SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[Syriusly]

The time is ripe for a Duke candidacy.




David Duke Mulls Run for Scalise s Seat NOLA DEFENDER

Same-sex couples are among the most ardent marriage supporters; it's their advocacy of marriage that motivates them to fight for their right to equal protection of the law and to indeed marry.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I don't know if we'll ever be seeing siblings being able to legally wed, but once the SCOTUS has settled gay marriage once and for all, I do believe in time we will be seeing polygamy legalized.

I don't think so. We don't have the laws for polygamy.

For example, if we three people get married and then one wants a divorce, does that mean that none of them are married, or two still are? Can they get divorced to only one partner in a polygamous relationship, but not another? When they divorce is a three way split, or is it based on how long each of them has been in the relationship? In child custody cases, do only biological parents have standing, or does any adult in the polygamous relationship? How about child support? What about medical decisions......if you a three way marriage, one person gets ill and two are left to made decisions.......what if they disagree? What's the maximum number in a poly marriage?

Our laws have nothing to cover any of this. And each additional person adds orders of magnitude more complication, confusion and complexity.

Where with gay marriage, the answer is simple: exactly as you would a straight couple.

Done.

We don't have the laws right now, but if there's enough Americans that begin to demand to be able to be legally married inside of a polygamist relationship, I could see lawmakers begin to react to the public pressure.
As long as no one is being harmed, I don't see how the persons wanting to be legally joined can be denied.

I'm sure it would take time, and I only believe it could happen if there's enough calls for it.
Personally I feel now that we are concluding that marriage can be defined beyond the traditional definition, then if no one is being harmed, and if consenting adults want it, then they should also be granted the right to wed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't know if we'll ever be seeing siblings being able to legally wed, but once the SCOTUS has settled gay marriage once and for all, I do believe in time we will be seeing polygamy legalized.

I don't think so. We don't have the laws for polygamy.

For example, if we three people get married and then one wants a divorce, does that mean that none of them are married, or two still are? Can they get divorced to only one partner in a polygamous relationship, but not another? When they divorce is a three way split, or is it based on how long each of them has been in the relationship? In child custody cases, do only biological parents have standing, or does any adult in the polygamous relationship? How about child support? What about medical decisions......if you a three way marriage, one person gets ill and two are left to made decisions.......what if they disagree? What's the maximum number in a poly marriage?

Our laws have nothing to cover any of this. And each additional person adds orders of magnitude more complication, confusion and complexity.

Where with gay marriage, the answer is simple: exactly as you would a straight couple.

Done.

We don't have the laws right now, but if there's enough Americans that begin to demand to be able to be legally married inside of a polygamist relationship, I could see lawmakers begin to react to the public pressure.
As long as no one is being harmed, I don't see how the persons wanting to be legally joined can be denied.

I'm sure it would take time, and I only believe it could happen if there's enough calls for it.
Personally I feel now that we are concluding that marriage can be defined beyond the traditional definition, then if no one is being harmed, and if consenting adults want it, then they should also be granted the right to wed.

Well actually polygamy is quite traditional, it's been around for thousands of years, it's Bibilical, and it still exists in many countries around the world.

There is more of a "traditional" argument for polygamy than there is for same-sex marriage.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

You know, that's the same argument racists used to support anti miscegenation laws. They said there was no discrimination because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. The argument failed when the Lovings took their case to the SCOTUS.

So blacks being allowed to marry whites changed the definition? Did women and blacks voting change the definition of voting too?

If you believe there is no societal harm in marrying a close familial tie, I encourage you to challenge the prohibitions in court. Good luck.

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

How does it by your man/woman definition? It's a "man/woman" marriage, right? So your definition of what marriage is does not change if a brother and sister are allowed to marry now does it?

I really don't care. As long as you and Sis can demonstrate an inability to procreate like is required for 1st cousin marriages...GOOD LUCK.

 

[Skylar]

I don't know if we'll ever be seeing siblings being able to legally wed, but once the SCOTUS has settled gay marriage once and for all, I do believe in time we will be seeing polygamy legalized.

I don't think so. We don't have the laws for polygamy.

For example, if we three people get married and then one wants a divorce, does that mean that none of them are married, or two still are? Can they get divorced to only one partner in a polygamous relationship, but not another? When they divorce is a three way split, or is it based on how long each of them has been in the relationship? In child custody cases, do only biological parents have standing, or does any adult in the polygamous relationship? How about child support? What about medical decisions......if you a three way marriage, one person gets ill and two are left to made decisions.......what if they disagree? What's the maximum number in a poly marriage?

Our laws have nothing to cover any of this. And each additional person adds orders of magnitude more complication, confusion and complexity.

Where with gay marriage, the answer is simple: exactly as you would a straight couple.

Done.

We don't have the laws right now, but if there's enough Americans that begin to demand to be able to be legally married inside of a polygamist relationship, I could see lawmakers begin to react to the public pressure.
As long as no one is being harmed, I don't see how the persons wanting to be legally joined can be denied.

Oh, I'm not saying that we couldn't create such laws. But if polygamists wanted to have their marriages legally recognized, the lack of applicable law would be a pretty valid basis for denial. In the case of gay marriage, just treat them like straights. In the case of polygamists, existing law would have to be substantially overhauled with an entire system of case law established.

I'm sure it would take time, and I only believe it could happen if there's enough calls for it.

I could indeed be created. And I think it would be if enough people called for it. But if people didn't call for it, the lack of applicable law would likely be a valid basis for denial of recognition of multiple marriages.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were already eligible to marry.

It changes the definition of what marriage has been in America.

So?

Why shouldn't two brothers be allowed to marry and take advantage of the benefits? Two consenting adults, hurting no one.

Sounds like you have some parades to organize. Best of luck.

Changing the definition opens the door. For example:

Please explain why two brothers, two consenting adults, shouldn't be allowed to marry. To take advantage of the benefits. How will that harm you?

Because the definition of marriage isn't being 'changed,' no 'door' is being 'opened.'

Marriage remains a commitment of two equal, unrelated, consenting adult partners recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference. Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts; marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

That's not the case with two brothers wishing to marry, where no marriage law is written to accommodate siblings.

Consequently, your 'argument' fails as a slippery slope fallacy, it's nothing more than unfounded, inane demagoguery.

The definition of marriage certainly is being changed. Marriage is one man/one woman. Same-sex marriage is not.

The definition of marriage has been changed over time. Marriage up until about 100 years ago virtually made the wife the property of the husband- she lost almost all separate legal identity- that status called coverture was part of the definition of marriage for hundreds of years.

Over time, the gender bias in marriage has been essentially eliminated- spouses are now legal equivalents before the law in marriage.

This is just a similar evolution for marriage.

Marriage has been defined as one man/one woman in America since the get go, though ... hasn't it? Your own example shows this.

"spouses are now legal equivalents before the law in marriage" ... how are two brothers or two sisters or a mother and daughter marrying not included as being part of the 'legal equivalents'? They are consenting adults, same sex (no chance of mutant inbred children). Shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage has been defined as one man/one woman in America since the get go, though ... hasn't it? Your own example shows this.

"spouses are now legal equivalents before the law in marriage" ... how are two brothers or two sisters or a mother and daughter marrying not included as being part of the 'legal equivalents'? They are consenting adults, same sex (no chance of mutant inbred children). Shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

What is your point?

 

[Preacher]

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. PERIOD. Not what your sick people want to turn it into,such disgusting perverts.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Also try reading a few books. 1. Day Of Deceit The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor Robert Stinnett 9780743201292 Amazon.com Books
2.Amazon.com Churchill Hitler and The Unnecessary War How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World 9780307405166 Patrick J. Buchanan Books

Oh and this link is an even shorter read on it.Mises Daily Mises Institute

 

[Zoom-boing]

Do you deny they were allowed to marry? How's that?

The definition of marriage is one man/one woman. Blacks marrying whites doesn't change that definition. Women voting has nothing to do with marriage.

Not anymore it isn't...just like the definition isn't black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people. Just like the definition of voting is no longer white male land owners. The basic definition of marriage has not changed, only who is allowed to do it.

Please explain how two brothers marrying will cause societal harm.

How many times do I have to wish you luck? Go ahead and try. Challenge the court to marry your brother. As long as siblings are preventing from procreating if they marry, I don't give a shit.

So homosexuals weren't allowed to marry prior to ssm being around?

So brothers or sisters can marry each other ... but that doesn't change what marriage is either. Weird.

No, not right now they can't, but you seem to think that there is no rational basis to discriminate against siblings marrying each other. That has nothing to do with gays and lesbians marrying.

You have as much right to challenge the prohibitions on incest marriage as gays did to challenge anti gay marriage laws. Good luck.

You misread my post. I'm saying ... you are fine with brothers and sisters marrying each other and believe that doesn't change what marriage is.

How does it by your man/woman definition? It's a "man/woman" marriage, right? So your definition of what marriage is does not change if a brother and sister are allowed to marry now does it?

I really don't care. As long as you and Sis can demonstrate an inability to procreate like is required for 1st cousin marriages...GOOD LUCK.

You need to go back to my earlier question .... I didn't say brother and sister marrying each other, I said brothers (marrying brothers) and sisters (marrying sisters) marrying each other. But you don't care either way, so ok.

 

[Syriusly]

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack..

'no choice'?

Sure Japan had a choice- it could have chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor.

No one forced Japan to attack- pure revisionist history- Japan was waging a brutal war against China- and the United States restricted trade to Japan because of that- something that states have the right to do.

 

[Skylar]

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Ha ha ha, not any more.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan

An oil and steel embargo is hardly 'economic terrorism'. Japan had every choice. They could simply stop their attacks in mainland china, which is what they sparked the embargo. They chose not to.

And you admit that Japan did declare war on us first, as did Germany.

 

[Preacher]

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack..

'no choice'?

Sure Japan had a choice- it could have chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor.

No one forced Japan to attack- pure revisionist history- Japan was waging a brutal war against China- and the United States restricted trade to Japan because of that- something that states have the right to do.

You keep believing that drivel...people with rocks for brains shouldn't hurt themselves trying to think or use their head for more than a hat rack.

 

[Skylar]

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack..

'no choice'?

Sure Japan had a choice- it could have chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor.

No one forced Japan to attack- pure revisionist history- Japan was waging a brutal war against China- and the United States restricted trade to Japan because of that- something that states have the right to do.

You keep believing that drivel...people with rocks for brains shouldn't hurt themselves trying to think or use their head for more than a hat rack.

Dude, we have every right to levy an embargo on a nation for any reason we wish. The Japanese absolutely had a choice. They could have stopped their attacks in mainland china and we would have lifted the embargo.

Japan instead wanted an empire, similar to what the British had created. We opposed them with embargos. They tried to pull another Port Arthur over the objections of their own naval commanders. And they lost.

No part of this was inevitable or unavoidable. With the initiating actor of the conflict being Japan.

 

[Preacher]

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

You can't read very well. You perverted deviants can call it what you like it doesn't make it marriage any more than marrying a dog would.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan

An oil and steel embargo is hardly 'economic terrorism'. Japan had every choice. They could simply stop their attacks in mainland china, which is what they sparked the embargo. They chose not to.

And you admit that Japan did declare war on us first, as did Germany.

Nope. US declared war first with their actions. Maybe every country should place an embargo against the US for murder,invasion of other countries,torture etc. We will see how the US likes it then eh? I bet they would attack any country that did that...just like Japan did. If you had read the Mises link you would realize the US was trying to pressure Japan to attack it had no legit reason to join the war but had already been helping England so technically they were in the war already.

Another link with WHO was behind ww2 but I can bet you don't like your cozy world view of things being disrupted so you won't read it.


LIES YOUR TEACHER TAUGHT YOU Who is Responsible For World War 2 and 72 Million Dead

 

[Preacher]

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack..

'no choice'?

Sure Japan had a choice- it could have chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor.

No one forced Japan to attack- pure revisionist history- Japan was waging a brutal war against China- and the United States restricted trade to Japan because of that- something that states have the right to do.

You keep believing that drivel...people with rocks for brains shouldn't hurt themselves trying to think or use their head for more than a hat rack.

Dude, we have every right to levy an embargo on a nation for any reason we wish. The Japanese absolutely had a choice. They could have stopped their attacks in mainland china and we would have lifted the embargo.

Japan instead wanted an empire, similar to what the British had created. We opposed them with embargos. They tried to pull another Port Arthur over the objections of their own naval commanders. And they lost.

No part of this was inevitable or unavoidable. With the initiating actor of the conflict being Japan.

Just a typical red white and blue american yahoo. USA USA USA! We can do no wrong! Nothing in that brain but mush.

 

[Skylar]

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan

An oil and steel embargo is hardly 'economic terrorism'. Japan had every choice. They could simply stop their attacks in mainland china, which is what they sparked the embargo. They chose not to.

And you admit that Japan did declare war on us first, as did Germany.

Nope. US declared war first with their actions.

An embargo isn't an act of war. A blockade perhaps. But not an embargo. As no nation is obligated to trade with any other.

An attack on our ships in Pearl Harbor most definitely is an act of war. And we didn't declare war on Japan until after they'd declare war on us. And Germany declared war on us before we declared war on Germany.

You can try and reimagine history all you like. It doesn't change the facts.

Another link with WHO was behind ww2 but I can bet you don't like your cozy world view of things being disrupted so you won't read it.

Is this another 'Jews did it!' piece of blogger batshit? Dude......none of this has a thing to do with the thread topic. Start a thread in the conspiracy forum and have a ball.

 

[Skylar]

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack..

'no choice'?

Sure Japan had a choice- it could have chosen not to attack Pearl Harbor.

No one forced Japan to attack- pure revisionist history- Japan was waging a brutal war against China- and the United States restricted trade to Japan because of that- something that states have the right to do.

You keep believing that drivel...people with rocks for brains shouldn't hurt themselves trying to think or use their head for more than a hat rack.

Dude, we have every right to levy an embargo on a nation for any reason we wish. The Japanese absolutely had a choice. They could have stopped their attacks in mainland china and we would have lifted the embargo.

Japan instead wanted an empire, similar to what the British had created. We opposed them with embargos. They tried to pull another Port Arthur over the objections of their own naval commanders. And they lost.

No part of this was inevitable or unavoidable. With the initiating actor of the conflict being Japan.

Just a typical red white and blue american yahoo. USA USA USA! We can do no wrong! Nothing in that brain but mush.

Note you can't actually contest any point I've raised, or disagree with any specific point I've made.

You're clearly not informed enough to discuss this topic intelligently.

 

[Syriusly]

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

Germany declared war on us before we declared it on Germany. As did Japan.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan,Japan had no choice but to attack...the US also was helping England against Germany instead of being Neutral like they were supposed to be. The US had unofficially declared war on both Japan and Germany LONG before Germany or Japan officially declared war on the US.

Says the crazy who blames the Jews for the U.S. getting into WWII.

Do some research on who pushed for war with Japan and Germany...

That would be Japan who attacked the United States and Germany which declared war on the United States.

I have done my research, not just spent my time on anti-semite websites.

Japan attacked AFTER the US and England committed economic terrorism against Japan

An oil and steel embargo is hardly 'economic terrorism'. Japan had every choice. They could simply stop their attacks in mainland china, which is what they sparked the embargo. They chose not to.

And you admit that Japan did declare war on us first, as did Germany.

Nope. US declared war first with their actions. d

No- just weird revisionist history.

The United States is not perfect, and I absolutely agree that FDR felt that the U.S. should be confronting Germany- FDR was more concerned about Germany than Japan- and I am sure FDR was thrilled when Germany was stupid enough to declare war on the U.S.

But no one forced Japan to attack the United States- or Hong Kong or the Phillipines, or invade Vietnam, or Indonesia or Malaysia or New Guinea.

That is all on Japan.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why don't you answer my questions?

Because you've asked about 20 of them in this thread alone. I'm kinda tired of playing the question game.

Get to your point.

Dodgeball, you're doing it right.

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

As I said before- you seem to think we are under some obligation to make your arguments for you.

If you want to pursue incestuious marriage- then the courts and the legislature are both legitimate options for you to pursue.

But it is not the argument before the courts- the argument before the court is whether a same gender couple should be legally treated the same as my wife and I are.

Are you for equal treatment of same gender couples- or against it?

You seem to think that my questions aren't valid and you, as well as others, like to ignore them. All I'd like is for someone to answer the questions I asked.

I didn't say I wanted to pursue anything, didn't say they were before the court either, was just asking questions that are bound to arise at some point.

Feel free to actually address the questions I've asked. Or is your answer the same as some others .. you don't care. Feel free to say so.

 

[Syriusly]

Because you've asked about 20 of them in this thread alone. I'm kinda tired of playing the question game.

Get to your point.

Dodgeball, you're doing it right.

I'm coming right at you, asking you to tell us what your point is. That's about as direct as it gets.

And you can't tell me what your point is. When you can, I'll be around.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit, is it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other? Or two sisters? Or even a mother and daughter, father and son? Shouldn't they be allowed to take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage? Isn't that the whole point of ssm anyway? Because ss couples can not take advantage of the financial benefits of marriage if they can't marry?

As I said before- you seem to think we are under some obligation to make your arguments for you.

If you want to pursue incestuious marriage- then the courts and the legislature are both legitimate options for you to pursue.

But it is not the argument before the courts- the argument before the court is whether a same gender couple should be legally treated the same as my wife and I are.

Are you for equal treatment of same gender couples- or against it?

You seem to think that my questions aren't valid and you, as well as others, like to ignore them. All I'd like is for someone to answer the questions I asked. .

Your questions are valid- but irrelevant to the topic.