The latest act of the. . . . ' G O P . . COMEDY. . SHOW ' !

[Knotbuyinit]

Why not? What is your legal argument against it?

I don't recall making a legal argument against it. I simply made the statement that if the SCOTUS affirmed SSM then there would be no justification or argument to deny poly-amorous relationships.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Hopefully so, 'tree.
But for the record, in the Senate, Portman NOW is the only REPUG who would VOTE in favor of a new law, along with the Dems.
It's one thing for a REPUG to ' talk-the-talk ', another for one to ' Walk-the-Walk ' !

That's not true Bears.

 

[Ms Tree]

OK. Then whats the problem?

 

[Ms Tree]

Everyone I saw was a former someone not a present someone.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Richard Hanna (R)-NY, Iliana Ross (R)-FL

 

[Knotbuyinit]

OK. Then whats the problem?

Well genius, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled so don't get your panties in a knotbuyinit.

 

[Ms Tree]

I could not care less. You were the one who said equal marriage for all could lead to incestuous marriages. Why would you bring it up if it did not matter?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

I could not care less. You were the one who said equal marriage for all could lead to incestuous marriages. Why would you bring it up if it did not matter?

Is there something wrong with me bringing up the fact that if the SCOTUS were to affirm SSM there would not be a legal argument against poly-amorous relationship? And, if so, who are you to tell me what subject I can discuss on this or any other forum?

As is your case, what I believe and what the law/s read are two separate issues. What I believe is that incest piles the norms and statuses associated with romantic-sexual relationships on top of the norms and statuses associated with family relationships. These two sets of norms and statuses are in deep tension which tends to damage the integrity of those family relationships.

Here is the liberal gay rights supporter William Saletan making this argument, and here is the conservative gay rights opponent Matthew J. Franck echoing him and expanding on it.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Why the obsession with incest and polygamy?

How many cute cousins you got?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

That's not true Bears.

Well, A little clarification (by Me, 'Knot), is that Sen. Portman IS the Only REPUG senator to support the measure, and as you know, a total of 60 votes is needed to shut off debate by the REPUGS, so we are not there yet.

As for the house, it's safe for a couple of REPUG members to "come-out", knowing that, with thier Majority numbers, it's an 'Issue that would be D O A !

Back to CPAC for a moment.
Sara Palin showed up, to HELP the Dems realize that They will NEVER lose a Presidential election, as long as She/T-Rump/Santorum/Limbaugh etc. keep in the lime light.

Dems, REALLY don't fully understand HOW VALUABLE those ASSS-HOLES are to the Democratic Party !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ms Tree]

Is there something wrong with me bringing up the fact that if the SCOTUS were to affirm SSM there would not be a legal argument against poly-amorous relationship? And, if so, who are you to tell me what subject I can discuss on this or any other forum?

As is your case, what I believe and what the law/s read are two separate issues. What I believe is that incest piles the norms and statuses associated with romantic-sexual relationships on top of the norms and statuses associated with family relationships. These two sets of norms and statuses are in deep tension which tends to damage the integrity of those family relationships.

Here is the liberal gay rights supporter William Saletan making this argument, and here is the conservative gay rights opponent Matthew J. Franck echoing him and expanding on it.

Now I remember why I ignore you.

Never said you could not talk about anything. I could care less. I asked why? The is a difference. You answered why.

Personally I only care about legal arguments when rights are concerned. I do not thina mother should marry a son or daughter but I do not see a legal argument to prevent it so I don't care what other people do.

 

[Ms Tree]

Regarding Portman. I wonder if/how this will affect his reelection. He has now come out against a core belief of the GOP base. I would not be surprised if they kick him out.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Now I remember why I ignore you.

Never said you could not talk about anything. I could care less. I asked why? The is a difference. You answered why.

Personally I only care about legal arguments when rights are concerned. I do not thina mother should marry a son or daughter but I do not see a legal argument to prevent it so I don't care what other people do.

You didn't ignore me, you just responded to my reply. LOL Go ahead and block me Dave, that's exactly what I expect from an immature dolt.

 

[southwind]

Ahhh, now to that Half-a-Cuban.

Your not only a Bigot but, a racist too !

Funny how it's ok for Liberal-Demorats to be racist..........isn't it ?

 

[Dog Wonder]

I thought half a Cuban was a blunt