"BREAKING: Obama admin. may urge Sup Ct to recognize gay marriage nationwide"

incestuous same gender couples are allowed to marry, look at Einstein, he married his cousin

we would not have anonymous adoptions if incestuous marriage was such a concern... cause those children could marry their brothers, sisters or even parents without even knowing it

.

 

Are you joking? You must be trolling right now.

 

Yes. EXACTLY!! You are absolutely correct!!

 

I said "closely related" and made no assertions as to how it is defined. ALL 50 states exclude anyone from marrying parents, children or siblings. Pretty hypocritical to claim its equal rights when your only concern is that gay couples be included. That's why they call it "gay marriage".

 

I think if you think it's unfair you should start a fight to make it fair, your logic is that if gays don't have equal rights, inter-racial couples should not have equal rights

while I do not approve of incestuous marriage, if both are consenting adults, I could care less

not gonna waste my time trying to stop them like you are same gender marriage or like people of the past did to inter-racial marriage, that is for sure


.

 

I said its not equal rights and made no assertions about fairness. You devote so much time and effort to avoiding the topic of discussion. Too bad you cant use even just a little to address the topic of discussion instead of always running from it.

 

Specifically do.

Marriages limitation to opposite sex couples by way of state bans is unconstitutional. The courts have told you specifically why you keep losing. You need to come up with an interest that is served by banning them. You can't. It's why you keep losing.

 

Red herring/strawman

- - - Updated - - -

Except same sex couples marrying is MORE equal not less.

You're trying to say if you have 2 red apples and I give you 2 green apples you now have less apples. It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moronic.

- - - Updated - - -

Your red herrings have been addressed and refuted. Same sex couples marrying makes marriage more equal, not less.

 

Its a question. Neither a red herring or strawman.

 

the rest of your answer after the comma, where you cut my post

 

String together a few words and make an argument if you can.

 

Had I asked a question, you might of had a relevant point.

 

your right, you were making false assertions about me, my mistake

 

Actually, you just confirmed my assertions. You "don't care" if others are discriminated against in marriage and are only concerned if they happen to be gay. Reveals the true intent to promote homosexuality.

 

The original topic is pretty much moot at this point since the Court declined to review any of the 7 cases brought to them. No need for the administration to voice a view at this point. 5 more states, with 6 soon to follow, have just achieved marriage equality. That brings the total number of states to 30, plus the District of Columbia, that have marriage equality. It's looking pretty grim for same-sex marriage bans at this point.

 

A red herring setting up a strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

It's in the rest of the post you pathetically edited out.

Do you think nobody notices when you try to hide?

 

And there is the strawman you were setting up with your red herring.

 

Marriage equality would involve marriage available equally to any two consenting adults. Gay marriage is inequality by design for the benefit of those who happen to be gay.

 

The sound of a broken record truly is a horrifying thing to behold.

 

So how would you prefer that gay/lesbians that want to get married be referred to in the eyes of the law?

 

Ive addressed that point with you 100 times, who is hiding? You've just never formulated a response. The courts don't demand an interest that is served by banning them, couples of the same SEX. They demand an interest that is served by banning homosexuals. Justification for an intent to disparage and injure homosexuals. And as the supreme court has declared, that there could be no justification for an intent to disparage and injure homosexuals. Strawmen are like that, untenable by design.

 

You can refer to them however you like. "Gay marriage" is certainly appropriate considering the basis of the court decisions. Just don't pretend its marriage equality when it is INequality by design.

 

Would you expect different responses to the same claims made over and over and over again? Labeling gay marriage as "equality" doesn't make it so.

 

You are of course.

I've simply repeated what the courts keep telling you.
.

They specifically demand that.

.
Nope. Same sex couples.

No court has made any such ruling n

- - - Updated - - -

Except same sex couples marrying is more equal, not less.

- - - Updated - - -

True. Reality however does.

 

Hung up on a word? Word of advice - no one cares that you think that a loving same-sex couple aren't anything like an opposite sex couple, regardless of the latter's procreative ability.