It's this simple, so quit wasting my time media

See what i mean?

Pathetic

 

put up or shut up! QUOTE the post of mine where I said any such thing

 

Strawman. I never claimed you said anything other than a man and woman are required

 

"Has everything to do with who can marry in 41 states. Has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in only 9 states. There marriage is only about sex."

what were you sayign there?

 

nice avoidance of the direct question.... I saw the link, it shows when incest is allowed/not allowed and certain situations allowed, and it ONLY applied to cousins.....

What you completely avoided was *do you support incest marriage like you support gay marriage?* I mean, if you truly believe that marriage has nothing to do with procreation (which I actually agree with you there because elderly couples can't have kids any more than gay couples can with each other), then you can't use the 'having kids' argument. But if you can't use the 'having kids' argument for gays, then how can you use it against incest without being a hypocrite?

I just want to see where you stand on true equality, not just equality that fits your uh-jen-duh

 

Sure you did.

You are just too dishonest to admit it.

 

Exactly what I said and you previously quoted.

AND no requirement of procreation which you keep claiming I said, over and over and over again. LET GO OF THE STRAWMAN! At this point it just comes across as your blatant dishonesty.

 

I would not marry someone that was part of my family, but that is just me, if you want to that is up to you and them...

so no, I do not have a issue that it is legal in some states... as long as they are both consenting adults

.

 

which is what we said you said ... lol, it's ok to admit you were wrong, that was one of the issues with Palin and Bawkman, they could never admit they were wrong even when it was completely obvious to everyone else

 

???nowhere in the post you quoted did i say you claim i did???

You are just being dishonest

 

So full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

COPY AND PASTE the post of mine where I EVER said procreation was a qualifier or required. Are ya stupid or just playing stupid?

 

I already did, see post here http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...-wasting-my-time-media-26.html#post1062516385

 

it's not legal for bro/sister.... but other than the objection of kids in an incestuous relationship, the same argument (for it) can be made for incest.... even bro/sis or mother/son or father/daughter as for Adam and Steve.

and if the only objection to sibling incest is the kids with defects, does that eliminate your objection to brother/brother?

 

while I would not condone it, I think it should be legal as long as it's consenting adults, and it is legal in cases of adoption where neither party knows they are related, because the law prevents them from having such knowledge as to who their biological parents really are

could two soul mates be born to the same parents, who am I to say they could not, I do not know and that is not for me to decide for them

.

 

And try to notice the complete absence of a claim of procreation as a qualifier or requirement of marriage, as you claim. Are ya stuck on stupid?

 

Pot, meet kettle.

You already know your special pleading is full of fallacy since the dissolution of the US under the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of our new, supreme law of the land.

 

Art 4 has no applicability to the gay marriage debate. That's why you are the only one arguing that it does. Everyone else can comprehend the meaning of the words that completely fly over your head.

 

Can you explain how our US, supreme law of the land does not apply to the citizens in the several States as a choice of law under any conflict of laws arising under the United States?

 

The supreme federal law does apply. Art 4 merely prevents states from discriminating against out of state citizens. Doesnt mean Colorado legalizing Marijuanna makes it legal for me in Texas to do so. Just as gay marriage in Mass doesnt create a right to gay marriage in Texas. Sorry, but that is a REALLY STUPID interpretation of Art 4 you have there.

 

How does that work upon appeal to the general government from a State jurisdiction, as in the case of a choice of in a conflict of laws concerning our privileges and immunities?

 

Just as it would in ANY "appeal to the general government from a State jurisdiction". State discriminates against you because you are a resident of another state, you sue the state alleging a violation of Art 4

 

Why do you believe that choice of law would be restricted to that special pleading definition instead of a plain reading of the terms used?

Currently, some citizens in the several States enjoy the already established privilege and immunity of marriage; why do you believe Article 4, Section 2 should not be the choice of law in any conflict of laws regarding our privileges and immunities arising under the United States.

Therefore, if some citizens enjoy certain civil privileges and immunities, there is no basis for some citizens in the several States to not enjoy the same privileges and immunities as citizens in the several States.

 

You make a fool of yourself labeling my view as a "special pleading" as YOU are the only one making such a pleading. You seem to be missing the plain reading of the word "IN", as opposed to the alternative 'OF'. A citizen of Mass. is entitled to marry his gay lover IN Mass. He is NOT entitled to marry his gay lover in TEXAS. JUST AS a Texan is free to marry his gay lover IN Mass. He is NOT free to marry his gay lover in Texas. Same rights for the citizen of Texas as the Citizen of Mass. has.

 

I find it odd given you take this view that you think a repeal of DOMA would somehow mean unequal treatment for same-sex couples from one state to the next.

 

How so? Under DOMA the fed treats all citizens the same. No special treatment for homosexuals in 9 states while in the other 41 get no such special treatment. Without DOMA, special treatment for Homosexuals in 9 states while being denied to the other 41 states. I fing it odd that you cant grasp this simple reality.