Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I never said being in love was a pre-req.

Explain why you care if homosexuals can legally get married? What is the real issue for you?

---

For the same reason I care about humoring men who think they're women; it's not true. The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.

Society cares about labels and institutions, you only need to look around and see the hilarious new terms "birthing people" and "menstruating people" to see that. The easiest way to legitimize some new form of creeping leftism is to dress it up in the skin suit of a respectable institution.

So again, why can't brother and sister get married.

---

They can't get married because it's against the law. Why is that your go to?

If society likes labels, then it's allowed to change what those labels are. Gay marriage has no impact on you or your life. Gay marriage isn't the cause of those phrases that you quoted and gay marriage can exist without those terms being accepted by most of society.

It appears you believe this is an either/or argument and it's not. You just want to imply your definition of marriage on other people because you believe your view is the correct on. Arrogance and definitely not a conservative point of view. You just want control over other people's lives.

---

I know it's against the law, why is it against the law, they love each other, and that's all that matters right? That they're consenting adults, and they love each other.

Why let gay people marry and not brother and sister? Do you want to control their lives?

If my view isn't conservative, why was it shared by Scalia, Alito and Clarence Thomas?

---

I have no idea because I don't care. Should I care? You tell me why they can't get married.

A conservative doesn't use the government to implement their religious beliefs on other people, which is what you are bragging about on another thread.

---

So in your world, Kagan and Sotomayor are the conservatives, and Alito, Scalia and Thomas are the liberals?

They can't get married because they would have disordered offspring due to their dna being too similar.

You're not making any sense. For some reason it's very important to you that two dudes should get married, but not that brother and sister should get married. Why do you get to make that choice.

Would gays have disordered children? If not, how is this applicable?

I never claimed that brothers and sister should or shouldn't get married. Is this an issue that I should care about.

Again, what a weird issue for you to seem to want to discuss.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Would gays have disordered children? If not, how is this applicable?

---

They checked to make sure that the people getting married weren't brother and sister, because offspring is the principle of marriage.

But either way I'll humor you, you cool with two brothers getting married?

You'll have to stop dancing around the questions eventually. Just say you're cool with incest, show how badass and hands off you are

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Would gays have disordered children? If not, how is this applicable?

---

They checked to make sure that the people getting married weren't brother and sister, because offspring is the principle of marriage.

But either way I'll humor you, you cool with two brothers getting married?

You'll have to stop dancing around the questions eventually. Just say you're cool with incest, show how badass and hands off you are

---

I don't care about brothers and sisters getting married because it's not a ****ing issue you twit.

Offspring are a principle but not the principle. There are plenty of principle reasons for marriage, as you and many others on here have stated. Two gays or heterosexuals wanting to get married because they chose to commit themselves to each other can also be a principle reason for marriage. And gays can have children, so therefore they fit your criteria.

Charles Coghlan said:

---

With ROE overturned the right has some momentum we get this country back.

---

I know your son. Pretty sure he is gay.

I know you think you've tripped me up with this incest issue but it's not the silver bullet that you think it is.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I know you think you've tripped me up with this incest issue but it's not the silver bullet that you think it is.

---

It absolutely is. You're saying that big government wants to force views on people, and we shouldn't tell consenting adults they can't get married, but won't take a position on whether or not brothers and sisters or brothers and brothers should be married. Why not? With your impassioned small government views should be quite a simple answer

Offspring are a principle but not the principle. There are plenty of principle reasons for marriage, as you and many others on here have stated. Two gays or heterosexuals wanting to get married because they chose to commit themselves to each other can also be a principle reason for marriage. And gays can have children, so therefore they fit your criteria.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Offspring are a principle but not the principle. There are plenty of principle reasons for marriage, as you and many others on here have stated. Two gays or heterosexuals wanting to get married because they chose to commit themselves to each other can also be a principle reason for marriage. And gays can have children, so therefore they fit your criteria.

---

Ok, so if consenting gay adults in love can get married, why can't consenting gay adults who are brothers and in love get married?

If abortion is illegal, why is it legal to have premarital sex?

SteveA said:

---

If abortion is illegal, why is it legal to have premarital sex?

---

Baby steps friend

You've already answered your own question.

Troll.

Kvetch said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

gbaby23 said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

I don't care who puts what where when two people are together.

I don't care who you choose to love.

I don't want to think about what two people do in private, and I'd just as soon they don't think about what my wife and I may do in private.

Just shut up about it.

---

Obviously thats not going to happen considering the fundamental right to marry is now being potentially put off the table by the same court that granted it.

Its going to be pride year round now. Hornets nest is definitely shaken.

---

Go for it. The more people are subjected to that filth, the more they are against it.

---

I'd love for you to meet the many gay married friends I have that have very happy children and great lives and for you to say that to their face.

Somehow, I think you'll just say it behind the keyboard.

---

I'll gladly tell them that their selfish act of depriving children of their mother/father for their own personal gratitude while teaching values that are contrary to the moral order is terrible.

---

Dude..........

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You've already answered your own question.

---

But you haven't. You're purposefully not answering it. You'll go on and on about how gay marriage should be legal and how it doesn't impact me and how important getting government out of marriage is, but are oblivious to the incest question. Why?

Neither of you have anything better to do on Friday night?

Because I don't care and don't have to care.

But you got me!!! Troll.

If anything, the concept of marriage, in the eyes of the government, needs to be expanded.

If something other than one man and one woman is OK, then why not one man and three woman? One man, two woman and three dogs? One man, a toaster oven and a Chevy Malibu?

Dogs, cars, and toasters do not have rights.
Could a person marry a corporation or association of other people? That seems like a more interesting question

Talon2DSO said:

---

Why does government have to be involved in marriage in the first place? Beyond simply recording the contract, no single consenting individuals should ever have to kiss the ring to get married. Government is in far too deep in all of our lives. Let's not weaponize it against those we disagree with.

---

Agreed, but that horse is out of the barn and it's not going back in. There are federal implications associated with marriage. All people should have the same protections.

Bodhi said:

---

Charles Coghlan said:

---

With ROE overturned the right has some momentum we get this country back.

---

I know your son. Pretty sure he is gay.

---

What an awful way to find out your son's been molested.

Yes, dude?

dmart90 said:

---

Talon2DSO said:

---

Why does government have to be involved in marriage in the first place? Beyond simply recording the contract, no single consenting individuals should ever have to kiss the ring to get married. Government is in far too deep in all of our lives. Let's not weaponize it against those we disagree with.

---

Agreed, but that horse is out of the barn and it's not going back in. There are federal implications associated with marriage. All people should have the same protections.

---

The main reason the government has to be involved is so that society has a mechanism by which we can enforce the contractual obligations of marriage, namely providing for children. It should be a local issue, though.

If you're referencing why the federal government gets involved through the tax code, etc., I agree. Although I think it's good to incentivize marriage, that's not the job of the federal government.

Kvetch said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

Talon2DSO said:

---

Why does government have to be involved in marriage in the first place? Beyond simply recording the contract, no single consenting individuals should ever have to kiss the ring to get married. Government is in far too deep in all of our lives. Let's not weaponize it against those we disagree with.

---

Agreed, but that horse is out of the barn and it's not going back in. There are federal implications associated with marriage. All people should have the same protections.

---

The main reason the government has to be involved is so that society has a mechanism by which we can enforce the contractual obligations of marriage, namely providing for children. It should be a local issue, though.

---

That mechanism provides for a lot more than children…if you ever lived a day in your life without that government "mechanism" you would know.

See my edit.

Also social security death benefits. Marriage coverage by private insurance (which this should not be ok a private company should be able not to cover the gay marriage but that's another argument entirely)

backintexas2013 said:

---

Also social security death benefits. Marriage coverage by private insurance (which this should not be ok a private company should be able not to cover the gay marriage but that's another argument entirely)

---

FWIW, covering partnerships pre-2015 was a thing and many progressive companies covered gay relationships, even if they were not "married" due to state laws. It's been a policy election by employers for some time.

beerad12man said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

No, it should be up to the individual. States have no right to ban certain people getting married. It literally harms no one, and there is no logical argument for it sans religion which can not be used for law

---

As between the feds and the states, it should be left up to the states per the Constitution. And legally, you are incorrect about states having no authority to ban certain people from getting married. Now whether they should or not is a policy question that I don't particularly care about.

agdad4x said:

---

I was having lunch with a long time client of mine and he mentioned that his oldest son was getting married - I have known this client for years and remember when his son was born (late 20s now). I asked if the son met his bride in school or through their business and he said that the son had never seen the girl and that the marriage was arranged through her parents and my client and his wife -after i picked myself up off the floor, I asked him how his business was doing because I damn sure did not know what else to say.

---

Working in IT for the last 30 years, I've seen plenty of arranged marrages in the Indian and Pakastani community. Just like the US, at one time no one divorced, but this was as recent as the 90s. I've known amazing couples who had arranged marrages, many of them where one partner would be in the US and travel back to India to meet the other half and get married in that trip. They raised good kids and continue to call so many of them friends today.

I had entire teams that I worked with that were really close. The single men ended up renting a large apartment together. They would go out on Saturday night - but they wouldn't worry about going to bars with the most women because they knew they would get a bride later and weren't going to chase girls for a fling.

My observation is arranged marrages are starting to fade away in that part of the world. So many people are adopting the western ways. It's definately different than what we would think of as marrage, but it truely can be a great thing on it's own.

TXAGFAN said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Also social security death benefits. Marriage coverage by private insurance (which this should not be ok a private company should be able not to cover the gay marriage but that's another argument entirely)

---

FWIW, covering partnerships pre-2015 was a thing and many progressive companies covered gay relationships, even if they were not "married" due to state laws. It's been a policy election by employers for some time.

---

I am aware of that. I like the right of companies to choose. If a company doesn't want to cover it they shouldn't have to. That's my point

Kvetch said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

Talon2DSO said:

---

Why does government have to be involved in marriage in the first place? Beyond simply recording the contract, no single consenting individuals should ever have to kiss the ring to get married. Government is in far too deep in all of our lives. Let's not weaponize it against those we disagree with.

---

Agreed, but that horse is out of the barn and it's not going back in. There are federal implications associated with marriage. All people should have the same protections.

---

The main reason the government has to be involved is so that society has a mechanism by which we can enforce the contractual obligations of marriage, namely providing for children. It should be a local issue, though.

If you're referencing why the federal government gets involved through the tax code, etc., I agree. Although I think it's good to incentivize marriage, that's not the job of the federal government.

---

With or without marriage, you are responsible for providing for children. I believe marriage is the best way to raise kids (with a shout out to all the single parents who have to do this on their own).

Having kids is not an responsibility of marriage - gay or straight.

Too many people on this board have issues with the homosexual lifestyle because of pics of the gay pride parade in San Francisco.

You'd be surprised that most gay men don't walk around in assless chaps and lots of leather all day. It's hard to be really upset of that lifestyle when you actually know real people and understand them.

I've worked with VPs of fortune 100 companies that were gay. Best friend from small town texas high school is gay - husband of 20+ years (raising 2 great kids btw). People who I genuinely like to hang out with. People who I trust that has nothing to do with the fact they are gay. And there was that one ******* that I really hated, but it had nothing to do with him being gay.

Here's a hint - lgbtq doesn't care at all about your lifestyle or want you to change it. Most would probably be your friend even though you are hetero.