on the right are willing to let the people decide issues like this one.

now, tell us which side is expressing a belief in freedom, democracy, and the constitution, and which side wants to live by minority dictate?

LOL.....

Really- is your partisan blindness so bad that you don't see the right denigrate and insult anyone who does not agree with their far right conservative bullshit?

The 'right' are not anymore willing to let the 'people' decide when they disagree with the people than the left.

The 'right' are just as quick to go to court to fight laws they disagree with(gun laws, campaign finance laws) as the 'left' are.
The 'right' are just as quick to ignore the 'will' of the people when they disagree with it(see the Right's reaction to State laws legalizing marijuana)

Both sides believe in Freedom, Democracy, and the Constitution- and both sides fight for what they believe is Freedom, Democracy and the Constitution.

Both sides claim to represent the people- and generally ignore the people when they disagree with them.

the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state) voted against gay marriage twice. why were those people not allowed to decide? why was the will of the people ignored?

Really after all these years you still haven't figured that out?

I refer you to the decision by Judge Walker, affirmed by the Federal Appeals Court, and left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court

I also refer you to Loving v. Virginia- another case where the 'will of the people' was ignored.

 

[Skylar]

Keys, once again, you are no more an authority on these issues than is Howdy Doody. You have your say, and that is yhe extent of it.

and your authority comes from --------------------- clarabell or Mr green jeans?

See, you are back to personal opinion as authority. There is no way you or Clarabell Keys is going wiggle out of this.

both sides are expressing opinions, WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing with me. Opinions are like butts, we all got one. Keys' thinks is crap is authoritative is his his problem.

Everyone's got one. And most are completely full of shit.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Says you.

False... As it is Nature which says it, through the design it set froth upon human physiology. That I recognize and report such, hardly provides that I am Nature, thus such is my design.

But, I should point out that were I Nature and, such were of my design, you'd have no more success sustaining the pretense that such doesn't exist, than you've had pretending that Nature does not exist. As Nature does exist, therefore the laws which govern such do exist and within the scope of that, is the standard of Marriage, which require that Marriage is: The Joining of One Man and One Woman. This as a result of the natural design of the human species; wherein it provides two distinct, but complimenting gender, wherein each respectively, joins with the other, forming one sustainable body, from two.

As with most things in nature, there is nothing complex about any of it.

It is merely sufficiently so to be well beyond your limited intellectual means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This I find funny......Homosexuals are forcing their sexual choices on culture demanding that all recognize it as normal or face GOVERNMENTAL consequences. Christians are telling some homosexuals they will not be part of a ceremony they see as a sin. ...... Which one sounds more fascist? The people vote in many states to say marriage is between a man and a woman....Homosexuals demand the GOVERNMENT over turn a legal vote to again normalize their sexual choices instead of just sucking it it and trying to get it passed at a latter date.....Again which is fascist?

Christians for years not only told homosexuals that they were 'evil'- they actively passed laws making it illegal to be homosexuals- imprisoning and chemically castrating those convicted of homosexuality- passed laws denying employment to homosexuals, passed laws denying marriage to homosexuals.

Where are the homosexuals trying to pass laws making it illegal to be a Christian- or illegal to worship Jesus? Where are the homosexuals trying to pass laws denying jobs to Christians?

And which is Fascists- what Christians have done for decades to homosexuals- or what homosexuals are not doing to Christians?

Homosexuals are sinners. That is a fact. Whether that bugs you is your issue not Christians. Unlike Muslims Christians don't kill homosexuals. They just don't support sin. Stop acting like a child and suck it up.

ROFL Who made you god?

Maybe you should read the word of God instead of sucking penis and you might learn something

Friend, it would serve no purpose for these creatures to read the word of God, as they do not possess the spirit which is essential to seeing truth.

There is no marriage in natural law, and you are not God's authority on earth.

Scamper along.

 

[Syriusly]

But it won't. And who cares about unisex bathrooms? Turn the lock if you are shy.

I would not want my little girl going into a restroom with a bunch of men standing at urinals, would you?

by the same token, I would not want my little boy going into a restroom watching a bunch of women replacing their tampons.

LOL......so many weird things about your posts. I can only assume you have never been a parent.

What do you think fathers do when their 3 year old girls need to use the bathroom? Do you think that the father's take their girls into the women's room- or that they take their girls into the men's room?

Little boys get taken into women's restrooms and little girls get taken into men's restrooms all the time. Somehow civilization survives.

And really- have you never been in a ladies restroom? They actually have stalls......

Why this obsession with bathrooms now, I don't know....but your thread about no longer talking about gay marriage is getting more and more bizarre.

first, go fuck yourself.

I am a parent to two fine upstanding, successful adults. But thats none of your business.

yes, when my kids were little we had to sometimes take them to the opposite sex restroom, but only when they were too small go go on their own.

as to why this thread got off track onto restrooms, ask your libtardian friends, they started that line of discussion, not me.

No- once again- it was you who brought up restrooms


Sorry thought it was obvious. Here ya go:

male separate from female but with equal rights... separate but equal...

gay marriage separate from heterosexual marriage but with equal rights... separate but equal...

Redfish:are you suggesting that men and women share public restrooms? Are you suggesting urinals for women in order to be equal? The more you post on this, the dumber you look.

I was using that as an analogy. sorry if it was over your head.

Yet- you blamed 'libs' for bringing restrooms into the thread- but it was you.

If you don't want to talk about restrooms in this thread- don't post about them- and then keep arguing about them.
If you don't want to talk about gay marriage anymore- then stop posting about gay marriage.

And stop blaming 'libs' for your own posts.

 

[Pop23]

And there is no COMPELLING state interest in denying gays or for that matter straight same sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Actually I've been chatting with a few others on this board and they can't find a compelling state interest in denying those rights to same sex siblings, rather straight or gay, or opposite sex siblings when one or the other can't procreate. Strange. Isn't it?

Nope, because as you have been shown up, your argument fails.

Funny, cuz my arguments are those used by same sex marriage proponents.

Ya know what that means, right?

Who's side are you on anyway?

No. Incest is not the same as gay marriage.

What's incest? Two people not having sex?

What are you, 106?

You don't know what incest is?

Here:

Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry. (Websters)

Here's the "legal" definition:
Laws vary by state, but generally, a person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately: His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood. In some states incest also includes copulation or cohabitation between first cousins, but the majority of jurisdictions permit marriage between such cousins. Incest is a crime in all states, even if consensual by both parties. However, it is often related to sexual abuse since usually the younger person is a victim of the predatory sexual activities of an older relative. Statutes generally do not require the perpetrator to be a certain number of years older than the victim. Victims of incest and sexual abuse are strongly encouraged to talk to an adult they trust to protect themselves and others from further abuse and take advantage of the many resources available to help them heal. (Incest Law Legal Definition

So, your OK with same sex heterosexual sibling marrying.

Got it

And I might add, if you want me to, I can dig up a definition of Marriage that banned same sex couples from marrying. So I guess, using your argument, we should leave marriage as it was????

I'm also a bit concerned with your obsession with other people's relationships.

 

[Pop23]

Funny, cuz my arguments are those used by same sex marriage proponents.

Ya know what that means, right?

Who's side are you on anyway?

No. Incest is not the same as gay marriage.

They are both perverse and sins against nature.

Who's this nature person?

You think you're clever. You are not .

Yes, I am. I have an IQ that would give you a nose bleed if you could only fathom it.

Who can't fathom a nose bleed?

 

[Syriusly]

So gay marriage...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.

Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm. reducing the tax burden is a valid reason to get married.
.

If that is your dream, you can of course pursue that through legislation or the courts- but it is totally unrelated to 'gay marriage', just as straight marriage is unrelated to opposite sex sibling marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

the PEOPLE of california (a very blue state) voted against gay marriage twice. why were those people not allowed to decide? why was the will of the people ignored?

Nope. As rights aren't up to a vote. And same sex marriage bans violated the 14th amendment's equal protectio clause. Read up on Hollingsworth v. Perry.

Rights trump state power.

Rights were, and are, established by votes, ya dumb shit.

Redfish always gets more pottymouthed as his bizarre claims are refuted so soundly.

 

[Syriusly]

So gay marriage...

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.

it may be, and our society will have to live with that decision and accept the consequences of it.

Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm. reducing the tax burden is a valid reason to get married.

you libs have made your case that marriage does not have to involve sex, so there ya go.

Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. As sibling marriage is illegal regardless of the court's ruling, being pristinely irrelevant to it.

If your argument against same sex marriage had merit you wouldn't have had to abandon discussion of same sex marriage and cling to your red herring.

Remember that.

why would you make same sex sibling marriage illegal?

Why would you claim he would.

Sibling marriage is illegal.

Why would you make it legal?

 

[Pop23]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

And there is no COMPELLING state interest in denying gays or for that matter straight same sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Actually I've been chatting with a few others on this board and they can't find a compelling state interest in denying those rights to same sex siblings, rather straight or gay, or opposite sex siblings when one or the other can't procreate. Strange. Isn't it?

Nope, because as you have been shown up, your argument fails.

Funny, cuz my arguments are those used by same sex marriage proponents.

Nope- your arguments are those used by those who oppose same sex marriage- i.e.- same sex marriage opens the doors to brothers marrying brothers.

Here let me help you:
There is no compelling state interest in preventing homosexuals from marrying.

If you cannot find a compelling state interest in preventing a brother from marrying a sterile sister, then you lack an argument irrespective of 'gay marriage'.

Works for both, but only after SSM is codified.

Civil rights are civil rights, Right?

 

[Pop23]

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.

it may be, and our society will have to live with that decision and accept the consequences of it.

Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm. reducing the tax burden is a valid reason to get married.

you libs have made your case that marriage does not have to involve sex, so there ya go.

Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. As sibling marriage is illegal regardless of the court's ruling, being pristinely irrelevant to it.

If your argument against same sex marriage had merit you wouldn't have had to abandon discussion of same sex marriage and cling to your red herring.

Remember that.

why would you make same sex sibling marriage illegal?

Why would you claim he would.

Sibling marriage is illegal.

Why would you make it legal?

What compelling state interest is there in denying a same sex heterosexual couple the rights and benefits of marriage.

Watch her run in 3...,.2......1.........

 

[JakeStarkey]

And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.

it may be, and our society will have to live with that decision and accept the consequences of it.

Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm. reducing the tax burden is a valid reason to get married.

you libs have made your case that marriage does not have to involve sex, so there ya go.

Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. As sibling marriage is illegal regardless of the court's ruling, being pristinely irrelevant to it.

If your argument against same sex marriage had merit you wouldn't have had to abandon discussion of same sex marriage and cling to your red herring.

Remember that.

why would you make same sex sibling marriage illegal?

Why would you claim he would.

Sibling marriage is illegal.

Why would you make it legal?

What compelling state interest is there in denying a same sex heterosexual couple the rights and benefits of marriage.

Watch her run in 3...,.2......1.........

That is for you to show. Get to it.

 

[Skylar]

Says you.

False... As it is Nature which says it, through the design it set froth upon human physiology. That I recognize and report such, hardly provides that I am Nature, thus such is my design.

Nope. That's you citing yourself, pretending to be nature. Nature doesn't have marriage. Making a 'natural law of marriage' is an impossibility. It would be like the 'natural law of sheet folding'. Nature doesn't have bed sheets either. Nature has fucking. You say that marriage must adhere to the rules of procreation.

Again, nope. There's no such mandate. You've imagined it. Marriage doesn't have to be about procreation as demonstrated by all the infertile couples getting married. No state in the union requires a couple to be able to procreate to get married.

Not one.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

But, I should point out that were I Nature and, such were of my design, you'd have no more success sustaining the pretense that such doesn't exist, than you've had pretending that Nature does not exist.

Rejecting you isn't rejecting 'nature'. As you're not nature. You're just just schmo on the internet that keeps insisting that his subjective personal opinion is objective 'natural law'.

Nope. That's just a generic Appeal to Authority fallacy. In reality its just you citing you.

And you're nobody.

 

[Seawytch]

And in 37 states, it includes one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.

Denying reality doesn't change reality, Keyes. And same sex marriage is a reality.

it may be, and our society will have to live with that decision and accept the consequences of it.

Same sex sibling marriage will also become the norm. reducing the tax burden is a valid reason to get married.

you libs have made your case that marriage does not have to involve sex, so there ya go.

Same sex sibling marriage has nothing to do with with same sex marriage. As sibling marriage is illegal regardless of the court's ruling, being pristinely irrelevant to it.

If your argument against same sex marriage had merit you wouldn't have had to abandon discussion of same sex marriage and cling to your red herring.

Remember that.

why would you make same sex sibling marriage illegal?

Why would you claim he would.

Sibling marriage is illegal.

Why would you make it legal?

What compelling state interest is there in denying a same sex heterosexual couple the rights and benefits of marriage.

Watch her run in 3...,.2......1.........

If they are non familial, they can civilly marry. If they are related by blood, they already have the familial protections gays seek through civil marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Redfish is melting.

SCOTUS, as Redfish well knows, says marriage is a constitutional right. What Redfish believes is for Redfish only.

And there is no COMPELLING state interest in denying gays or for that matter straight same sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Actually I've been chatting with a few others on this board and they can't find a compelling state interest in denying those rights to same sex siblings, rather straight or gay, or opposite sex siblings when one or the other can't procreate. Strange. Isn't it?

Nope, because as you have been shown up, your argument fails.

Funny, cuz my arguments are those used by same sex marriage proponents.

Nope- your arguments are those used by those who oppose same sex marriage- i.e.- same sex marriage opens the doors to brothers marrying brothers.

Here let me help you:
There is no compelling state interest in preventing homosexuals from marrying.

If you cannot find a compelling state interest in preventing a brother from marrying a sterile sister, then you lack an argument irrespective of 'gay marriage'.

Works for both, but only after SSM is codified.

Civil rights are civil rights, Right?

Civil Rights are civil rights- and States can only deny rights with a compelling cause.

If you do not know of any compelling state interest in preventing siblings from marrying, then you have no argument, regardless of Same Sex marriage.

Look to Massachusetts- SSM has been legal for 11 years- no sibling marriage there.