SSM. Seeking middle ground

[Pop23]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

You're just as ignorant and wrong as the OP.

How am I ignorant and wrong?

I'm for all relationships to be equal in the eyes of the government.

You are actually being extremely inclusive.

 

[Defiant1]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

You're just as ignorant and wrong as the OP.

How am I ignorant and wrong?

I'm for all relationships to be equal in the eyes of the government.

You are actually being extremely inclusive.

I thought so, magnanimously.

 

[Valerie]

There is no doubt the slope exists ...

Since I proved no slippery slope ...

YOU are dismissed, pop.

 

[RKMBrown]

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

 

[Pop23]

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

 

[Pop23]

There is no doubt the slope exists ...

Since I proved no slippery slope ...

YOU are dismissed, pop.

You dismissed yourself, I defend your right to bail as well as your right to fail.

 

[RKMBrown]

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

 

[Ravi]

Here's the definition of incest. Apparently Pop has never looked it up.

in·cest
ˈinˌsest/
noun
noun: incest

sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

 

[Pop23]

Here's the definition of incest. Apparently Pop has never looked it up.

in·cest
ˈinˌsest/
noun
noun: incest

sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Here's a definition of marriage from a few years ago:

Between a Man and a Woman

Stand pat, or move forward?

 

[Pop23]

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

So same sex marriage must stay illegal?

Who's side are you on?

 

[Pop23]

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

I'm attempting to redefine marriage????

You can't make this shit up folks!!!!!

 

[Valerie]

no, but you can...

 

[Ravi]

Here's the definition of incest. Apparently Pop has never looked it up.

in·cest
ˈinˌsest/
noun
noun: incest

sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Here's a definition of marriage from a few years ago:

Between a Man and a Woman

Stand pat, or move forward?

how does that change the definition of incest

 

[RKMBrown]

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

So same sex marriage must stay illegal?

Who's side are you on?

Same sex marriage is not incest. Try to keep up.

 

[RKMBrown]

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

I'm attempting to redefine marriage????

You can't make this shit up folks!!!!!

I'm not making it up. I'm quoting you. There's a difference. Try to keep up.

 

[Pop23]

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

I'm attempting to redefine marriage????

You can't make this shit up folks!!!!!

I'm not making it up. I'm quoting you. There's a difference. Try to keep up.

Marriage redefinition is in the hands of the USSC.

I look great in black, but ain't got a black robe.

You?

 

[RKMBrown]

Again for the one hundredth time. I provided two clear and distinct arguments. You chose to move your goal posts from incest to two brothers who are not having sex but just want some financial gain of being married. IOW you proposed that incest might be a good thing if it's just for money. You moved the argument from incest to no actual incest but rather the marriage is just a financial arrangement. IOW you don't know what an estate is.

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

I'm attempting to redefine marriage????

You can't make this shit up folks!!!!!

I'm not making it up. I'm quoting you. There's a difference. Try to keep up.

Marriage redefinition is in the hands of the USSC.

I look great in black, but ain't got a black robe.

You?

No. At the hands of the USSC is whether or not the States can ban gays from getting married. Try to keep up.

 

[Ravi]

Here's the definition of incest. Apparently Pop has never looked it up.

in·cest
ˈinˌsest/
noun
noun: incest

sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Here's a definition of marriage from a few years ago:

Between a Man and a Woman

Stand pat, or move forward?

how does that change the definition of incest

Bump

 

[Pop23]

Here's the definition of incest. Apparently Pop has never looked it up.

in·cest
ˈinˌsest/
noun
noun: incest

sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

Here's a definition of marriage from a few years ago:

Between a Man and a Woman

Stand pat, or move forward?

how does that change the definition of incest

Bump

The law was written when it would have been impossible for same sex heterosexual siblings to marry.

See, we've added a few new demographic groups to the mix, didn't we?

I'm still trying to figure out why society has to be protected from one heterosexual same sex sibling from bullying another heterosexual same sex siblings into NOT HAVING SEX WITH SOMEONE THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH.

It's a paradox

 

[Pop23]

No, you assumed that two heterosexual same sex siblings would want to have sex in the first place?

So, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a heterosexual same sex sibling couple?

Or, is there a compelling state interest in refusing the rights and benefits of marriage to a homosexual same sex sibling couple?

Incest is illegal. I provided the compelling state interests. You are attempting to redefine marriage as a financial arrangement for tax purposes.

I'm attempting to redefine marriage????

You can't make this shit up folks!!!!!

I'm not making it up. I'm quoting you. There's a difference. Try to keep up.

Marriage redefinition is in the hands of the USSC.

I look great in black, but ain't got a black robe.

You?

No. At the hands of the USSC is whether or not the States can ban gays from getting married. Try to keep up.

And of course what new course that lays for the future, like why we need protection from not having sex with people we don't want to.

What a paradox I guess