Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Ravi]

Pops next argument...

This seemed an appropriate post to reply to with this sentiment:

Pops next argument is:

To wish you all a Hardy Welcome to the club.

In a few days, whether I like it or not, you become part of the "Marriage Club"

By you I obviously mean Same Sex couples.

It's like welcoming a stranger into the family, one you have no idea about, but your parents (the USSC in this case) assures you will be a good fit.

Take care of the one you love, take care of the children that you have been blessed with. Love each other long and hard. Fight FOR them with the same passion YOU fought for this and things will be great b

My acceptance of you into this community is far less important than the care you take of this community.

Earn this right everyday by making it stronger. It is something to be proud of. Do not take it for granted and it will treat you well.

And be assured........

I SEE YOU SCREWING THIS UP, AND I'M JUMPIN ALL YOUR ASSES LIKE A FREAKING BAD DREAM!

Bump Ravi

What has this to do with me?

 

[kaz]

Its still you citing you. And you're nobody

Welcome to message boards, Gomer.

Tell the truth, in real life, you have no actual friends, do you? You are one arrogant ass

There is the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. And you use it obsessively. Insisting that you speak for everything from Nature to Objective Morality, to Creation, to God, to the English Language, to constitutionality.

You constantly commit the appeal to your own bloated ego fallacy

When its just you citing you. For example, marriage doesn't even exist in nature. Yet you bizarrely insist that there's a 'natural law of marriage'. Which is a physical impossibility given the stark lack of marriage in nature

Sure it does. There are a lot of animals who mate for life. The more intelligent the animal, the more likely they are to do so. And humans have been in man,woman marriages for millennia. Even when they cheat, they know they are doing something wrong

 

[Redfish]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

 

[danielpalos]

Only as long as the right feels they are morally challenged.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

 

[Redfish]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state, ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory. got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent. They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory. with me so far?

Now, what legal argument will you bring forth to prohibit them from marrying?

Will you tell them that "its just not right" "that its incest" ? their rebuttal, "who says its not right"? "why do we have to live by YOUR definition of right and wrong"? We aren't going to have sex so its not incest.

Now, what will the court do? We all know the answer, you fools just refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the one who has to bring up the argument, redfish, not anyone else. If you can't, you fail.

 

[Syriusly]

The most important issue is that the United States has become anti-Christian and arrogant against proper respect of God. In fact, the Federal government presently expects much more respect for itself.

I somehow missed where the United States banned Christianity and started bulldozing churches.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You must have missed the news. Here in Utah, the feds and staties started closing churches, and the Magdalen has beenn turned into a FEMA installation for clergy and lay people who resist the New Order.

On the serious side, the US is no longer dominated culturally by the far right white Protestant socons, and they hate it terribly.

 

[Syriusly]

Its still you citing you. And you're nobody

Welcome to message boards, Gomer.

Tell the truth, in real life, you have no actual friends, do you? You are one arrogant ass

There is the 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. And you use it obsessively. Insisting that you speak for everything from Nature to Objective Morality, to Creation, to God, to the English Language, to constitutionality.

You constantly commit the appeal to your own bloated ego fallacy

When its just you citing you. For example, marriage doesn't even exist in nature. Yet you bizarrely insist that there's a 'natural law of marriage'. Which is a physical impossibility given the stark lack of marriage in nature

Sure it does. There are a lot of animals who mate for life. The more intelligent the animal, the more likely they are to do so. And humans have been in man,woman marriages for millennia. Even when they cheat, they know they are doing something wrong

Animals- other than humans don't marry.

Lots of animals do mate for life- but your claim "The more intelligent the animal, the more likely they are to do so" is false on many levels.

Humans are by most measures the most intelligent species- and if you look in the United States- a large minority of the United States clearly don't mate for life- just look at our divorce rate.

After that? Bonobos and Chimps are likely the next most intelligent- neither mate for life and are incredibly promiscuous. Gorillas? They form polygamous groups which last until the dominant Silverback can no longer defend his harem. Orangutang males only are with females for mating. After that arguably it would be dolphins and porpoises- again no mating for life.

Actually mating for life is rather rare in nature- off the top of my head I can think of cheetahs.....wolves.....some bird species.

But even when they do- its not marriage. Marriage is a human construct, designed to accomplish different goals at different times.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

Yes- I do know what legal precedent is- you clearly have no clue.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that Americans have a right to marriage- and at least three times the Supreme Court has overturned state marriage laws because they were unconstitutional- that is legal precedent regarding marriage and the authority of the Court to overturn State marriage law.

However- none of the cases are actually 'precedents' for other marriage cases.
Loving was cited in Zablocki- but the actual case of Zablocki was different from Loving- the issues were different- the essence though- that the State could not provide a compelling interest in denying marriage to a man because he was not paying child support- that was the same.

In the same way- Loving is not legal precedent for Obergefell- overturning mixed race marriage bans is not a legal precedent for overturning gay marriage bans.

And in the same way- Obergefell will not be a legal precedent allowing you to marry your sibling.

Either you can make a case against sibling marriage legally now- regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on SSM- or you cannot.

If you can- then it doesn't matter what the court says about SSM- because you have made a case against sibling marriage.
If you can't- then it doesn't matter- because you can't figure out a reason why siblings shouldn't get married.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state, ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory. got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent. They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory. with me so far?.

Since a same sex sibling couple would be treated under the law exactly the same as an opposite sex sibling couple- where is the denial of equal treatment?

Do you have any argument against sibling marriage?

If you do not- then that is the crux of your problem.

Nothing changes in regards to sibling marriage if SSM marriage is legal- other than same sex siblings will be treated like opposite sex siblings are treated now.

Which is why, even though SSM marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 11 years- sibling marriage is still illegal.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state, ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory. got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent. They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory. with me so far?

Now, what legal argument will you bring forth to prohibit them from marrying?

Will you tell them that "its just not right" "that its incest" ? their rebuttal, "who says its not right"? "why do we have to live by YOUR definition of right and wrong"? We aren't going to have sex so its not incest.

Now, what will the court do? We all know the answer, you fools just refuse to acknowledge it.

Starting with a strawman? The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state. They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.

Yes, the basis of that decision will likely be based on equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory.

No, incest is against the law. Any court in the land would throw you out. Just as heterosexual marriages has never been a basis for incest neither will gay marriages ever be a basis for incest. Gay and/or hetero marriages has nothing to do with the issue of incest.

That said, if singles, pluralists, and incest depraved people want to get together and sue the feds for discrimination in the form of tax benefits for hetero and gay marriages... yes they have a chance that the court will hear that case and perhaps even establish that tax benefits for married couples is discriminatory.

But your not gonna be able to use gay marriage as a basis for making incest legal. Not gonna happen.

Additionally, you are incorrect. Over turning inter-racial marriages is a basis for overturning gay marriages. Inter-racial marriage bans was based on bigotry against blacks. Gay bans is based on bigotry against gays. Incest bans is not based on bigotry. Incest bans are based on harm to the individuals involved and harm to the potential progeny.

 

[Seawytch]

Pops next argument...

This seemed an appropriate post to reply to with this sentiment:

Pops next argument is:

To wish you all a Hardy Welcome to the club.

In a few days, whether I like it or not, you become part of the "Marriage Club"

By you I obviously mean Same Sex couples.

It's like welcoming a stranger into the family, one you have no idea about, but your parents (the USSC in this case) assures you will be a good fit.

Take care of the one you love, take care of the children that you have been blessed with. Love each other long and hard. Fight FOR them with the same passion YOU fought for this and things will be great b

My acceptance of you into this community is far less important than the care you take of this community.

Earn this right everyday by making it stronger. It is something to be proud of. Do not take it for granted and it will treat you well.

And be assured........

I SEE YOU SCREWING THIS UP, AND I'M JUMPIN ALL YOUR ASSES LIKE A FREAKING BAD DREAM!

You're welcoming me to a "club " I've been a "member" of since 2008? You're a little late to the game, Pops.

 

[Ravi]

Pops next argument...

This seemed an appropriate post to reply to with this sentiment:

Pops next argument is:

To wish you all a Hardy Welcome to the club.

In a few days, whether I like it or not, you become part of the "Marriage Club"

By you I obviously mean Same Sex couples.

It's like welcoming a stranger into the family, one you have no idea about, but your parents (the USSC in this case) assures you will be a good fit.

Take care of the one you love, take care of the children that you have been blessed with. Love each other long and hard. Fight FOR them with the same passion YOU fought for this and things will be great b

My acceptance of you into this community is far less important than the care you take of this community.

Earn this right everyday by making it stronger. It is something to be proud of. Do not take it for granted and it will treat you well.

And be assured........

I SEE YOU SCREWING THIS UP, AND I'M JUMPIN ALL YOUR ASSES LIKE A FREAKING BAD DREAM!

You're welcoming me to a "club " I've been a "member" of since 2008? You're a little late to the game, Pops.

Not to mention a little confused. Though now that he has admitted he won't fight against gay marriage any more his logic dictates that he is now gay.

 

[Pop23]

Pops next argument...

This seemed an appropriate post to reply to with this sentiment:

Pops next argument is:

To wish you all a Hardy Welcome to the club.

In a few days, whether I like it or not, you become part of the "Marriage Club"

By you I obviously mean Same Sex couples.

It's like welcoming a stranger into the family, one you have no idea about, but your parents (the USSC in this case) assures you will be a good fit.

Take care of the one you love, take care of the children that you have been blessed with. Love each other long and hard. Fight FOR them with the same passion YOU fought for this and things will be great b

My acceptance of you into this community is far less important than the care you take of this community.

Earn this right everyday by making it stronger. It is something to be proud of. Do not take it for granted and it will treat you well.

And be assured........

I SEE YOU SCREWING THIS UP, AND I'M JUMPIN ALL YOUR ASSES LIKE A FREAKING BAD DREAM!

You're welcoming me to a "club " I've been a "member" of since 2008? You're a little late to the game, Pops.

Note, I said not you specifically, same sex couples.

But you keep thinking I meant only you

You self flatterer you

 

[Pop23]

Pops next argument...

This seemed an appropriate post to reply to with this sentiment:

Pops next argument is:

To wish you all a Hardy Welcome to the club.

In a few days, whether I like it or not, you become part of the "Marriage Club"

By you I obviously mean Same Sex couples.

It's like welcoming a stranger into the family, one you have no idea about, but your parents (the USSC in this case) assures you will be a good fit.

Take care of the one you love, take care of the children that you have been blessed with. Love each other long and hard. Fight FOR them with the same passion YOU fought for this and things will be great b

My acceptance of you into this community is far less important than the care you take of this community.

Earn this right everyday by making it stronger. It is something to be proud of. Do not take it for granted and it will treat you well.

And be assured........

I SEE YOU SCREWING THIS UP, AND I'M JUMPIN ALL YOUR ASSES LIKE A FREAKING BAD DREAM!

You're welcoming me to a "club " I've been a "member" of since 2008? You're a little late to the game, Pops.

Not to mention a little confused. Though now that he has admitted he won't fight against gay marriage any more his logic dictates that he is now gay.

I've confessed to being a Lesbian years ago

Where you been?

 

[Redfish]

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?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state, ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory. got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent. They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory. with me so far?

Now, what legal argument will you bring forth to prohibit them from marrying?

Will you tell them that "its just not right" "that its incest" ? their rebuttal, "who says its not right"? "why do we have to live by YOUR definition of right and wrong"? We aren't going to have sex so its not incest.

Now, what will the court do? We all know the answer, you fools just refuse to acknowledge it.

Starting with a strawman? The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state. They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.

Yes, the basis of that decision will likely be based on equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory.

No, incest is against the law. Any court in the land would throw you out. Just as heterosexual marriages has never been a basis for incest neither will gay marriages ever be a basis for incest. Gay and/or hetero marriages has nothing to do with the issue of incest.

That said, if singles, pluralists, and incest depraved people want to get together and sue the feds for discrimination in the form of tax benefits for hetero and gay marriages... yes they have a chance that the court will hear that case and perhaps even establish that tax benefits for married couples is discriminatory.

But your not gonna be able to use gay marriage as a basis for making incest legal. Not gonna happen.

Additionally, you are incorrect. Over turning inter-racial marriages is a basis for overturning gay marriages. Inter-racial marriage bans was based on bigotry against blacks. Gay bans is based on bigotry against gays. Incest bans is not based on bigotry. Incest bans are based on harm to the individuals involved and harm to the potential progeny.

I have given you a logical realistic scenario that will play out in our court system if the SC rules as you want it to. It won't just be sibling marriage, it will be multiple person marriage of all kinds and they will use the exact same arguments that you are using today for SSM.

you can spin and deny and rationalize until the cows come home, but it will happen.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would you claim he would.

Sibling marriage is illegal.

Why would you make it legal?

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state, ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory. got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent. They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory. with me so far?

Now, what legal argument will you bring forth to prohibit them from marrying?

Will you tell them that "its just not right" "that its incest" ? their rebuttal, "who says its not right"? "why do we have to live by YOUR definition of right and wrong"? We aren't going to have sex so its not incest.

Now, what will the court do? We all know the answer, you fools just refuse to acknowledge it.

Starting with a strawman? The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state. They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.

Yes, the basis of that decision will likely be based on equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory.

No, incest is against the law. Any court in the land would throw you out. Just as heterosexual marriages has never been a basis for incest neither will gay marriages ever be a basis for incest. Gay and/or hetero marriages has nothing to do with the issue of incest.

That said, if singles, pluralists, and incest depraved people want to get together and sue the feds for discrimination in the form of tax benefits for hetero and gay marriages... yes they have a chance that the court will hear that case and perhaps even establish that tax benefits for married couples is discriminatory.

But your not gonna be able to use gay marriage as a basis for making incest legal. Not gonna happen.

Additionally, you are incorrect. Over turning inter-racial marriages is a basis for overturning gay marriages. Inter-racial marriage bans was based on bigotry against blacks. Gay bans is based on bigotry against gays. Incest bans is not based on bigotry. Incest bans are based on harm to the individuals involved and harm to the potential progeny.

I have given you a logical realistic scenario that will play out in our court system if the SC rules as you want it to. It won't just be sibling marriage, it will be multiple person marriage of all kinds and they will use the exact same arguments that you are using today for SSM.

you can spin and deny and rationalize until the cows come home, but it will happen.

You have provided an opinion of yours. We are pointing out it is neither logical or realistic.

Meanwhile I believe this is day 15 of you still arguing about gay marriage after telling us all you had more important things to discuss.

 

[Redfish]

Not me, but if SSM is made legal it will set a valid legal precedent for SSSM. Thats just the truth. Do you understand what the words "legal precedent" mean?

No. Clearly you don't know what a valid legal precedent is.

Ok, one more time.

Lets say the SC court rules that gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state, ok so far?

the basis of that ruling is equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory. got it?

Now, a same sex sibling couple who want to marry to reduce their tax burden appeal to a court using the gay marriage ruling as precedent. They say that they are being denied equal treatment under the law and that prohibiting their marriage is discriminatory. with me so far?

Now, what legal argument will you bring forth to prohibit them from marrying?

Will you tell them that "its just not right" "that its incest" ? their rebuttal, "who says its not right"? "why do we have to live by YOUR definition of right and wrong"? We aren't going to have sex so its not incest.

Now, what will the court do? We all know the answer, you fools just refuse to acknowledge it.

Starting with a strawman? The SC is not ruling on whether or not gay marriage must be sanctioned in every state. They are ruling on whether or not Gay marriage can be banned in any one of the States.

Yes, the basis of that decision will likely be based on equal treatment under the law and that state laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory.

No, incest is against the law. Any court in the land would throw you out. Just as heterosexual marriages has never been a basis for incest neither will gay marriages ever be a basis for incest. Gay and/or hetero marriages has nothing to do with the issue of incest.

That said, if singles, pluralists, and incest depraved people want to get together and sue the feds for discrimination in the form of tax benefits for hetero and gay marriages... yes they have a chance that the court will hear that case and perhaps even establish that tax benefits for married couples is discriminatory.

But your not gonna be able to use gay marriage as a basis for making incest legal. Not gonna happen.

Additionally, you are incorrect. Over turning inter-racial marriages is a basis for overturning gay marriages. Inter-racial marriage bans was based on bigotry against blacks. Gay bans is based on bigotry against gays. Incest bans is not based on bigotry. Incest bans are based on harm to the individuals involved and harm to the potential progeny.

I have given you a logical realistic scenario that will play out in our court system if the SC rules as you want it to. It won't just be sibling marriage, it will be multiple person marriage of all kinds and they will use the exact same arguments that you are using today for SSM.

you can spin and deny and rationalize until the cows come home, but it will happen.

You have provided an opinion of yours. We are pointing out it is neither logical or realistic.

Meanwhile I believe this is day 15 of you still arguing about gay marriage after telling us all you had more important things to discuss.

the point of this thread, which is appartently too complex for you, it to demostrate that gay marriage is in fact an issue that people care about and have very strong opinions on.

Maybe it is the most important issue facing us, because it will define where our society and culture go in the next few years.

What continues to amaze me is the inherent contradiction within the left. You want gay marriage because of fairness and equality, but you would deny other forms of "marriage" because you consider them abnormal or icky or dangerous to society. You are unable to comprehend that they are all symptoms of a dumbing down of society to a system where anything goes and nothing is considered wrong.

As I have said many times, liberalism is a mental disease, there is no other explanation for its inherent contradictions and falacies.