It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Unless you have a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their right to marry, you are irrelevant.

Funny, think just how irrelevant gays are in the whole scheme of things.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.
.

Like he said- file your case if you believe you now have the right to marry your sibling.

I oppose sibling marriage.

You make no sense.

And He, is a she.

But you say you could marry your sibling now- and as you said- marriage is not about sex- so go ahead and file your case as a test case- to test the law.

No one else has- not a single person in Massachusetts in 12 years- go stand up for your right to marry your sibling.

I could? I'm already married and I oppose the thought.

R U Retarted?

 

[Montrovant]

Wait, did you just claim that husbands and wives never have anal sex?

Unless you are claiming that heterosexual sex is matrimony, your comparison is a failure.

If you want to tell someone that things are different than other things, maybe you should be replying to Pops, who wanted to compare marriage to an LLC. Or take a look in the mirror and realize that marriage and sex are different things.

The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual. The genders are the same so there is nothing to unify. Marriage is the union of male and female genders, it has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. The only "union" of two same-sex persons is if they unify in engagement of sexual behavior.

I don't need to tell anyone that things are different than other things, most people know this intuitively when the reach about 2 months old. You're just a little slow.

Are you saying that your various statements regarding civil unions, if talking about same gender couples, were talking about sex? Or does the definition of union change when it is used in civil unions?

No, it's all about context, that thing you have a problem with. In a "civil union" two civil entities are united. It has nothing to do with gender, marriage or sex.

Ah, so I should know what your personal definitions of words are based on context?

When you say the word union can only mean something sexual when it is about two people of the same gender, I think it's understandable I would question your previous uses of the word. Why would you expect me to know how you are defining the word in any particular situation when you apparently use your own, different from the dictionary or common use definition?

I didn't use a different definition. The word has the same definition but can vary in meaning depending on context.

Well if you can show me a dictionary definition of union in which the definition is different when it is used to describe same sex or opposite sex couples, I'd appreciate it. In fact, if you can show that definition from anywhere other than yourself, I'd appreciate it. I have never heard the word defined that way before and it certainly isn't defined like that in any dictionary definition I've ever seen.

 

[Boss]

The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual. The genders are the same so there is nothing to unify. Marriage is the union of male and female genders, it has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. The only "union" of two same-sex persons is if they unify in engagement of sexual behavior.

I don't need to tell anyone that things are different than other things, most people know this intuitively when the reach about 2 months old. You're just a little slow.

Are you saying that your various statements regarding civil unions, if talking about same gender couples, were talking about sex? Or does the definition of union change when it is used in civil unions?

No, it's all about context, that thing you have a problem with. In a "civil union" two civil entities are united. It has nothing to do with gender, marriage or sex.

Ah, so I should know what your personal definitions of words are based on context?

When you say the word union can only mean something sexual when it is about two people of the same gender, I think it's understandable I would question your previous uses of the word. Why would you expect me to know how you are defining the word in any particular situation when you apparently use your own, different from the dictionary or common use definition?

I didn't use a different definition. The word has the same definition but can vary in meaning depending on context.

Well if you can show me a dictionary definition of union in which the definition is different when it is used to describe same sex or opposite sex couples, I'd appreciate it. In fact, if you can show that definition from anywhere other than yourself, I'd appreciate it. I have never heard the word defined that way before and it certainly isn't defined like that in any dictionary definition I've ever seen.

I didn't say the definition was different. I said the definition is the same. Are you having trouble reading today?

 

[Boss]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

 

[Montrovant]

Are you saying that your various statements regarding civil unions, if talking about same gender couples, were talking about sex? Or does the definition of union change when it is used in civil unions?

No, it's all about context, that thing you have a problem with. In a "civil union" two civil entities are united. It has nothing to do with gender, marriage or sex.

Ah, so I should know what your personal definitions of words are based on context?

When you say the word union can only mean something sexual when it is about two people of the same gender, I think it's understandable I would question your previous uses of the word. Why would you expect me to know how you are defining the word in any particular situation when you apparently use your own, different from the dictionary or common use definition?

I didn't use a different definition. The word has the same definition but can vary in meaning depending on context.

Well if you can show me a dictionary definition of union in which the definition is different when it is used to describe same sex or opposite sex couples, I'd appreciate it. In fact, if you can show that definition from anywhere other than yourself, I'd appreciate it. I have never heard the word defined that way before and it certainly isn't defined like that in any dictionary definition I've ever seen.

I didn't say the definition was different. I said the definition is the same. Are you having trouble reading today?

You said this :

The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual.

According to that quote, the word union has a different definition when used to describe an opposite gender couple than when used to describe a same gender couple. I have never seen or heard union defined to mean different things depending on the gender of the subjects. I am asking if you can show anywhere other than your own words where the word changes definition in that way.

If the definition of union is the same with regards to same sex couples and opposite sex couples than your quote above makes no sense. If it is not the same I would like to see where you get the idea the definition changes depending on the gender of the participants in the union.

Perhaps you are having trouble remembering your own words again.

 

[Montrovant]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

You are still creating your own definition for union. Show me an example of the word being defined as only having to do with sex when same sex couples are the subjects and not having to do with sex when opposite sex couples are the subjects and I'll be surprised, but will accept it and move on. I am confident that the only place you can find the word defined in such a way is your own mind (or possibly the opinions of some individual like-minded people).

You can talk about context all you want, but the only difference between the two examples was the gender of the participants. There was no contextual reason that union would not have to do with sex for opposite sex couples but can only be about sex for same sex couples.

 

[Pop23]

Also curious is, since many states allow first cousins to marry if they are either past the age of fertility, or if they can prove infertility.....

Does this not grant greater access to this Constitutionally protected civil right to same sex couples?

I don't know of another right that the majority of participants have to prove qualification over the minority.

Another paradox

 

[Montrovant]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first? Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.

 

[Pop23]

With all the far more important stuff going on in the world, who gives a rat's ass about sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals)?

I know, Right?

 

[Montrovant]

Also curious is, since many states allow first cousins to marry if they are either past the age of fertility, or if they can prove infertility.....

Does this not grant greater access to this Constitutionally protected civil right to same sex couples?

I don't know of another right that the majority of participants have to prove qualification over the minority.

Another paradox

Same gender couples prove qualifications based on their gender.

 

[Seawytch]

LOL- you are like a greased pig- you slip away from honesty and facts.

I stated a fact.

"Rain is wet". I also stated an irrelevant fact. Whoooppieee!

Unless you have a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their right to marry, you are irrelevant.

Funny, think just how irrelevant gays are in the whole scheme of things.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry.

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

 

[Pop23]

Also curious is, since many states allow first cousins to marry if they are either past the age of fertility, or if they can prove infertility.....

Does this not grant greater access to this Constitutionally protected civil right to same sex couples?

I don't know of another right that the majority of participants have to prove qualification over the minority.

Another paradox

Same gender couples prove qualifications based on their gender.

Oh, I see, and the medical test that same sex must submit to is.......

Yes, if the opposite sex couple that wishes to marry have to have a medical proceedure to qualify, then so should the same sex couple. But then you have that due process mess, don't you?

 

[Pop23]

I stated a fact.

"Rain is wet". I also stated an irrelevant fact. Whoooppieee!

Unless you have a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their right to marry, you are irrelevant.

Funny, think just how irrelevant gays are in the whole scheme of things.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry.

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

 

[Seawytch]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first? Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.

They don't believe we fall in love.

 

[Seawytch]

"Rain is wet". I also stated an irrelevant fact. Whoooppieee!

Unless you have a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their right to marry, you are irrelevant.

Funny, think just how irrelevant gays are in the whole scheme of things.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry.

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

 

[Boss]

No, it's all about context, that thing you have a problem with. In a "civil union" two civil entities are united. It has nothing to do with gender, marriage or sex.

Ah, so I should know what your personal definitions of words are based on context?

When you say the word union can only mean something sexual when it is about two people of the same gender, I think it's understandable I would question your previous uses of the word. Why would you expect me to know how you are defining the word in any particular situation when you apparently use your own, different from the dictionary or common use definition?

I didn't use a different definition. The word has the same definition but can vary in meaning depending on context.

Well if you can show me a dictionary definition of union in which the definition is different when it is used to describe same sex or opposite sex couples, I'd appreciate it. In fact, if you can show that definition from anywhere other than yourself, I'd appreciate it. I have never heard the word defined that way before and it certainly isn't defined like that in any dictionary definition I've ever seen.

I didn't say the definition was different. I said the definition is the same. Are you having trouble reading today?

You said this :

The word "Union" doesn't have anything to do with sex when it's union of genders. When both are the same gender, the word can only mean something sexual.

According to that quote, the word union has a different definition when used to describe an opposite gender couple than when used to describe a same gender couple. I have never seen or heard union defined to mean different things depending on the gender of the subjects. I am asking if you can show anywhere other than your own words where the word changes definition in that way.

If the definition of union is the same with regards to same sex couples and opposite sex couples than your quote above makes no sense. If it is not the same I would like to see where you get the idea the definition changes depending on the gender of the participants in the union.

Perhaps you are having trouble remembering your own words again.

*sigh* ...Do you honestly not comprehend the difference between "definition" and "meaning"?

The definition of "union" is "to join together" ...that's the definition. The MEANING depends on what context the word is being used in.

union ‎(pluralunions)

1. (countable) The act of uniting or joining two or more things into one.
2. (uncountable) The state of being united or joined.
3. (countable) That which is united, or made one; something formed by a combination or coalition of parts or members; a confederation; a consolidated body; a league.
4. (countable) A trade union; a workers' union.
5. (countable) A joint or other connection uniting parts of machinery, such as pipes.
6. (countable, set theory) The set containing all of the elements of two or more sets.
7. (countable) The act or state of marriage.
8. (uncountable, archaic, euphemistic) Sexual intercourse.
9. (countable, computing) A data structure that can store any of various items, but only one at a time.
10. (countable, now rare, archaic) A large, high-quality pearl.

When we are talking in context of matrimony and marital relationships, what is meant by a union? Well, traditionally, the "union of man and woman" was just that, the union of two genders as one in holy matrimony. Same genders can't be united because they are already united as genders, they are the same. So what is the context of union when it comes to same sex partners? It can't be anything other than intimate relations. Hence, it is the "joining together" (definition of union) of homosexual partners.

 

[Boss]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first? Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.

They don't believe we fall in love.

Sorry but the human emotion of love is not dependent upon marriage. If it were, I'd be married to my mom, my daughters, my grandkids, the Alabama Crimson Tide, a nice t-bone steak and Kate Upton's titties.

 

[Pop23]

Unless you have a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their right to marry, you are irrelevant.

Funny, think just how irrelevant gays are in the whole scheme of things.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't have one, don't care. Siblings marrying, if you believe they have that right, don't matter to me a whit. If you believe they have the right to marry, they had it before I was granted the right.

File your case...otherwise you're just bloviating.

No they didn't. We had a societal safety net that was broken with the Obergfell ruling.

Either marriage is a civil right, constitutionally protected or not.

You folks should make up your minds or your just bloviating to hide your bigotry.

Honestly, if same sex marriage was ruled legal before loving, you'd be on the side of those wanting the races separated.

Nope. Gay marriage has nothing to do with it. The right for siblings to marry either exists or doesn't.

And Pops, you're the one using the exact same argument the anti miscegenationists used against interracial marriage, not me. I'm all for you marrying your sibling. File your case bloviator.

Since there is no such legal entity as " gay marriage" your premise is wrong from the start.

And it is you arguing that this is not a civil right. Not me

No, actually I'm not. I don't care. You believe it is. I support your beliefs and want you to file your case. Of course since you're just bloviating, it's a moot point isn't it?

So you think siblings should be allowed to marry? Right?

 

[Pop23]

Here's an idea, Montro... We can shove a hose pipe up the ass of a homo and turn the water on... if his homo partner spews forth water from his mouth, any licensed plumber would agree the "union" was a success. Or maybe we should send out thugs with baseball bats to collect the dues from same-sex "union" members? Or maybe we can ban all divorce because secession from the "union" is unconstitutional?

As you can see from this demonstration, the word "union" can have many contextual meanings. The definition of the word hasn't changed at all... it still means "to join together" ...that didn't change. It's application in context is very important and the inability to comprehend context can be very disturbing and dangerous.

Let me give you an example. An opposite gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. A same gender couple fall in love and join in a romantic union. Does the word union only mean sex in the second example but is not related to sex in the first? Based on your earlier post, that is certainly what you appeared to say.

They don't believe we fall in love.

I beleive you can.

 

[Boss]

Okay, okay.....

I will happily withdraw all my objections to gay marriage if you hypocrites will simply stand up for my fundamental constitutional right to marry these big dirty milkers!