Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.I'm surprised at your language.I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.
If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.
Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.
I'm surprised at your language.I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?
On what basis would you deny them?
If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.
Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.I'm surprised at your language.I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.
If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.
Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
Thank you for your feedback....You're not angry ?? Listen to yourself!!...
Thank you for your feedback....You are also delusional regarding public opinion...
Unbelievable arrogance... gotta love it... it's also your primary weakness in the context of a (very) temporary ascendancy... 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings and morality and tradition... woven into the very fabric of our society and culture and laws... are not to be denied... you have no idea how temporary and fragile your recent 'wins' actually are....Your day is done pal.
The current political climate does not exactly favor your cause, and a 5-4 SCOTUS (soon to be a 6-3) will hear related cases again and again, until decency and sanity prevail.
Time is done? Hardly, mine good colleague. The counter-punches are only now beginning, now that the political climate has changed for the better. Enjoy the ride.
It's not arrogance, it is confidence.
- 64% of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal
- For the first time, majority of Protestants support gay marriage
- Support for same-sex relations has also climbed, now at 72%
US Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High
Thank you for your feedback....You're not angry ?? Listen to yourself!!
Thank you for your feedback....You are also delusional regarding public opinion...
Unbelievable arrogance... gotta love it... it's also your primary weakness in the context of a (very) temporary ascendancy... 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings and morality and tradition... woven into the very fabric of our society and culture and laws... are not to be denied... you have no idea how temporary and fragile your recent 'wins' actually are....Your day is done pal.
The current political climate does not exactly favor your cause, and a 5-4 SCOTUS (soon to be a 6-3) will hear related cases again and again, until decency and sanity prevail.
Time is done? Hardly, mine good colleague. The counter-punches are only now beginning, now that the political climate has changed for the better. Enjoy the ride.
It's not arrogance, it is confidence.
- 64% of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal
- For the first time, majority of Protestants support gay marriage
- Support for same-sex relations has also climbed, now at 72%
US Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High
This explains Trump' s election, huh.
Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.I'm surprised at your language.If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.
Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.
Thank you for your feedback....You're not angry ?? Listen to yourself!!
Thank you for your feedback....You are also delusional regarding public opinion...
Unbelievable arrogance... gotta love it... it's also your primary weakness in the context of a (very) temporary ascendancy... 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings and morality and tradition... woven into the very fabric of our society and culture and laws... are not to be denied... you have no idea how temporary and fragile your recent 'wins' actually are....Your day is done pal.
The current political climate does not exactly favor your cause, and a 5-4 SCOTUS (soon to be a 6-3) will hear related cases again and again, until decency and sanity prevail.
Time is done? Hardly, mine good colleague. The counter-punches are only now beginning, now that the political climate has changed for the better. Enjoy the ride.
It's not arrogance, it is confidence.
- 64% of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal
- For the first time, majority of Protestants support gay marriage
- Support for same-sex relations has also climbed, now at 72%
US Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High
This explains Trump' s election, huh.
The polls were correct. Hillary won the popular vote by the margin predicted.
Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.I'm surprised at your language.If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.
Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.
Thank you for using the more proper term of "Married Same-Sex Couple." Helluva lot better than just "married couple."
Why? Does the latter hurt your tender feelings?
It doesn't hurt my feelings to just be more accurate. You don't plug a power cord into another plug, you plug it into a wall socket. Male and female. You don't park a car into another car, you park it into a garage. Male and female. When building a floor, you don't join a tongue and tongue, you join a tongue to a groove. Male and Female. When putting a chair together, you don't join a mortise to another mortise, you join a mortise to a tenon. Male and Female
Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.
Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.
You, on the other hand seem to have a piss poor understanding of how things work. No one is saying that the gov. does not have the right to "draw the line" as you put it. Laws set limits on various rights all the time. That is why a guy can't marry his 12 year old niece.
HOWEVER, when those restrictions are challenged, the government must defend the need for them. In the case of same sex marriage, the defendants-those representing the states were unable to demonstrate a compelling government interest or even a rational basis ( those are legal terms in constitutional law-look them up) to allow the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman.
Now has we have said, if anyone thinks that sibling marriage, or interspecies marriage or anything else is a good idea, they are free to petition the courts the same way that gays did. But these are separate issues with different implications for society, law and the meaning of the family
You don't got nothing. You're not even making sense and it's clear that you are unable to understand the issue or have an adult conversation about it. If this is another example of your highest and best level of functioning, I'm not wasting any more time on you.Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?
Yes or fucking no?
Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.
The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.
You, on the other hand seem to have a piss poor understanding of how things work. No one is saying that the gov. does not have the right to "draw the line" as you put it. Laws set limits on various rights all the time. That is why a guy can't marry his 12 year old niece.
HOWEVER, when those restrictions are challenged, the government must defend the need for them. In the case of same sex marriage, the defendants-those representing the states were unable to demonstrate a compelling government interest or even a rational basis ( those are legal terms in constitutional law-look them up) to allow the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman.
Now has we have said, if anyone thinks that sibling marriage, or interspecies marriage or anything else is a good idea, they are free to petition the courts the same way that gays did. But these are separate issues with different implications for society, law and the meaning of the family
I see. So, because THEY could not give justification for where the line was drawn...noone else can either.
Got it.
Yes, marriage is a purely private Act, made Public only for full faith and credit purposes. We have government limited by a Constitution.lol. Name the specific clause.Where is that power defined in the Constitution?The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.
They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.
Article 1 Section 8
Why?
Do you disagree that the U.S. Government has the right to define what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for the purposes of immigration and naturalization laws?
Yes, marriage is a purely private Act, made Public only for full faith and credit purposes. We have government limited by a Constitution.lol. Name the specific clause.Where is that power defined in the Constitution?The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.
They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.
Article 1 Section 8
Why?
Do you disagree that the U.S. Government has the right to define what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for the purposes of immigration and naturalization laws?
Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.
The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.
The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.
Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.
The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.
The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.
Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raisedAside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.
The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.
The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.
Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.
Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raisedAside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.
The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.
The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.
Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.
