SCOTUS signals upcoming historic approval for gay marriage

[WorldWatcher]

If ssm does not redefine marriage, why didn't homosexuals get married to each other in 1920?

Probably because the states didn't recognize ssm as valid in 1920. And homosexuality was a crime in many states.

Well why not?

It hasn't been a crime for a long time. So why was (is) it invalid if it's the same are one man/one woman?

Sodomy laws were not invalidated until 2003.

The first same-sex civil marriage started in 2004.

>>>>

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Wait a minute...


Aren't we continually told that marriage is one man and one woman PERIOD.

Well a brother is a man and a sister is a woman (assuming they are both over the age of majority) - that meets that definition doesn't it?


>>>>

Related persons can't marry each other (well, incest marriage is legal in NJ apparently).

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other?

 

[Skylar]

Prior to the gay marriage push, when asked, the public overwhelmingly said it is between one man/one woman. Judges said f-you.

You realize that a number of States passed Same-sex Civil Marriage legislatively and at the ballot box - right?


>>>>

Every vote on the matter since 2011, when the tide of public opinion on same sex marriage shifted toward recognition....has been in favor of gay marriage. 3 of the last 3 votes have been affirmative.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Wait a minute...


Aren't we continually told that marriage is one man and one woman PERIOD.

Well a brother is a man and a sister is a woman (assuming they are both over the age of majority) - that meets that definition doesn't it?


>>>>

Related persons can't marry each other (well, incest marriage is legal in NJ apparently).

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other?

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Every vote on the matter since 2011, when the tide of public opinion on same sex marriage shifted toward recognition....has been in favor of gay marriage. 3 of the last 3 votes have been affirmative.

Just a couple of technical corrections:

1. Every General Election vote since 2012 has been in favor of Marriage Equality. North Carolina voted against it in 2012, but they put the measure on the Republican Primary date instead of the General Election to ensure it passed by a wide margin.

3. Personally I count the General Election votes in 2012 as 4 since Minnesota voted NOT to include discrimination in the Constitution (a win for Marriage Equality) result in the leglislature turning around and putting SSCM into the Statutes.



>>>>

 

[Zoom-boing]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to 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?

 

[Skylar]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other?

That's a question, not a point. What point are you trying to get to?

 

[Zoom-boing]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to it?

If marriage is not one man/one woman (just two consenting adults), then what is the harm in two brothers marrying each other?

That's a question, not a point. What point are you trying to get to?

I edited my post, go re-read it.

 

[Skylar]

Every vote on the matter since 2011, when the tide of public opinion on same sex marriage shifted toward recognition....has been in favor of gay marriage. 3 of the last 3 votes have been affirmative.

Just a couple of technical corrections:

1. Every General Election vote since 2012 has been in favor of Marriage Equality. North Carolina voted against it in 2012, but they put the measure on the Republican Primary date instead of the General Election to ensure it passed by a wide margin.

Are you shitting me? They actually did that in North Carolina? That's pretty fucked up.

 

[Skylar]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to 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?

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

 

[Zoom-boing]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to 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?

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

Why don't you answer my questions?

 

[Skylar]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to 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?

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to 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?

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

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.

 

[Skylar]

You clearly have a point you're trying to make. Can you just get to 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?

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

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.

 

[Stephanie]

This isn't a case for the Supreme court. They should stay out of it

 

[Skylar]

This isn't a case for the Supreme court. They should stay out of it

There's a disagreement among US circuit courts. They pretty much have to clarify it at this point. Without the 6th circuit's affirmation of gay marriage bans, the USSC probably would have stayed out it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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?

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

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?

 

[Skylar]

So you're arguing we should allow immediate family members to marry? That's your point?

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?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

 

[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?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

 

[Skylar]

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?

So is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry?

My point that you keep dodging is bolded.

Are you going to answer or just continue to dodge?

I'm asking you to get to your point. And you won't tell me what it is.

Is your point that we should allow immediate family members to marry? Yes or no are perfectly acceptable answers. I'd accept "it depends" with an explanation.

Either tell me your point, or quit wasting my time.