# Killing Homosexual Marriage



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise. 

What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do! 

What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. The poor gays are being denied something.. that is what has fueled heterosexual support. 

Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman. SCOTUS has now ruled that States cannot ban same-sex marriages through licenses which restrict that. So now, a marriage license has to be issued to same-sex couples the same as traditional male-female couples.  Gay Marriage, here to stay, right?  Not so fast....

There is no Constitutional requirement for the State to issue marriage licenses or recognize marriages of any kind. Regardless of whether they do or not, it doesn't change what any two people want to call marriage. I have pointed out numerous times in these long thread debates, that I attended a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama.... of all places. No one came and stopped it, no one protested or caused a scene, it was a beautiful ceremony conducted by a Rastafarian pastor on a nice Spring day, on a mountainside in the country. We threw rice, the couple went on a honeymoon, they had a wedding cake and wedding album. In every sense of the word, in their hearts and souls, they are married. It does not matter that the State of Alabama doesn't recognize it. 

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit. 

Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway. No other viable legal options remain, it's settled law according to SCOTUS.  Keep in mind that even slavery could not be ended in this country without Amending the Constitution because of SCOTUS ruling.... even after a Civil War!  So this is here to stay... as long as States authorize marriage licenses.  

So Boss, how do we deal with the many intricacies of insurance, property rights, taxes, etc., if we don't have some government method of defining domestic partnerships?  Well, contracts!  That's how we do it. The same as my gay friends from 1986 have done it. They obtained a series of various contract agreements to cover those bases as they arose and they have no real issue in that regard other than taxation, which is minimal. And as more and more States abandon marriage licensing, this contract process will become more standard with insurance and other things... it will simply be a matter of filling out a form and submitting it... done! Equality! 

Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home?  Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you?  A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 2, 2015)

Seem to spend an inordinant amount of time thinking about gay men ya know.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Oct 2, 2015)

To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.


----------



## turzovka (Oct 2, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.




The country is doing a good job of that all by themselves.  (degeneration) 

_She's come undone
She didn't know what she was headed for
And when I found what she was headed for
It was too late
_


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2015)

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.


----------



## pwjohn (Oct 2, 2015)

Chicken littles long winded comment might hold water, if large numbers of people over wide areas balked at the Supreme Court ruling. But as we all know, that didn't happen. As a matter of fact, the transition couldn't have gone better. 

I was taught something very important back when I was younger and thinking of going into in the car business. 

When you make the sale, stop selling the car. 

Those simple words are not a rule, but a warning. You'd be surprised by the number of deals that quickly and permanently unraveled after the sale by failing to heed that warning.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...




OK. You go make all those changes all across the country and then come back and tell us about it. Until then, quit whining. Gay people can get married, and your silly plans are just that.......silly.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 2, 2015)

tl;dr


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 2, 2015)

Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...



It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts. 

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.



LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Oct 2, 2015)

OMG!!!

Same Sex Couples being treated equally is such a harsh reality for those bigoted fools that believe their religion overrides the rights of others...

I swear fanatical Christians in this country have more in common with ISIL than they do with our Founding Fathers...


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...
> ...




OK .Let us know when you get started. How long do you think it will take? A week or two?


----------



## Spinster (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...



Boss, states not ratifying gay marriage will have zero to do with the whole senario. Beginning June 1, 2014, Obomination, by way of Executive Decision, made any and all same sex partners living together officially married. I remember it well as I was so outraged. And the gay and lesbian communities were as well. They wanted marriage to be their decision as any heterosexual couple would too. O's reason for the Order was so non-working parties of same sex relationships could have healthcare through the working member's employer. So, you see, Boss, it doesn't matter one iota what they do or don't do with regard to this situation. O's ruling trumps their lame attempt of having an effect. It's going to continue to be crammed down our throats forevermore, and since it's now acceptable, we'll have to stand by watching these queers make out and hump each other publically, because after all it's perfectly accepted by our FEDERAL government. The good old days are gone for all time, now Boss, get used to it and wake up and smell the roses.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...
> ...


So your solution is that states stop marrying anybody and instead calls it a union or something like that?  I think that's fair.  And if a gay or straight couple wants to call themselves married, they just have to find a church that will do it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Oct 2, 2015)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> OMG!!!
> 
> Same Sex Couples being treated equally is such a harsh reality for those bigoted fools that believe their religion overrides the rights of others...
> 
> I swear fanatical Christians in this country have more in common with ISIL than they do with our Founding Fathers...


They are the American Taliban, evil peas in an evil pod, called faith.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> ...




QUICK!!!! Go put your head in the refrigerator. It's overheating again.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 2, 2015)

For Boss and others like him.

Do the people who think homosexuality / transgender people are perverted suffer from a lack of self esteem or personal security? Anyone who is secure in their gender role knows that they cannot simply switch hit. If you constantly find it necessary to criticize those different from you, are you simply trying to prop up your own masculinity? Are you afraid of stumbling into sin because you feel it a choice rather than a biologic fact? Are you fighting something inside yourself?

*Could it be that those obsessed with gays are secretly gay? That could explain why they see something everywhere, you only see what you want to, you only see where your mind leads you. * "Jesse Bering has written a thought provoking article for the magazine, January 30, 2009 issue of the magazine, Scientific American Mind. In it he cites two pieces of empirical research that support the notion of homophobic young men harbor secret homosexual impulses. Both research studies were published in the distinguished publication, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. The first study was done in 2006 by Henry Adams and his team at the University of Georgia. Complete descriptions of the works can be found on Scientific American Mind but you may have to pay for the article or buy the magazine."

Clinical Depression, Separation Anxiety: Allan Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul: where there is compassion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless." Eric Hoffer


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society. Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark. The gay marriage initiative has been pushed largely by heterosexuals, not homosexuals. .



Once again you start off with nothing more than a biased opinion- based upon nothing other than your butthurt about homosexuals being able to legally marry.

Let us look at the facts- before you start telling America why America should do things your way:

Gay Marriage

57% of Americans favor same sex marriage as of 6/8/15

And the numbers show that is almost certain to increase- because younger people support same sex marriage by much larger percentages

73% of Millennials support same sex marriage.

But of course- your only goal is to 'kill homosexual marriage'

Because of your bigotry.


----------



## pwjohn (Oct 2, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > OMG!!!
> ...



You can stop selling. You made the sale. Because now you're looking like a troll. 
For th first time in my life I'm going in for Sunday service upon occasion and I've heard nothing at all, not even a whiff of vast conspiracys to deny anybody anything.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...


Good luck with that, Homie.    We are marrying every day....you can't roll back the clock now.


----------



## mdk (Oct 2, 2015)

Maybe if you stomp your feet harder gays won't be allowed to get married anymore. All these sullen tears taste so marvelous.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> . After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals?....., but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit..



If there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for heterosexuals?

Your homophobia comes through strong and clear again.  You are like the person who tells us he is not bigoted towards blacks- and has black friends- but then proceeds to explain why blacks are different from whites- how they think differently.

I guess your 'grand' idea for 'killing' heterosexual marriage is just to kill  legal marriage for all Americans.

And of course you don't give a damn about whether Americans agree with you or not.


----------



## Bonzi (Oct 2, 2015)

The world will wax worse and worse in it's own vomit and sin.
But there will be a day of judgment, and, you selfish desires will seem very small indeed............


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



States don't need to call it anything. You can call it whatever you please. If churches want to ordain it, that's up to the churches. If there is some legal need for establishment of partnership, there are contracts for that. Marriage need not be a state or government issue at all. It's not in the Constitution, it's not a requirement of government to recognize or sanction it. 

Some smart ass says... get with the 21st century, Boss! Well... okay, let's _get with the 21st century_ and get government out of the marrying business where they don't fucking belong!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Oh... So you're gonna take your ball and go home?  Well, yes... in a manner of speaking, that's exactly what we are going to do. You didn't think we're just going to let you hijack the traditional institution of marriage and get away with that, did you?  A non-sequitur... that's what you turn the SCOTUS ruling into. That effectively Kills Homosexual Marriage.



Imagine if the opponents of mixed race marriage had proposed this same 'solution' in 1967?

I wouldn't be legally married right now.

And boy would I be pissed off at the racists who killed marriage- just so that they could kill mixed race marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

pwjohn said:


> Chicken littles long winded comment might hold water, if large numbers of people over wide areas balked at the Supreme Court ruling. But as we all know, that didn't happen. As a matter of fact, the transition couldn't have gone better.
> 
> I was taught something very important back when I was younger and thinking of going into in the car business.
> 
> ...



Well at least in this OP he didn't tell us again about his fear that gays were going to try to make it legal for them to rape him in public.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...
> ...



Alabama is not killing marriage- not even for gay Americans- the law would simply eliminated marriage licenses.

Probably will fuck up married couples who are required to provide marriage licenses for insurance purposes or any other legal purpose they need to prove that they are married, but hell you are willing to fuck over all Americans just because you are upset that gay Amercans can marry each other.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> Maybe if you stomp your feet harder gays won't be allowed to get married anymore. All these sullen tears taste so marvelous.



I am hoping he will start holding his breath.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.
> ...



And there is ZERO chance that your dream of fucking over Americans who want to be legally married will come true.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Oct 2, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.


Im all for gay marriage however I must point out that saying to undo it would undo the country is about as foolish a thing that Ive read here in a long time.
 Please tell, how is it that this country would be undone if gay marriage was once again unacceptable? 
 and if it has to do with the constitution and the around about way it was twisted to include gay marriage (marriage for anyone was not a right up until this point), the explain how taking away the right to own and carry a gun wont undo this country when in fact there is a specific right outlined to do so.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> The world will wax worse and worse in it's own vomit and sin.
> But there will be a day of judgment, and, you selfish desires will seem very small indeed............



Personally, I think we should all be trying to be nicer to each other, and spend less time trying to fuck each other over.

Boss feels otherwise.


----------



## Bonzi (Oct 2, 2015)

Fucking is good.. but the good fucking I mean


----------



## Bonzi (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > The world will wax worse and worse in it's own vomit and sin.
> ...


 
People can not help themselves to be self-interested.
It's the downfall of man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Fucking is good.. but the good fucking I mean



Fucking is usually good. 

Trying to fuck someone over- is just fucking evil.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



But we can channel our self interest so that we do not do so at the expense of others.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

midcan5 said:


> For Boss and others like him.
> 
> Do the people who think homosexuality / transgender people are perverted suffer from a lack of self esteem or personal security? Anyone who is secure in their gender role knows that they cannot simply switch hit. If you constantly find it necessary to criticize those different from you, are you simply trying to prop up your own masculinity? Are you afraid of stumbling into sin because you feel it a choice rather than a biologic fact? Are you fighting something inside yourself?
> 
> ...



I can't speak for anyone but myself on this. I am not homophobic. I don't hate gay people. I have many gay friends and family members. I attended a gay wedding in 1986. I'm going to another jam-fest this weekend and will probably sleep in a tent with a gay guy, again... we usually bunk together because it's practical. I don't sleep with one eye open afraid he might rape me... contrary to what some here might have you believe. I know he is gay, he knows I am straight and we're just good friends who don't think of each other in regard to sexuality. And that's how I am with most all my friends, gay or straight. I don't judge what people do, that's up to them, as long as they aren't harming me or my family, I couldn't care less.  I can even see how many heterosexuals have been sucked in to this perception of inequity regarding gay couples and marriage. 

My approach here is purely clinical. Homosexuality is relatively rare.  Like I said, one in ten, maybe. So it's not a prevalent thing in society and it won't ever be. Overwhelmingly, humans are heterosexual and that isn't ever going to change. Gay Marriage has not emerged because of the homosexuals, they don't have anywhere near the numbers to make it an issue. It is fueled by mostly secular left-wing radical liberal heterosexuals who have adopted "the cause" on the pretense of some inequity or discrimination.  

As for your psychobabble, I could contend that liberal heterosexuals who support gay marriage are "secretly gay" as well!  It works both ways with psychobabble... didn't Freud teach you anything?


----------



## Bonzi (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking is good.. but the good fucking I mean
> ...


 
some people deserve to be fucked over... just sayin'


----------



## Bonzi (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
For what reason?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.
> ...


You are correct...if there are zero laws....it is equal per the 14th amendment.  No problems there.    Now....how do you think straights would feel about that?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > . After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals?....., but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit..
> ...


Just like the whites in a Southern town that filled in the community pool with concrete rather than allow blacks to swim in it with them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



He doesn't care about what other people feel about it- just so long as he thinks he is screwing over gay Americans.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yep- that was how they 'killed' desegregated swimming.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Well if you read the OP you understand the Gay Marriage issue is being pushed by straights. Gays only make up about 10% of society, they are a non-factor.  The straights who are in support of gay marriage are not (I presume) supporting it because they like homosexual behavior. It's largely due to the perception of inequity. If the "inequity" is removed, there is really nothing for the straight to support anymore, it no longer exists. 

The result of removing government from marriage will effectively kill support for gay marriage because there is no more perception of inequity in law. There is also no real need for gay couples to "get married" if there is no governmental benefit or credibility to be gained. It's a moot point. Within 20-30 years, it would be something people laugh about... the olden days when they thought gay marriage was a thing!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You apparently confuse your unsubstantiated opinion with something we call 'facts'.

I understand the words you wrote- that doesn't mean I understand your opinion or your conclusions. 

Or that any rational person would.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss- you ever been married? 

See, I have been married for over 20 years, so I have a pretty clear understanding of why my wife and I got married. 

And it had nothing to do with government benefits or 'credibility'.

If you have been married- why did you get married? Just to procreate? 

If you have never been married- why do you think you have any experience to tell others what marriage is or is not?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Within 20-30 years- or hell within 10-15 years people will be laughing about the olden days when people talked about mixed race marriage and gay marriage as if those were something different than marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> ...



What!!      States "ratifying " Gay marriage?? Seriously.? States to not have to ratify, indeed there is no procedure to ratify a SCOTUS decision. And what about an executive order? Care to post a news article are the order itself. That is even more ridiculous. It sound like those voices in your head are working over time honey.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Brilliant! More discrimination. Substitute sexual orientation discrimination for religious discrimination. Only the religious  and those willing to submit to religious rituals can then be "married"


----------



## Spinster (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...



Not so, Boss. Beginning June 1, 2015, Obimination, but Executive Order, mandated any same sex partners living together were automatically married


Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...





Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...





Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...
> ...





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Look it up asshole. I gave you the effective date. It was all over the news at the time. How'd you manage to miss it, or were you just into switch hitting at that time? Fuck off!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> ...



Did you happen to be hit hard on the head that day? Or suffer some kind of stroke?

I am just wondering what kind of event would lead to your hallucinations.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> [
> Look it up asshole. I gave you the effective date. It was all over the news at the time. How'd you manage to miss it, or were you just into switch hitting at that time? Fuck off!



The voices in your head are not 'the news'


----------



## Spinster (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Go back into your little closet, homo.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spinster said:
> ...



Stop playing with your teeny tiny little dick,  you teeny tiny dicked bigot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You, of all people, implying another human as damaged is the most laughable thing I've seen in years!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> ...



You are either completely insane, a shameless liar or both. There is nothing that he signed  that declared anybody married. He could not have done that . Only an idiot would think that he could. THIS was the executive order :



> WASHINGTON — After years of pressure from gay rights groups, President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the White House said Monday.
> 
> While Obama lacks the authority to extend that protection to all Americans, the order being drafted by the White House would impact about 14 million workers whose employers or states currently do not ban workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. The scope of the measure was tabulated by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, which studies sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy.  With LGBT Worker Bill Stalled, Obama Shifts to Executive Order


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spinster said:
> ...



Oh I am sure you find lots of things laughable.......things in your head....things no one else can see....things that no one else would invent.....


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Like the concept of homosexuality?

No, no one would ever buy that absurdity

Never mind then


----------



## Spinster (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, the voice I do hear in my head is your bitchy fem little voice saying your screen name, and that's not news as you make lame attempts at attacking me constantly. STFU for once in your life.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Not so, Boss. Beginning June 1, 2015, Obimination, but Executive Order, mandated any same sex partners living together were automatically married




Here is the list of 2015 Executive Orders from the Federal Register:

EO 13707: Using Behavioral Science Insights To Better Serve the American People
EO 13706: Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
EO 13705: Designating the International Renewable Energy Agency as a Public International Organization Entitled To Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities
EO 13704: Presidential Innovation Fellows Program
EO 13703: Implementing the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States for 2015-2020
EO 13702: Creating a National Strategic Computing Initiative
EO 13701: Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
EO 13700: Establishing an Emergency Board To Investigate Disputes Between New Jersey Transit Rail and Certain of Its Employees Represented by Certain Labor Organizations
EO 13699: Establishing the Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health
EO 13698: Hostage Recovery Activities
EO 13697: Amendment to Executive Order 11155, Awards for Special Capability in Career and Technical Education
Federal Register | 2015 Barack Obama Executive Orders


********************************************

Mind pointing out which one make any two same sex persons living together married?



>>>>


----------



## Spinster (Oct 2, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Spinster said:
> 
> 
> > Not so, Boss. Beginning June 1, 2015, Obimination, but Executive Order, mandated any same sex partners living together were automatically married
> ...


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses?  What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony?  What would be the point of taking away the right to marry?  What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



'concept of homosexuality'

as absurd as the concept of Christianity.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Spinster said:
> ...



Don't you find it hard to type when you are busy with a magnifying glass trying to find that teeny tiny dick you thought you had somewhere down there?


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses?  What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony?  What would be the point of taking away the right to marry?  What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?



Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law? 

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Spinster said:
> ...


Well where the fuck is it? I could not find it. No one could find it. It exists only in your warped and defective brain.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Are you a Christian?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses?  What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony?  What would be the point of taking away the right to marry?  What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?
> ...


What is the purpose of killing Gay marriage?  Why is it such a threat?  Why bother at all?

And state sanctioned marriage creates a new legal entity.  It essentially melds the fortunes of two people and creates a next-of-kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed.  It provides protections and benefits not available through similar contracts.  The state has established special courts to dissolve those contracts.

Churches sanctify marriages, but the state license establishes them.

So again I ask, why be concerned about marriage equality?  Where's the threat?  Why the opposition?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



That entity could have been established without all the drama. 

Marriage established a new family where one didn't previously existed for a very clear reason. It was an attempt to create order in what once was a chaotic process, tracking bloodlines. 

That was not necessary with homosexual couples (unless a gay man married a lesbian).


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 2, 2015)

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage". 

Since a gay couple and a straight couple can both avail themselves of the exact same series of contracts, there will be no problem, dumb shit. That will be known as equality. 

The OP likely thinks that some states......especially his backwater home....will make some or all of these contracts void if both parties are of the same sex....thereby "killing" the homosexual union business. Won't happen, dummy. 

This is an incredible thread fail.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".
> 
> Since a gay couple and a straight couple can both avail themselves of the exact same series of contracts, there will be no problem, dumb shit. That will be known as equality.
> 
> ...



Make contracts void if parties are of the same sex? What the hell do you mean? How would anyone do that? 

Thread fail or not, this is what you can expect to see happening across America in the coming years. The SCOTUS ruling didn't settle this issue for society... sorry... just didn't.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".
> ...



You think when all is said and done.....homosexual couples and heterosexual couples will be treated exactly the same by the state? Is that it?


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Just as much as they are now or ever have been.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.


Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid?  Is procreation a requirement of marriage?  Your argument falls on its face.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Are you OK? 

You've basically suggested that gay people be treated the same as straight people. That makes you one of the people pushing the gay agenda. Welcome to the right side of history, dumb shit.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".
> 
> Since a gay couple and a straight couple can both avail themselves of the exact same series of contracts, there will be no problem, dumb shit. That will be known as equality.
> 
> ...


Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or the rice as it were.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Who cares?  Most religious beliefs are a crock anyways.  If you want to call yourself married as a Protestant, or Pastafarian, or Jedi, well who cares?  Or even as an atheist call yourself married.  It's all the same anyways.  If the government only hands out civil unions so what?


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



To my knowledge, gay people have never been NOT treated equally. No marriage license ever required disclosure of your sexuality or restricted it in any way. I would think that any law which specifically singled out gays to discriminate against them would be unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment and probably a few others. So from a legal standpoint, I don't see where gays have been discriminated against. 

If my solution resolves the inequity problem you perceive, then what is the big deal? Sounds like I've come up with a plan you can support. No more government sanctioned marriages for anyone. 

Welcome to the 21st Century!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 2, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.
> ...


Always with the anecdotal and anomalous to try wagging the dog.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


I care. I'm an atheist. I'm married. I like being able to say that I'm married. People understand what being married means. How the hell is an Atheist going to be married. There are no atheist churches.

I thought about the issue of civil unions vs. marriage back before Obergefell when some were pushing it as an alternative to marriage for same sex couples.  I wrote this back then and it is still relevant in that what you are proposing is just a variation on the same theme



> The issue of Civil Unions or contracts keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had  all the same rights and protections, naturalized  citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is.  It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?
> 
> Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html
> 
> ...




Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable  relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either. 

____________________________________________________________________________


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

Yo.....Boss.......what does your plan kill again?


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

LoneLaugher said:


> ...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.



Not exactly what I said. People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations. Property rights can be handled the way they are in other circumstances, through contractual arrangement between two parties. I don't want to change that, no one has an issue with it.  The issue is over "Marriage" and what that means in society.... all of society... gays, religious people, straight people... everybody.  
I am an individual liberty guy... I am conservative, but very much libertarian in my views on individual liberty. I don't want the government sticking their nose in ANY of my business unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all.  No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.

Okay, so you have the right to do it... but the state doesn't have to sanction marriage. So basically, you have the constitutional right to live your homosexual lives and call it marriage if that's what you want to do.  Meanwhile, religious people will still have traditional marriages and society would recognize that as traditional marriage. It's just not a function of the state to sanction it anymore. 

Again, I am betting the results of this will be a slow and steady decline in gay marriages. We would see that gay couples no longer had any real motivation to "get married" because there wouldn't be any sort of state recognition or benefit to them. Some may still want to do it here and there, but I think society would see the practice wane as time goes on. Some religions may reform to ordain gay marriages but that is for the religions to settle, they aren't bound by SCOTUS rulings regarding who they marry. But again, there is not going to be much of a reason if there is no state sanction.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

You didn't answer my last question.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > ...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.
> ...


In other words, you would throw the baby out with the bath water in an effort to repress marriage equality. To serve what noble purpose?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Interesting point.  I guess I don't have as much value for the word as you do.  To me if an atheist couple tells me they're married it means the same thing as a gay couple telling me, or a Catholic couple, or Jewish, etc.

I certainly think it's petty and pathetic that Alabama, for example, would rather do away with government sanctioned marriage because they're upset about gay people; but.... 

....I was actually going to expand on that and make a point but I think I dissuaded myself with that last sentence.  Maybe you're right!


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.



Let me ask you something... Gay Marriage has been legal in all 50 states for a little bit now... did you wake up the day after the SCOTUS ruling with the feeling you were equal to heterosexuals? Do you find that society in general is treating you more equally since the ruling? The Pope was just here, did he speak of this new bestowing of equality on humanity? 

No law that I know of is discriminating on the basis of sexuality. This entire issue is about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. That's a completely different booger.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



No, noo... not repressing anything. You had marriage equality before OgdballAffair and you have equality now. But now we have a redefinition of marriage that isn't acceptable. So what my idea does, is remove state sanctioning of marriage so that it's no longer an issue of inequity. Simple! 

I don't get the baby and bathwater analogy... is the baby the homo? If so, I don't want to throw them out. The bathwater has become intolerable and it has to go.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.
> ...




 Your assuming that I'm gay!!  To make such an assumption about someone without really knowing anything about them does nothing for your credibility.

There was no laws discriminating on the basis of sexuality? Seriously? Why? Because all of those bans on same sex marriage did not mention sexual  orientation but just said that marriage shall be between one man and one woman.? Do you think that they were aimed at the hordes of heterosexuals who were clamoring to marry someone  of their own gender?  Give me a break with that one.

Yes, the issue is  about homosexuals gaining societal acceptance and legitimacy. And, marriage equality is just one way on achieving that. So what was your point with that?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.
> ...


Tolerance versus Acceptance.

There are hammer headed White Supremacists.  There are racial Chauvinists of every stripe.  Society will never be rid of those who harbor ugly thoughts and attitudes.  That's our misfortune.

So, no.  Not everyone will receive enlightenment over night.  Yes, bigots will continue to abound.

But in the eyes of the law, equal justice for all should be something worth striving for.  Let society be society.  Eventually, the number of homophobes will dwindle.  But they will teach their children to be idiots.  Generations will die out before the last vestiges of homophobia will fade away.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Gays Already Had Equality before Oberefell??

Yes both the gay man and a straight man can marry a woman. But how would you like it if the tables were turned, most people were gay, only same sex marriage was legal, and YOU were told that you have equality because, like the gay man you too could marry a man? If you can't grasp that it's only because you can't accept or believe that two people of the same sex can feel about each other is EQUAL to how you can feel about a woman. The only way that your statement can be true is if marriage were completely devoid of sexual attraction and romantic love. Is it??.........for you? 

And, while the law does not guarantee that anyone will get what they want, it does not prevent straight people from seeking out what they want and having it to the extent that the other party is willing. Not so with gay people in many places. Tell the truth, do you really believe this inane clap trap? More likely you are just being intellectually dishonest . 

One more thing. If this argument makes any sense at all, why has it not been prevailed in any court case? Yes it has been tried, and shot down. The argument is so stupid and insensitive that it would be laughable if it were not for the fact that we're talking about real people, with lives and feeling, which you don't seem to be able to fathom.

PS: Even Justice Roberts has a problem with your idea. He asked whether or not it is a simple matter of sex discrimination, as opposed to discrimination based on sexual orientation. If a woman can marry a man, but not another woman BECAUSE she is a woman.....that is gender discrimination


To say that gay people already had equal marriage rights is a logical fallacy in several ways:

*Non sequitur* (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a _non sequitur_, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of _non sequitur_. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.


In this case  the conclusion, that they already have equal rights is based on the premise that, like heterosexuals, they can marry someone of the opposite sex. However, that can only be true if marriage were strictly a legal/ business arrangement and not a personal/ romantic one. The conclusion ignores the fact that the premise is faulty because it ignores the fact that gay people do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex.


The second logical fallacy employed in this argument is an appeal to ignorance. Basically, those who employ it are asking their audience to accept the argument at face value I said it, it sounds good, don’t question it.


Lastly, it is Reductio ad absurdum: In formal logic, the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate argument. It follows the form that if the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. The term is now often used to refer to the abuse of this style of argument, by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion.

In this case, the premise, that a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex is indeed true. The absurd false conclusion is that it results in equality for gays, and it’s absurd because they do not see that as an acceptable out come and indeed, it is not equal to the choice that heterosexuals have.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.
> ...



Do you even know that in 31 states it is legal to fire someone or refuse to employ them if they are gay? 

How can you not know that?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...




Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like. They take this position as an alternative to the legalization of gay marriage and assert that in the absence of government regulation anyone can form a union-via contract- with anyone else who they chose to, and call it whatever they want. For the most part, those pushing this viewpoint are those who are opposed to same sex marriage, and will do anything to prevent such nuptials are universally recognized by government. Other just hate anything that the government does. The idea it seems, is to sink the ship in order to drown the rats In addition, I have yet to hear any explanation of how such a drastic change in marriage will in any way be better for us as a society.

In any case, I believe that it is wrought with problems and pitfalls, and promoted by people who do not really want it to come to that-indeed they don’t believe that it will-but who are also being coy about their opposition to equality or government regulation of anything . However, far be it from me-the Progressive Patriot- to jump to conclusions or rush to judgment so I decided to take a closer look.

First, let us consider why marriage is something that is regulated by the government in the first place. It is true that for centuries, marriage was in fact a private affair between families.  However it is also true that the practice of requiring marriage licenses dates back more than 400 years in England. (When those opposed to gay marriage talk about tradition, I say, now there is tradition! A tradition that you might want to think twice about discarding)

This license requirement came about because ” ….





> When the state-run Church of England decided it wanted to have a say in approving marriage partnerships, laws regarding marriage licensing were established to ensure a level of control and source for revenues.” The American colonies later adapted many of the same customs and laws. Gradually, the states began to exercise greater control over who one could marry and a major concern was to prevent inter racial marriage. Later, the primary reason for government control of marriage licenses remains for vital statistics recording and continues as a source of revenue for local and state governments. Source: http://www.ehow.com/about_6644194_history-marriage-licenses.html#ixzz2sg0BKysk



It’s interesting to note that while marriage licenses came about in England at the behest of the state run church, and the church continued to have enormous influence in the colonies , once the United States came into being, there was no longer a state church and in fact a state church was specifically prohibited. However, concessions were made to the church such as granting tax exempt status, and most notable with respect to marriage, clergy were afforded the right to perform wedding ceremonies that result in a legally binding union under the law. Some would say that doing so blurs the lines between church and state. 

So on the surface, it may seem at this point that government regulation came about for the wrong reasons or is no longer relevant:


Interracial marriage is no longer an issue 

There is no state sponsored church that has official influence on government so presumably, government could pull out of the marriage regulation business if chose to.
Marriage licenses are probably not a significant source of revenue, it is restricted to local government and it is not a reason to require legal marriage that most people would endorse.

Public health and vital statistics could be compiled by the census and through the registration of those private contracts

But wait!  What is a “private contract” Not being a student of midlevel history, I don’t know what the concept of “contract” was then. However, I know that in our system of government and law, a contract is a legal construct that is it is created by law. Its execution and desolation is controlled by statute, and only government creates statutory law. So I submit to you that to get government “out of marriage” is not a choice under the contemporary definition of contract

Ok, so some government involvement is inevitable. But you might say if those contracts are regulated by government, why they can’t just be like any other contract such as one you might enter into with an employer, or someone remodeling your home. What makes a “marriage contract” special? Why require a license to enter into a marriage contract, but not other contracts?

As it turns out, there is at least one supporter of traditional marriage who think that it would, in fact be a very bad idea to remove the government sanction and regulation of marriage.



> Robert George, one of the *leading voices advocating for traditional marriage* today, along with Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, have written a thorough and well-documented piece in the_ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy _entitled _What is Marriage?_ *Among other things, they argue that attempts to stop government from regulating marriage are naive at best and ruinous at worst. *



*They go on to say: *

_“






Almost no society that has left us a trace of itself has done without some regulation of sexual relationships…The wellbeing of children gives us powerful prudential reasons to recognize and protect marriage legally”.
		
Click to expand...

_
_*And while a main concern of theirs stems from an opposition of extension of marriage to gays, they have much more to say in support of government regulation. *_



> “…… the government cannot simply bow out of the marriage regulation business, as divorces will still have to be adjudicated, for there will inevitably be disputes over marital unfaithfulness, assets, and custody of children. The state will have to involve itself in disentangling the mess after traditional marriage has been thus dismantled. This is why the libertarian argument fails. For a true libertarian would surely want less governmental intrusion into our private lives, but the de-regulation of marriage would in fact lead to more of it”.



And:


> “_Although some libertarians propose to “privatize” marriage, treating marriages the way we treat baptisms and bar mitzvahs, _*supporters of limited government should recognize that marriage privatization would be a catastrophe for limited government.*_ In the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and out‐of‐wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows.”_
> 
> *http://russellandduenes.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/should-we-do-away-with-all-governmental-regulation-of-marriage/*


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


The baby in the analogy is the marriage license.  What I'm curious about is why do you see the bath water as dirty?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses?  What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony?  What would be the point of taking away the right to marry?  What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?
> ...



Your remedy to 'kill gay marriage' is to kill marriage.

But marriage will survive- regardless of your efforts to kill marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Are you a Homosexual?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Families do not require marriage to be families.
Nor do Marriages require children.
However, I agree that marriage was always intended to regulate what can be a disorderly process.

And marriage to that end, works well with all couples- including couples that include two people of the same gender.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.



There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > What our incredibly long winded OP is saying...is that in his plan, nobody will be married. Two people who love each other will just draw up a series of contracts because the state government will no longer sanction a thing called "marriage".
> ...



Why would any of expect anything you predict to happen? 

You speak from ignorance and bigotry and have no record of success in predicting anything.

This issue is more settled now, than mixed race marriages were at the time of Loving v. Virginia.

But there will always be bigots who will not accept it- there are still bigots who do not accept mixed race marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well you are just establishing your ignorance or dishonesty. 

Gay couples were treated unequally just as mixed race couples were treated unequally. 

Which is why both Obergefel and Loving succeeded before the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



LOL- the current solution resolves the inequity problem that had existed. 

So what is the big deal? Government sanctioned marriages for couples regardless of the gender of the spouses.

No- you would prefer to tell all American that they can no longer get married.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > ...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.
> ...



You know what this reminds me of?

All of the States who said "When we passed laws in the 90's banning same gender marriage- those laws were not targetting homosexuals' (wink wink).

As Boss is making clear- he wants to kill marriage ONLY to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

Being the bigot that he is- he believes homosexuals want to marry only for material benefit.

Does he believe that is why his parents got married? Maybe? Is that why Boss got married. Maybe? Perhaps Boss is merely reflecting his own life experience, and that everyone he knows just gets married for material benefits.

But my wife and I didn't get married for material benefits. Nor have my gay friends. 

However, I think he does get one thing right- if he abolished 'legal marriage'- then all couples would have far less motivation to get married. 

Why does Boss want to encourage Americans not to get married?

Apparently he is such a traditionalist when it comes to marriage- he wants to encourage all Americans to stop getting married. 

IF it means preventing one gay couple from marrying.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


It's the legal union that is wrong. Forcing people to concede to and subsidize irrelevant personal behavior. Homofascists want to keep the argument in the religious realm so they can't lose the argument. Looks like they've suckered you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If you think that what you call for is 'Simple' then you are a Simpleton.

Currently gay couples can legally marry in all 50 states. Since all existing marriage laws apply to gay couples just as they do to any other couple, the legal changes are extremely minimal- some minor tweaks to legal language regarding gender in marriage.

BUT what you propose would require re-writing vast amounts of laws- let me list among the laws and regulations that would have to be completely re-written to accomodate your desire to discriminate against homosexuals

Social Security
Veteran's Benefits
Military housing regulations
The Tax code.
Every state's tax code.
U.S. immigration law
YOUR Solution would require EVERY state in the Union to rewrite hundreds of laws and regulations.

All to accommodate your desire to discriminate against homosexual couples.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal.
> ...



Did African Americans wake up the day after Loving v. Virginia with the feeling that they were equal to white Americans?

Americans who were gay woke up the day after Obergefel finding out that legally they were equal to hetero couples. 
Just like mixed race couples woke up the day after Loving finding out that legally they were equal to unmixed race couples.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > ...is that in his plan, nobody will be married.
> ...



So when religious people have traditional polygamous marriages- will society recognize that as traditional marriage? And when a father decides to marry his daughter- - perfectly acceptable according to the Bible- will society accept that also?

With no legal prohibitions on marriage anymore- you can have your dream of traditional polygamous marriage(recognized by their church) and traditional marriage between a father and daughter.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Boss equates a desire for legal equality as a demand for social acceptance. 

But the gay couples who went to court to fight for the equal rights didn't ask for social acceptance- they asked for legal equality. 

And Boss hates that legal equality.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.


No, conservatives are going to whine about this for the next 40 years as they have whined about privacy rights for the last 40 years.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Both, actually.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2015)

Spinster said:


> Not so, Boss. *Beginning June 1, 2015, Obimination, but Executive Order, mandated any same sex partners living together were automatically married*





WorldWatcher said:


> Here is the list of 2015 Executive Orders from the Federal Register:
> 
> EO 13707: Using Behavioral Science Insights To Better Serve the American People
> EO 13706: Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors
> ...







Spinster said:


> You have a serious reading comprehension problem. My post stated, June 1, 2014, not 2015, idiot.




No I don't have a reading comprehension problem as you clearly said 2015.

Before calling someone an idiot you should cool your jets - I quoted your post like I've quoted it here, and you can check post #50.

Gee - now don't you look silly.


>>>>


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 2, 2015)

"So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination."

This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Marriage is contract law having little to do with the issuing of marriage licenses and to whom. 

The issue concerns the contract law that is marriage being withheld from same-sex couples eligible to enter into marriage contracts for no other reason than who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Therefore, how can my efforts be "to kill marriage?"   
...You  retorted your own assumption! --Good work!


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination."
> 
> This is comprehensively ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.
> 
> ...



GOOD! Then it won't be a problem when States legislate marriage licenses out of existence.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.



I've thought it through and I agree with myself.  

It will look like this... ____________________________________. 

Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call  whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You described your own efforts to kill marriage. 

You want to kill 'homosexual marriage' by killing marriage.

Apparently you just want everyone who is legally married to be legally harmed.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I never said tell people "they could no longer get married"... where did you get that?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination."
> ...



Alabama wants to do away with marriage licenses- not marriage. 

They will just record legal marriage in a different way.

So Alabaman's will still be getting legally married- regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

Just the delicate feelings of Alabamans wont' be harmed by having to see marriage licences being issued to gays.


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 2, 2015)

Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage.  The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves.  For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.

Also, I am a married man and abolishing marriage is a personal attack on my status and the status of my wife, and this goes deeper than man-made law.  Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, and in Genesis it says that a man and wife become one flesh in the eyes of God, and the bond is not broken until death.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'killing homosexual marriage'- by of course killing marriage.

That is what you are proposing- killing marriage in the United States.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, that's not what I said at all. You're not reading too well again. Or maybe you've just decided to be the dishonest little prick you always are and intentionally lie about what I've posted? 

I don't want to kill marriage. Just state sanctioning of marriage. People can still get married. Contractual law can still exist. No one is legally harmed because there is no requirement for the state to recognize a marriage. 

Once the state no longer sanctions marriage, I think the concept of gays marrying will fade away and become a fond memory of the past.... like leisure suits and flappers.... mullets and disco.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage.  The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves.  For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.
> 
> Also, I am a married man and abolishing marriage is a personal attack on my status and the status of my wife, and this goes deeper than man-made law.  Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, and in Genesis it says that a man and wife become one flesh in the eyes of God, and the bond is not broken until death.



First of all, Christians and Catholics are out of choices if they wish to retain sanctity of marriage. If it remains a state sanctioned institution, it has to include homosexual marriage. So they can modify their religious dogma to condone that or they can support the idea of removing the state from sponsoring marriage. As for the legal status and next of kin, this can be handled through appropriate contracts and wills. Social Security disbursement is not a State concern. 

As for "abolishing marriage" ...I never said that. Surely, the relationship between you and your wife is not dependent on a document from the State, is it? Of course not... you presented a very eloquent quote from the Bible which proves it's not. Your marriage will survive not having the State bless it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage.  The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves.  For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.
> ...


" If it remains a state sanctioned institution, it has to include homosexual marriage. So they can modify their religious dogma to condone that or they can support the idea of removing the state from sponsoring marriage." ??? Or they can put their heads on straight and realize that gays getting married has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of THEIR marriage. Each individual and couple must decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Anyone who believes that what others do can effect the meaning of their marriage, most likely are in a marriage that is in trouble. Secondly, they need to realize that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different and separate things. If anything needs to change, it is to take away  the authority of clergy to bestow legal marriage on a couple. That is a bizarre infringement on the concept of separation of church and state. EVERYONE should be required to have a civil ceremony officiated by a judge, justice of the peace, mayor, sea captain, whatever. THEN if they want the blessings of clergy, have a religious ceremony. At the same time, they must also realize that there are a growing number of clergy and religious organization that do condone  same sex marriage and will perform those ceremonies for gay couples who are religious. They exist you know. If that, in their view, undermines the "sanctity of marriage" .....to damned bad.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.
> ...


Yea we know ...not workable, not possible, not happening


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.
> ...



You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled. 

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling. 

True Story


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.
> ...



Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex? We wouldn't want to discriminate now do we?


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 2, 2015)

The thing is, same-sex marriage has thrown a giant wrench at our society, and we don't know yet how much collateral damage it will cause.  The Supreme Court should have allowed the states to decide this issue.  Now we know that once again, the desires of the American people do not matter.  Only liberals matter.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.



LOL... Oh, okay... since you say it's not I guess I'll shut up!  NOT! 

Hate to break it to ya but it's already happening. Alabama passed it but needed a supermajority because it wasn't part of the governor's agenda. It will pass next session. It's also being introduced in several other states. This is going to be what you see happening all over America. If you want to stick your head in the sand or live in denial, that's fine... it is happening though.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Yep... workable, possible, already happening.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Or they can put their heads on straight and realize that gays getting married has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of THEIR marriage. Each individual and couple must decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Anyone who believes that what others do can effect the meaning of their marriage, most likely are in a marriage that is in trouble. Secondly, they need to realize that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different and separate things. If anything needs to change, it is to take away the authority of clergy to...



Whoa, pardner... you were on a roll there until you got to the part about interfering with freedom of religion. No, you're certainly not going to do that.  Government has absolutely no authority to remove any authority from the clergy. The first part of your little rant was good... makes a great case for why it won't be an issue for states to abandon sanctioning marriages.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.
> ...




The Alabama law didn't eliminate Civil Marriage, it eliminated State issued Civil Marriage licenses.

It is replaced with the couple completing a form and filing it with the State that then registers the marriage.  At the end of the day Alabama was still going to have Civil Marriages that would be available to different-sex couples, interracial couples, same-sex couples, and interfaith couples and those marriage would still be the same as they are today in the State, recognized the same as they are today by other States, and recognized the same as they are today by the Federal government.


Bill to abolish marriage licenses dies in Alabama House
>>>>


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark.



Homosexuals are less than 3% of the population, but bisexuals are about 7% and they label them all 'homosexual' if the affirm that they have had sex with same gender people in the last 5 years or so, though some go back longer than that.

The longer you go back the fewer there are who say that they have only had homosexual sex in the last twenty years or whatever.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> tl;dr


Further proof of what an absolute idiot you are.

My Gawd,  it wasn't more than a  page long, lol.


----------



## Boss (Oct 2, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this  arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this  arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.




No that's not what the bill did.

The bill didn't eliminate Civil Marriage in Alabama, I provided a link that showed that, ignoring it doesn't change reality.

Alabama was still going to have Civil Marriage, the only thing that was changing was changing it from the "license" issued by the state to a "form" filed with the government.  At th


At end of the day Civil Marriage was still there, it would still be recognized across state lines, and it would still be valid for Federal purposes.

And yes, the recognition of Civil Marriage is very important to the men and women of the military since (Of which as a retiree I'm one) such recognition means their spouses get on the base, have access to the Commissary, have access to military medical facilities, spouse co-location for PCS moves, etc.  Let alone all the other aspects of Federal recognition.


Here is a link to the proposed legislation -->> http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableinstruments/2015SS/bills/SB21.htm

Marriage still existed and functioned the same, the difference was how marriage was entered into.


>>>>


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 2, 2015)

We don't need idiots tampering with the marriage laws.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 2, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate.  Where is this a law?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Just as the 'concept' of marriage would fade away- and just become a quaint religious custom. 

Yep- you are willing to kill marriage in order to 'kill homosexual marriage'

You have admitted that you  believe that ending legal marriage would mean fewer people would get married. You just want to pretend that gay couples are more rational than heterosexual couples- even though you know ending legal marriage would have the same effect on all couples.

Hence you just want to kill marriage.

Just to deny marriage to homosexuals. 

And that is pretty sick.  You want to deny millions of Americans the legal marriage we want- just so you can deny marriage to homosexuals. 

Pretty sick.

Very immoral.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage.  The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves.  For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.
> ...



Religious institutions can perform marriage- but religious marriage doesn't have to include mixed race couples or Jewish couples or gay couples.

Christians and Catholics can deny marriage within their religion to Jews, to divorced people, to gays, to Muslims, to Mexicans- they can deny marriage within the church to any group that they want to.

Just more fear mongering and lies by homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage.  The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves.  For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.
> ...



My wife and I are legally married.

You propose to end our legal marriage- indeed to ban us from having a legal marriage in the United States.

My relationship with my wife will of course endure- it just would no longer be 'marriage' any more than two people people who have chosen to be life partners without marriage are married.

You want to take marriage away from millions of Americans.

Just to deny marriage to gay couples. 

How amazingly sick and depraved.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Poor Pop.

Still dragging out his straw man and trying to find someone to dance with it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> The thing is, same-sex marriage has thrown a giant wrench at our society, and we don't know yet how much collateral damage it will cause.  The Supreme Court should have allowed the states to decide this issue.  Now we know that once again, the desires of the American people do not matter.  Only liberals matter.



What 'giant wrench' Blackrook?

How has the decision hurt your marriage in particular? You thinking of leaving your wife now? 

Doesn't hurt my marriage- or the marriage of anyone I know. 

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before- this just makes it the 4th time. 

And of course the Supreme Court is following the 'desires of the American people'- since most Americans now favor same gender marriage. 

Roughly 60% of Americans favor same gender marriage- and to conservatives like yourself- the desires of the American people- especially the desires of Americans who happen to be homosexuals- do not matter. To you- only your own opinion matters.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.
> ...



LOL- it is always hard for me to tell when you are lying again- or just ignorant again. 

The law Alabama may pass just eliminates marriage licenses- but Alabamans  will still be legally marrying- both straights and gays.

Just the delicate feelings of Christians who have to handle marriage licenses of gay couples will not be so offended if the law passes. 

Frankly I have no problem with the law- probably will screw up the legal system in Alabama but that is not a problem for me- since Alabamans- straight or gay- will be able to marry legally- and Alabama will continue to recognize marriages- gay or straight- its fine with me.


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is, same-sex marriage has thrown a giant wrench at our society, and we don't know yet how much collateral damage it will cause.  The Supreme Court should have allowed the states to decide this issue.  Now we know that once again, the desires of the American people do not matter.  Only liberals matter.
> ...


Oh go fuck yourself.  You and I both know the American people were not consulted on gay marriage.  The Supreme Court just smashed the Constitution and the law to make this lawless decision.  The result will be increasing chaos and contempt for the law.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What you propose could be workable-  but won't be. It is possible- but it won't happen. And it isn't happening anywhere in the United States- not now- not in the forseeable future.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



You and I both know that the American people are not consulted when it comes to deciding the constitutionality of State laws- that is why the Supreme Court overturned Loving v. Virginia without asking the American people their opinion first.

You were the one who whined that the Supreme Court was ignoring 'the desires of the American people'- but it is you who demands we ignore the desires of the American people. The Supreme Court is actually behind American opinion.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
As of September 2015- 55% of Americans favor same gender marriage- 38% oppose.

Why are you against the desires of Americans when it comes to marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> We don't need idiots tampering with the marriage laws.



You are still upset about Loving v. Virginia I see.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this  arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.
> ...



Just more examples of how Boss is willing to have married Americans harmed- just so he can harm homosexuals married couples.


----------



## Blackrook (Oct 3, 2015)

The only problem with Boss' solution is that it is hurts everyone, and benefits no one.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 3, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> The only problem with Boss' solution is that it is hurts everyone, and benefits no one.



And that is a pretty big problem.

But Boss is good with a solution that hurts everyone, benefits no one- just so long as it denies legal marriage to gay couples.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 3, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


The reality of the possibility is the determining element. Like having to purchase car insurance for your registered car even if you have no plans to drive.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this  arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.
> ...



I've never said a thing about getting rid of civil marriages. You can link the legislation and give me your spin on it all day long, the state was no longer going to license or sanction marriage. When you say "Alabama would still have marriages" what the hell does that mean? The State of Alabama doesn't have marriages, states do not get married. Will marriages still happen within the state? Sure... no one ever suggested we're going to try society without civil marriage. The issue is state recognition of marriage through a licensing process and that was going to end and it will end. This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage licenses issued in other states, that has also been settled by SCOTUS and is not in question. 

But thank you again for confirming that this doesn't bother you and isn't a problem for you. It's important that you remain content as you  watch this idea spread across the country in every state. Just keep telling yourself that it doesn't harm your gay marriage for the state to not sanction it. 

As for your problems in the military, that is not a concern of the State of Alabama or any other state. If some other entity requires a marriage license issued from Alabama they're going to be shit outta luck. If you feel the need to federalize gay marriage you need to get cracking on a new Constitutional amendment because that's the only way this is going to happen. As it stands, states retain the right to license and sanction marriage... or to NOT license and sanction marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



It already happened in Alabama and it passed. Due to a really stupid Wallace-era law, the bill required a super majority because it wasn't on conservative governor Bentley's agenda. Rest assured, it will be on the governor's agenda next session and it will again pass and become state law. Other states are also preparing legislation similar in nature and it doesn't matter if you are in denial of this. 

Sounds like you should take contentment lessons from worldwatcher on this. Just keep telling yourself it will not harm your gay marriage for the State of Alabama not to sanction or issue a license for it. Because that is what is about to happen and not only in Alabama.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You want to take marriage away from millions of Americans.
> 
> Just to deny marriage to gay couples.
> 
> How amazingly sick and depraved.



I don't want to take marriage away from anyone. If you want to say you're married to your mailbox, I am fine with that! I want everyone to have the right to call anything they want "marriage" and for the state and federal government to not be involved with that. If you think that is sick and depraved, I hate it for you but it doesn't bother me. I wish you could be less bigoted and more open minded but I accept that many people in society are like this and I have to tolerate you. What I don't have to tolerate is my state sanctioning gay marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Blackrook said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Blackrook said:
> ...



You don't think that the majority of the court was aware of, or was influenced by the opinion polls? Or is it that you don't believe those polls? In any case.....You say "they should have left it to the states"?  Really? Are you familiar with the 14th amendment which, in part extends the reach of the bill of right to the states? Do you understand that whatever powers that the states retain, must me exercised within  the framework of the entire constitution. This "leave it to the" states thing  is just used by those who really did not want marriage equality at all, and who know it would never come to many states had it been left to them, but who can't be honest and say that they do not want equality.

You say they "smashed the constitution"?Really? How so? I don't suppose that you read the Obergefell decision....did you? There are very sound constitutional underpinnings.

"Thrown a wrench into society"? "Collateral damage"?  Care to elaborate on any of that? What dire predictions are you harboring. What ills will befall society? Let's not get too dramatic or delusional now.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You don't think that the majority of the court was aware of, or was influenced by the opinion polls?



Dear Lord!  ...The function of the supreme court is NOT to base opinions and rulings on polls! If that's the case, we don't need a fucking SCOTUS!  We can let Gallup and Pew Research determine what is or isn't "Constitutional" based on a fucking poll! Why do we need a court? 

This is the dumbest thing I've read from a liberal today.  Really? You were serious?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think that the majority of the court was aware of, or was influenced by the opinion polls?
> ...


Get real Boss Man. I didn't say that the decision was based on opinion, now did I? However, they, unlike you, are not living in  a bubble. They had to have asked themselves if the American people were ready for it. They had to consider how it would play out. They are actually human beings you know. And yes, the applied constitutional law to the matter.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 3, 2015)

Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




The Alabama law was first proposed prior to Obergefell, it was recently reintroduced and failed again.



> *Bill to abolish marriage licenses dies in Alabama House 9.15.15 http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/bill_to_abolish_marriage_licen.html*




*It was a stupid idea that would solve nothing and result in a myriad of problems and unintended consequences.*




> Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, the Alabama Legislature's first openly gay member, questioned whether the change would matter to probate judges who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage.
> 
> "What is the difference between handing me a piece of paper for a license vs. accepting a piece of paper from me for a marriage contract?" Todd asked.
> 
> ...




They also tried it in Oklahoma where it was a disaster…..

This is a great example of the stupidity and chaos that will ensue when trying to get government out of marriage in order to thwart same sex marriage:




> Weird Bill Intended To Block Marriage Equality In Oklahoma May Totally Backfirehttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/13/3633556/is-this-real-life/
> 
> 
> Earlier this week, Oklahoma lawmakers took the first step in passing a bill that was originally poised to hinder marriage equality. But after a wave of criticism pressured lawmakers to tweak the measure, it now might actually end up supporting LGBT people — assuming it doesn’t send the state’s marriage system into chaos first.
> ...





He went on to say:


“


> The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” Russ told the Oklahoman.
> 
> 
> Russ openly admitted in an interview with ThinkProgress that the bill stemmed from his opposition to marriage equality, saying that he wrote it after the Supreme Court “crammed” same-sex marriage “down our throats” when it upheld a decision by a federal judge to strike down the state’s same-sex marriage ban last October — something Russ contends is an example of government “overreach.”



Actually, the supreme court did not uphold the decision. They just refused to hear the appeal from the state on the decision of the 10th circuit. A minor point perhaps but it also exposes a sloppy thought process and inattention to detail.




> *The initial bill **was**widely**criticized** for being unconstitutional, with LGBT advocates, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and **news outlets** blasting its requirement that only “an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” or a rabbi be allowed to contract a formal marriage.*




The really stupid thing about the initial version of the bill was that while violating the constitution, it would not prevent gays from marrying:




> Oddly, if the bill’s goal was to inhibit same-sex couples from getting married, it failed out of the gate. Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, noted that Russ may not have realized that “there are … 160 members of clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people,” and that several major Christian denominations already allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages, many of which already have a presence in Oklahoma.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the sponsors didn’t know this , or they thought that opponents of same sex marriage would be appeased because it was not state sponsored. I don’t think so, it would still be ”marriage”






> As pressure mounted on Russ to kill the legislation, however, something strange happened: instead of pulling the bill, Russ simply amended it, re-inserting a clause that allowed judges to officiate weddings. The change was initially welcomed by LGBT advocates such as Stevenson, but also caused confusion, because it defeated the bill’s aim of fully removing government officials from marriages services. In fact, without the clergy-only provision, some Democrats noted that the bill was arguably pro-LGBT, since it does not define marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman, effectively re-affirming the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the state.




In addition




> Other lawmakers also pointed out that, since Russ’ bill requires the government to simply file marriage certificates, it removes the state’s ability to prevent instances bigamy or polygamy.



Well maybe not because other laws cover those things, but you can see how confusion can arise




> Clearly the Supreme Court [said] that it cannot be constitutionally appropriate to have an opposite sex stated in the language, so that was struck,” he told ThinkProgress. “My objective here today is not to overthrow the [Supreme Court] ruling. My bill is basically an attempt to sidestep what is basically the claim by the Supreme Court … [The bill] doesn’t condone same-sex marriage, and it doesn’t disallow same-sex marriage — my bill is silent on that matter.”



So then what the hell is the point of all of this? They might as well just accept marriage equality and be done with it.




> But as the vote neared Wednesday, Republicans doubled down on what many were now calling the “Marriage Chaos Bill” — even if they weren’t exactly sure what they were voting for.
> 
> 
> Indeed, Russ’ claim that the law allows government to “exit the [marriage] game” appears incomplete at best. True, while judges are able to officiate marriages under the law, they are not required to, and whereas previously clerks issued _marriage licenses_, they are now asked simply to file “marriage certificates” (or common law affidavits) created elsewhere. But this only tweaks some aspects of how government interacts with the beginning of the marriage process — it doesn’t change the fact that marriages are still legal entities recognized by the state.




And it gets even crazier




> Also, while the most offensive parts of the bill appear to be corrected, there remain several legal concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Oct 3, 2015)

midcan5 said:


> For Boss and others like him.
> 
> Do the people who think homosexuality / transgender people are perverted suffer from a lack of self esteem or personal security? Anyone who is secure in their gender role knows that they cannot simply switch hit. If you constantly find it necessary to criticize those different from you, are you simply trying to prop up your own masculinity? Are you afraid of stumbling into sin because you feel it a choice rather than a biologic fact? Are you fighting something inside yourself?
> 
> ...



I've thought that for years. The homophobic response is rooted really in the self loathing that creeps in when they get that little taint tingle after hearing talk about anything gay. It's sad really that they have been so thoroughly conditioned to hate themselves.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 3, 2015)

I'm just going to repost what I had said in the other thread here.

You're mistaken the argument for same sex marriage has actually been on supreme court record since 1967. The Supreme had long elected not to make a call on various cases, preferring to leave it to the individual states decisions - until states like Virginia decided to turn it to a discrimination issue by repeatedly tightening their state law's to specifically and willfully harm the Constitutionally protected rights of fellow American's, turning SSM not into merely a state issue, but a /national/ issue that could no longer be left unaddressed by the Supreme.

Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans. Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Boss said:


> States don't need to call it anything. You can call it whatever you please.



We have chosen to call it marriage. It's done.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> I've never said a thing about getting rid of civil marriages. You can link the legislation and give me your spin on it all day long, the state was no longer going to license or sanction marriage.



Civil Marriages would still exist in Alabama.



Boss said:


> When you say "Alabama would still have marriages" what the hell does that mean?



Just what is says.  They may change the method of entering into a Civil Marriage, but Civil Marriage would still exist.



Boss said:


> The State of Alabama doesn't have marriages, states do not get married.



They recognize the legal status of Civil Marriage.  Changing the method that status is entered into within the State doesn't change the Status.



Boss said:


> Will marriages still happen within the state? Sure... no one ever suggested we're going to try society without civil marriage. The issue is state recognition of marriage through a licensing process and that was going to end and it will end.



State recognition of Civil Marriage isn't going to end.  A pissy response because the gheys can not get married the same way we heterosexuals do doesn't change that.



Boss said:


> This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage licenses issued in other states, that has also been settled by SCOTUS and is not in question.



Agreed, Alabama doesn't control the method of entering into Civil Marriage in other States.



Boss said:


> But thank you again for confirming that this doesn't bother you and isn't a problem for you. It's important that you remain content as you  watch this idea spread across the country in every state. Just keep telling yourself that it doesn't harm your gay marriage for the state to not sanction it.



You are correct, it doesn't bother me at all if Alabama wants to change the way the allow couples to enter into Civil Marriage.  If it's "registering a form" v. "issuing a license" - that is up to the people of Alabama.

It really no different know then those few States that have Common Law Marriage where couple become legally married by living together and declaring they are married without a licenses.  It's been a concept around for a long time.  So why be upset to something that has a basis in hundreds of years of existence.




Boss said:


> As for your problems in the military, that is not a concern of the State of Alabama or any other state. If some other entity requires a marriage license issued from Alabama they're going to be shit outta luck.



No they won't.

Alabama will still be maintaining the Marriage Form filed by the couple and will be able to obtain copies in the future just like they can with Marriage Licenses.  Remember the law calls for them to file the Form as part of the Civil Marriage process.  Copiers of the form will be maintained by the State.


>>>>


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



And I disagree that they applied the Constitution as they should have. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the basis of *what is in the Constitution* without regard for what they personally believe is right or wrong or what public  perception of right and wrong is. They are not moral judges, they are justices charged with applying the Constitution as it is written. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority over the domain of marriage. That is strictly a State right reserved for the state and the people. They have no authority to change that. 

It seems that you are jubilantly proud of the fact that we have an activist Supreme Court. But I wonder if you would feel this way if the court were being activist the other way? Maybe in the future a more Christian-Conservative SCOTUS will "interpret" their own morality into law and you'll have to live with that being crammed down your throat against your will?  Because that is what happens when you have activist courts... the power of the people is gone... you gave it to the courts. Or... maybe you're a young mush-brain who has never seen the progressive pendulum swing the other way, as it has done throughout history? Yes, it can happen... it has happened before. It will happen again.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'



Kind of an ironic take on O'Reilly's "Killing" series.  And yes... it's a comprehensive plan to kill gay marriage. This is a cultural thing that has emerged as the result of a perception of inequity. If you remove whatever is causing that perception, there can be no more inequity. The point is moot. It ceases to be a cultural thing anymore, except in the relatively small and isolated gay community. in 20 years, the next generation is intrigued by the crazy "teens" when same-sex marriage was a thing.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'



Kind of an ironic take on O'Reilly's "Killing" series.  And yes... it's a comprehensive plan to kill gay marriage. This is a cultural thing that has emerged as the result of a perception of inequity. If you remove whatever is causing that perception, there can be no more inequity. The point is moot. It ceases to be a cultural thing anymore, except in the relatively small and isolated gay community. in 20 years, the next generation is intrigued by the crazy "teens" when same-sex marriage was a thing.


----------



## Boss (Oct 3, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'



Kind of an ironic take on O'Reilly's "Killing" series.  And yes... it's a comprehensive plan to kill gay marriage. This is a cultural thing that has emerged as the result of a perception of inequity. If you remove whatever is causing that perception, there can be no more inequity. The point is moot. It ceases to be a cultural thing anymore, except in the relatively small and isolated gay community. in 20 years, the next generation is intrigued by the crazy "teens" when same-sex marriage was a thing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




*The fact that you have a faulty, antebellum understanding of Federalism is your problem and yours alone. The fourteenth amendment provides for equal protection under the law in all actions taken by the state in any matter that involves civil rights. As far as marriage goes, case law solidly establishes the limits of states right:*




> *Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.*  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
> 
> http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/




Make that 15 times with Obergefell. You will see that one of those prior case is Loving V. Virginia. Do you think that the Court was engaging in inappropriate activism in that case too? The answer has to either be “yes” to both Loving and Obergefell or “no” to both. And don’t tell me that race is different that sexuality. Of course it is different. However, the legal principles are the same.

As far as activism goes, I don’t agree with everything that the court does. Funny thing is though, you guys only scream activism when a decision supports a liberal cause. I am well aware of the fact that that activism can go the other way, but when it does, you guys don’t have a problem with it.

Actually, the issue of judicial activism or "legislating from the bench"  is rather complicated, but you wouldn't know that from the way conservatives like to dumb it down.




> “Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law…………
> 
> This distinction, however, covers up the fact that vague language and political and societal change necessitate that law be created through legal interpretation. A.E. Dick Howard, professor of Constitutional law at the University of Virginia, told the HPR that ambiguous phrases found in the Constitution such as “due process of law, equal protection of law, and cruel and unusual punishment” require interpretation to be applied. The interpretations of these phrases must change as unforeseeable circumstances arise, making the courts an avenue for interpretation to substantially affect law. Accordingly, the phrase “legislating from the bench” is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity.  Legislating from the Bench - Harvard Political Review
> 
> ...


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 3, 2015)

It's actually much more than just what the supreme court has said on it, it's also what all the lower courts have said; and the vast majority have agreed that marriage is a right and thus protected by the constitution.


But it's okay, they'll push this stupid "no state marriage" thing, it'll go to the supreme because they've made it a national issue due to the crossing of state border issues, and the supreme will fix it.  then they can come up with another silly "idea" - all the while bleeding out more and more support because they show their hand.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.
> 
> Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?



A gay man can marry a gay woman just like anyone else in a real marriage would marry someone of the opposite sex.

The SCOTUS ruling overturned the meaning of the word marriage which has been established for thousands of years.

If the thought that the SCOTUS can redefine words in order to reinterpret law does not scare the beejeezus out of you then you are an ignorant fool.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



No, you did.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> It's actually much more than just what the supreme court has said on it, it's also what all the lower courts have said; and the vast majority have agreed that marriage is a right and thus protected by the constitution.
> 
> 
> But it's okay, they'll push this stupid "no state marriage" thing, it'll go to the supreme because they've made it a national issue due to the crossing of state border issues, and the supreme will fix it.  then they can come up with another silly "idea" - all the while bleeding out more and more support because they show their hand.



I don't think most States will want to sanction same sex sibling marriage, but they might be forced to, so what other option will they have but to end is during license.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.
> ...



Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



They can and have.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. *After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit*.


 
There is, and it's the reason they've lobbied so hard, especially the gay men: preferential access to adoptable little boys...er...I mean kids.  But oddly they seem to really always wind up with boys, statistically speaking.  In fact, every single picture I've seen of two gay men with kids around them, the children are male children.  Isn't that weird?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.



IT is not 'just stupid' it is the law.

Discrimination is specific to a specific act. It doesn't mean 'you don't like it', you stupid fagot


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.
> ...


Feel free to continue to wallow in your ignorant horseshit. . Read  Post 92 above, ...or are you afraid that you might learn something?And making assumptions about someone sexuality is as stupid as stupid get. It tells me more than I need to know about you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No one is saying that there is a compelling reason to not allow siblings to marry-dimwit. If you want to marry your brother, or your mother, or your lawn mower, petition the court for permission. It would then be up to the state to defend their prohibition of such things. They may or may not prevail. It's a separate issue . Next stupid question?


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You are the one citing procreation here!  If it's so important, is it a requirement, or just a lame Conservative straw man argument against same sex marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Thanks, so you agree that the recent same sex marriage ruling opens the door to same sex sibling marriage. 

Since marriage is no longer a union of one man to one woman, the remaining qualifications are, at best arbitrary. This should cause pause to state legislatures, would you not agree, or are you hung up on the tradition?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



I think I've pointed out on numinous occations that sex is not a requirement in the marriage law so what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Horseshit! I said no such thing. The Obergefell ruling SPECIFICALLY states that same sex couples are granted the same rights-and only the same rights-as opposite sex couples. It does not negate laws against incest or anything else. To say it does is just a dishonest red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy. But, I understand why you have to resort to such low life tactics, since you have nothing else.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What is this all about then? :

*There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.*
*
*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


The ability to create members of the next generation is an implied purpose to the institution of marriage, and thus why fagot marriage is not a real marriage in the traditional sense, and that is never going to change no matter how many judges kiss the ass of the Gay Mafia.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So ya think that we are going to become an  endangered species because of same sex marriage? Let's take a moment to bask in the stupidity of that. Ya think that if gay people were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, that they would just marry someone of the opposite sex and have lots of babies?  Common bubba, you are really reaching with that one.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



If true, and not horseshit as you just said it was, you obviously can state a compelling state reason to deny two heterosexual sisters the rights and benefits to a marriage license.

I await your answer.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Yet there remains no requirement that they must have sex to marry. 

Are you trying to make a point, is so, please do so.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



There really is no need to track bloodlines in homosexual marriage since their unioun cannot produce offspring. But I digress


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Obviously you don't understand things very well. It would be up to the state to come up with a reason why two sisters could not marry, if in fact they petitioned the court to do so. I have no interest in , or obligation to litigate that issue. If you think that Obergefell, open some door to other variations on marriage, take your mother down to the court house and try to get a marriage license with her. Then come back here and tell me what they said.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Oh, and incest is an act, since there is no requirement that a married couple must have sex, then you and the law would make a presumption without probable cause.


----------



## Nosmo King (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So, a marriage that produces no children is not a real marriage?  

What do you mean by "real marriage"?  Are there legal implications or is this your own judgment and opinion?  How do marriages that do not conform to your personal interpretation of "real marriages" effect you personally?  What harm comes from a marriage that fails to meet your arbitrary threshold of "real marriage"?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You do understand that laws do change without court challenge right? States have every right to take a look at court rulings and create just law. 

Since the current law excluded the need for the couple be of opposite genders, then the rest of the requirements are arbitrary. They have every right, and actually an obligation to the citizens, to rectify this to insure this civil right is afforded all. 

Or are you denying this is a civil right?

Wow, that would be a complete disaster for your side, wouldn't it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2015)

Nosmo King said:


> So, a marriage that produces no children is not a real marriage?
> 
> What do you mean by "real marriage"?  Are there legal implications or is this your own judgment and opinion?  How do marriages that do not conform to your personal interpretation of "real marriages" effect you personally?  What harm comes from a marriage that fails to meet your arbitrary threshold of "real marriage"?



Historically a marriage is not complete until it is consummated, that is intercourse with the possibility of bearing children. So the church has long given annulments to people if their spouse was sterile or simply refused to conceive children.

Is it really that hard for you to look this shit up for yourself?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Of course I know that laws can be changed in other ways. You could also ask your  assemblyman or senator to introduce legislation to allow you to marry your mother, or your dog, or both. But all of this other stuff carries with it different issues and consequences for society and each must be assessed on their own merits.

The question of whether sibling marriage can be seen as a civil rights issue is an open one. Civil rights are violated when one group is treated different and suffers as the result of capricious and arbitrary discrimination for no purpose other than to disparage and marginalize them. Gay have proven that was exactly what was happening to them. You and your mother, or those sisters would have to do the same thing. Good like bubba.

Aren't you getting tired of this? You are not proving your slippery slope nonsense at all. Not even close. Same sex marriage is here to stay. End of story


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


But there are physiological reasons to deny marrying anything other than a non-sibling hetero partner. Procreation for anything beyond hetero and birth defects among siblings. 
Next ridiculous question that the originators of marriage didn't think would need to asked...


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying?  You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.

It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain?  What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I've never tired of discussing civil rights. 

This is not a slippery slope discussion but I can see why you would like it to be. 

Prior to the exclusion of the need for opposite gender requirement in marriage, I had zero argument as the equal protection clause would not have come into play. Excluding siblings, or for that matter, all family members from marriage was indeed constitutional. Now , I don't see the argument that this kind exclusion can meet constitutional muster unless you can find where sexual contact, between the partners is a requirement of marriage. Now you would need the presumption that the partners intended to break the law without any probable cause. 

And that my friend is why the OP may indeed be correct that homosexual, and indeed all marriage could cease to exist.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yet sex is not a requirement of marriage. You presume two people would break a law without probable cause? That doesn't withstand judicial muster. 

My neighbor put 4 kids through college, he doesn't make enough money to do so, so I guess he should be jailed for bank robbery because........


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If not a slippery slope fallacy what is it. Its is either a slippery slope to other forms of marriage, or it's a slippery slope to the demise of marriage. In any case it is indeed a slippery slop argument.

Excluding siblings and other family members from marriage has not been challenged on constitutional ( or any other ) grounds so no one can say whether or not it is constitutional or not. And, that has not changed as a result of Obergefell.

Furthermore, marriage is about much more than sexual contact. Of course it is not a requirement. Marriage is about family and what constitutes family  and the purpose of marriage. As I said, there are a host of different issues and consequences when you are talking about people marrying within an existing family.

 Tell you what, go away and come back when there is either a movement advocating sibling marriage, or, when there is a viable effort to  get government out of marriage. In the mean time leave me alone.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.



Now it is a tool for deconstructing the family as an institution.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Thanks for the invite but I think I'll stick around and talk about how, when you modify a law, something best left to the legislative bodies, how you sometimes create a worse situation. 

As for constitutionality. Due process has met that challenge, equal protection and its application has met that challenge. The States responsibilty to provide a compelling reason to deny citizens their rights have met judicial challenge as has probable cause. 

So, your claim to a slippery slope falicy seems without merit. 

Thanks


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.
> ...



Likely, but in reality the current law seems to make it simply a financial arrangement, not much different to an LLC or an S-Corp.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


The _abuse _of the current law results in that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the originators of marriage likely assumed the obvious and didn't expect this kind of semantic twisting to occur. Legitimizing sex was the impetus for marriage once upon a time.
> ...


Common boys!! Get the fuck over it. Who the hell is deconstructing the family? Gay families are families. Other families are still families just as they always were, for better or worse. You really have to stop getting all of your information from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council. It's rotting your brain, dude.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You need desperately to progress. Move forward already. Get out of the 1960's. Family de-structuring is an effective way to erode the culture and generate social demise.
Too many are still brainwashed or are too insulated to recognize or are in denial of that reality.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Gays always had families. You made sexuality a part of this. Not us. Get used to this, it will not stop. The removal of opposite sex genders as a marriage requirement has opened the door to some highly suspect, yet under current legal application, legal additional "families" a distinct possibility. 

The "Loving v Virginia decision did not do this, it was the recent USSC decision on SSM that did, what a few years ago would have been impossible. 

Pat yourself on the back for a job well (cough cough) done.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 3, 2015)

The thing the gay and lesbian community most wanted and wished for is slipping from their grasp. They so wanted and wished for acceptance from the Christian community. They thought they could take Christian pastors and ministers to court and have the courts force these pastors and ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for them, thus garnering some form of religious acceptance of their depraved unions. Not going to happen.

All they have gained is a legal win, not a social or religious win. Once the states begin to issue these little paper forms for those who wish a legal marriage and receive the probate fees for the little forms, there will be no avenue available for lawsuits against the clergy, county clerks, justices of the peace, judges, or anyone else. They can even go to Walmart and pick up a Little Debbie for their wedding cake.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 3, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Yeah, the fags supposedly wanted to be married for the respect of the institution, but everyone knows that they are really trying to destroy not only the family but the notion of even normality itself.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> The thing the gay and lesbian community most wanted and wished for is slipping from their grasp. They so wanted and wished for acceptance from the Christian community. They thought they could take Christian pastors and ministers to court and have the courts force these pastors and ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for them, thus garnering some form of religious acceptance of their depraved unions. Not going to happen.
> 
> All they have gained is a legal win, not a social or religious win. Once the states begin to issue these little paper forms for those who wish a legal marriage and receive the probate fees for the little forms, there will be no avenue available for lawsuits against the clergy, county clerks, justices of the peace, judges, or anyone else. They can even go to Walmart and pick up a Little Debbie for their wedding cake.



Where the fuck do you get this bizarre bovine excrement from??!! Why the hell do you think that they are especially interested in acceptance from Christians.? They do in fact want acceptance from everyone, but they are realistic enough to know that won't happen. They did however achieve legal equality, at least with respect to marriage equality. But know this ....there are decent Christian, true Christians who support gat rights. There are Christians who are gay. It is not about gays vs. Christians . If you think that it is, it's just more evidence of your mental illness and cognitive limitations.

In addition, it is only the voices in your diseased mind that are telling you that they want to sue clergy. Why the fuck would anybody want to be married by someone who is hostile  to them? Clerks and other government officials who would refuse to do their jobs in the name of "religious freedom" is another story. Toiugh shit! Can you say "Kim Davis"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Right bubba. Keep blathering senselessly. Now all that you have to do is provide some evidence that gays want to, or are actually destroying the family and the institution of marriage, and maybe we wont think that you are a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic. Good luck


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 3, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The thing the gay and lesbian community most wanted and wished for is slipping from their grasp. They so wanted and wished for acceptance from the Christian community. They thought they could take Christian pastors and ministers to court and have the courts force these pastors and ministers to perform marriage ceremonies for them, thus garnering some form of religious acceptance of their depraved unions. Not going to happen.
> ...



There are no gay Christians. That ain't gonna happen. Yes, it is the dream of the gays to get acceptance from the Christian community but that ain't gonna happen either. The only ones besides yourself with diseased minds are gays and lesbians.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 3, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Yeah. They're freaks and belong in a carnival side show.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Yeah. They're freaks and belong in a carnival side show.




AKA, a gay pride parade.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


By legally forcing the equal opportunity to adopt children they contribute to the problem of unstructured families. 
It's a post-1960's thing. You wouldn't understand.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying?  You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
> 
> It certainly sounded like you were saying states would get out of marriages altogether, but now you are saying civil marriage will remain?  What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?



Well first of all, I don't care what people here have said, that doesn't really mean anything to me. We can sit here and "say" anything we please. If there is no more marriage license being issued by the state, there is no more sanctioning of marriage by the state. Would people still fill out forms? Sure... people fill out forms all the time for all kinds of things, no one is opposed to form filling out. As long as the state isn't sanctioning marriages, that's all that matters. 

I've not argued that  this would result in marriage ending. Only state sponsoring of marriage. Again, no one is opposed to people having whatever kind of relationship and calling it whatever they please, they just don't want to be forced to recognize it or have it ordained by the state. If you want to fuck people in the ass and call that marriage, the SCOTUS says you can do that. I don't have to condone it or recognize it as such.  And guess what? You're never going to make me accept it as such. You can have all the 5-4 SCOTUS rulings you like, I'm not accepting it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man  and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so. 

If I wanted to show up at polling precincts with my sniper rifle and start capping liberals as they arrive to vote, then claim that I am "exercising my right to vote"... I can run around on my high horse with all the previous SCOTUS rulings protecting voting rights and proclaiming this as justification for why my practice is constitutionally protected... it doesn't change the fact that what I am doing is simply not voting and not what the law protects my right to do. Maybe I can even get an activist SCOTUS to make a 5-4 ruling that what I am doing is constitutional... still doesn't make it voting and it doesn't make it acceptable to others. I can go on long-winded rants here at USMB, citing all  the previous SCOTUS cases protecting my voting rights... calling people horrible names who disagree... still doesn't change what I am doing into voting. Maybe I can even convince 47% of some really stupid people into believing that I am only trying to obtain my right to vote, it doesn't change what I am doing. 

So you can talk about marriage rights all you like, two homosexuals of the same gender can't get married because that's not marriage. Maybe it warrants the same consideration? I don't have an argument with that but that's not the argument being presented.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man  and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so.



Yep, the SCOTUS thinking it can redefine what marriage is is almost as lunatic as the Indiana legislature trying to define Pi by law to be 3.2. 

Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with marriage being a 'fundamental right' but marriage is the union of a man  and woman. It's not something else just because you (or an activist court) says so.
> ...


Actually, bubba Oxford changed it some time before the SCOTUS ruling... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Oxford Dictionary to Change Definition of Marriage to Include Gays
Read more at Oxford Dictionary to Change Definition of Marriage to Include Gays


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> There are no gay Christians.



I think there ARE gay Christians. It's an important thing to note here, gay doesn't mean active homosexual behavior.  If you are engaging in any promiscuous sex act it goes against the teachings of Christianity. Homosexuality is certainly promiscuous sex, there is no escaping that because there is no formal reason for it. You can't procreate that way. It is purely a "pleasure of the flesh" and can be nothing more.  We've made it "okay to be gay" and that is fine but it comes with a cost. 

People are born differently and have different sexual attractions or proclivities. Some of these are psychological and developed through unique experiences and influences, some are genetic and hereditary in nature. Most sexuality is a combination of things but there always remains the invisible barrier between what we practice and what we fantasize. This self-control aspect is one of the things that makes us different from apes and chimps. 

When the "gay revolution" came along, society was forced to accept it... the "coming out of the closet" for so many people... but what did that mean? What is meant by "Gay" in terms of the person? Does it mean they fantasize about sex with their same gender? Does it mean they speak with a lisp? Are they flamboyant? Does it mean they have promiscuous homosexual activity with another person? Does it mean none of those or all of those? We really don't know this. 

Is there a difference between... say... two women who are not "sexual" with each other but share an emotional or 'sensual' bond they call love together... different than two actively homosexual males? Both can be classified as gay, but what does that mean? 

So we have accepted this term "GAY" without much of a qualification. In other words, there is no "invisible barrier" between practice and fantasy.  It all becomes one in the same within the lexicon of thought.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...



Homosexuals comprise roughly 2% of the overall population, not 10%...  which is the mythical number that the Left has fabricated, as part and parcel of their Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality. 

The Homosexual cult has had available to them, since the very first joining of multiple parties as one legal entity... the means to incorporate, wherein they would enjoy the same legal benefit of a legally recognized singular entity of multiple parties which intrinsically bring financial and other benefits, which they have consistently REJECTED.

And the reason that they have rejected it, is that there is no potential for that otherwise perfectly legitimate union, to legitimize sexual deviancy.

Just as "Sex Shops", Porn Shops and other 'businesses' which otherwise operate within 'The Law' do not enjoy any sense of legitimacy, the sexually deviant union of people of the same gender does not and will not be accepted as legitimate... and it is *legitimacy* that the degenerate seek.

This however has ZERO to do with what those behind the MOVEMENT which Advocate to Normalize Sexual Abnormality... seeks. 

IT SEEKS THE DESTRUCTION of Marriage... as a legally recognized entity.  Because in removing the Legal recognition, it removes the legal protections customarily afford such... customs which stem from natural law... which are rooted in the deepest convictions of the human spirit and as such which are those ideas which are most fiercely defended.

And it does so, as the means by which the FRUIT of Legally Recognized Marriage can be PLUCKED in its earliest stages, for the purposes of satisfying the deepest depravity; the most twisted perversion of the human mind... THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN, FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION.

You Argument is the most likely path to be taken in defense of the Federal Licensing of Degeneracy... thus is a readily predictable consequence of such, therefore such would be within the list of those things that those plotting this attack on the US Culture would have sought to cause.

Ergo, the plan is working perfectly...

Now you ask, "What should we have done?"

We should have never tolerated the first liberal, we should have never adopted the Civil Rights Legislation as it was enacted... which set up the addle-minded 'interpretations' which have echoed through to greater and more perverse 'interpretations', inevitably crippling the means to reason for a massive percentage of the Black population... and with it a large percentage of every other facet of US Culture... we should have never allowed Roe to stand, we should have never adopted DOMA, we should have never dropped the Sodomy Laws.

But they did... and as a result, the only potential solution is to burn the dysfunctional hulk that remains of the US to the ground, and rebuild it.... from the ground up, with due respect to the principles that served it so well for so long, as declared at its founding.

Many will disagree... and in that they will mark themselves as "THE PROBLEM" and when the say comes where there exists no advocacy for debauchery, degeneracy, the normalization of deviancy... THEN we will know that the foundation is set and that we have begun to rebuild a new soundly reasoned, viable culture... which will probably last another couple of hundred or so years, until it will be necessary to burn THAT down and reset the new culture upon those SAME principles, which will continue until it becomes possible for humanity to not forget from one generation to the next, why those principles exist.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Of course it did... as Oxford Dictionary is a British Organization and Not-so-Great Britain succumbed to the idiocy long before the US, _ass-hat._


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > There are no gay Christians.
> ...



If a heterosexual Christian couple who physically can not have children engages in "promiscuous  sex" for the pleasure of the flesh, are they still Christian? Or,  are they the same as chimps or apes?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > There are no gay Christians.
> ...





> Sexuality is a natural and healthy part of life. All people have the right to the information, skills, and services they need to make responsible sexual decisions.
> 
> The theocratic right considers the Puritans to be the decisive illustration of a Christian society. The Puritans are remembered for their repressive attitudes toward sexuality.  What may be forgotten today, however, is the Puritan rejection of democracy in favor of rule by biblical law. "The Puritans," according to Thomas Ice, fused "church and state into a theocratic government." (_*Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse*, _H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, 1988, p. 95)
> 
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



'the originators of marriage'? LOL.

Throughout history marriage was not much more than the transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband.

The 'originators of marriage' likely didn't anticipate wives being equal partners in marriage either. 

Marriage has not only changed radically in time- it has improved.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



That is what the homophobic bigots keep claiming. 

But then again that was what racial bigots claimed after Loving v. Virginia.

Bigots are bigots. Bigots will be bigots.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Can you link to the law that made this a transfer of ownership? I would appreciate seeing this.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You just keep arguing that there will be a slippery slope. 11 years and no such 'slipping' has happened. 

Your bigotry against homosexuals just leads you to your unsubstantiated predictions and opinions.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Look up the history of marriage. In many parts of the world even today the potential husband has to pay the father a bride fee.

Until about 100 years ago here in the U.S. women were largely the property of men. In most states they could not own property in their own right, children 'belonged' to the father upon divorce, women could not initiate law suits without ther husbands permission.

But maybe that is the kind of traditional marriage you really want to return to?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Yet you have not pointed out how my point was wrong. 

Marriage was between members of opposing sex, and because making this an absolute would allow potential incestuous state sanctioned incest, they added that the two be not too closely related. 

The Loving decision kept that important point, not only in tact, but meeting the important standards of equal protection and it did meet the States compelling interest. 

It was the recent ruling that made those standards discrimatory as two same sex siblings either would not desire sex (hetros) or the state is presuming a sexual interaction, without any evidence (the burdon of proof standard). We don't presume those entering any other contract will result in sexual contact, yet we presume those simply seeking the benefits of marriage will?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying?  You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
> ...



Marriage licenses are marriage?  If the state still grants the same benefits to couples, still treats them as immediate family members where they were not before, still allows them to file taxes as a married couple, still grants medical and attorney rights as next of kin, and still lists this legal relationship as marriage, but does not require a license be issued in order for this relationship to be sanctioned, you are saying it is no longer marriage?

The legislation which WorldWatcher linked clearly states that state sanctioned marriages would continue.  It simply changed the way those marriages would be obtained.  Here are the opening lines : "_To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975.".  _Note it talks about how state sanctioned marriages would be entered into, not that ending the licensing process would end state sanctioned marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You confuse traditio with the law. 

Simply provide the link.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Can you site evidence that sexual contact is the only reason immediate relation marriages are banned?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Again a deflection. States will need to look at the change the USSC made to the law and decide if the law can legally exclude same sex siblings the benefits of marriage 

Unless you can come up with a compelling state interest in the denial of these rights, then so will they.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not now I can't since marriage is not only between a man and woman.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



*sigh*
Let me rephrase then.  Can you site evidence that sexual contact was the only reason immediate relation marriages were banned?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, sexual contact, nor any other reason is a requirement of marriage. 

The license is simply a contract. Not that much different to an LLC. Do you assume that family members of an LLC will perform incest? 

Regardless, prior to the change, no family member could marry for the reasons you can come up with. Those reasons now make presumptions that may not exist, especially with same sex sibling simply wanting the benefits afforded with marriage. 

Denial of rights based on assumptions is unjust law.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are missing the point...intentionally, I think.

Your argument is based on close relation marriages being banned because of sexual/procreation reasons.  If there is a compelling reason to ban such marriages that doesn't involve sex, your argument fails.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Only with some, which is the point you are missing whether intentionally or not.

You cannot legally exclude one group of people from a legal contract because another set MIGHT do something.

It's called equal protection and the State MUST prove it as an interest in denial of that right to the INDIVIDUAL not the group.

The law was enforceable before because it excluded ALL family members from marriage because it was simply males to females and those relationships could cause defective bloodlines. Now argue that that is even possible with two heterosexual siblings? What is the compelling state interest in denying them this right?

Name the across the board reasoning please.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You have a pathetically piss poor understanding of how things work. First of all, SCOTUS did not "change the laws regarding marriage" They invalidated the new laws that were superimposed on those original laws which banned same sex marriage. Doing so DID NOT disturb laws concerning incest, age of consent or anything else.

Secondly, states  don't need to look at anything in the absence of a challenge to any existing bans on incest or anything else. If there is, in fact, a challenge, then and only then will states have to justify those laws. I do not know of any such challenges in any state, but if you do, feel free to post them. Then we can all see what rational basis or compelling interest the state comes up with to justify the laws, and what the court did with it.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yes indeed. Now the gays and lesbians will also experience the other side of marriage. The divorce side. Indeed these legal marriage forms will serve divorce attorneys with the ammunition to go after the assets of Hollywood moguls who marry their pool boys. Community property laws will reign.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 4, 2015)

Homosexuals were divorcing before the recent SCOTUS ruling.  There was a case where some state attempted to refuse to allow a gay divorce or some such a while back.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > So if you aren't advocating getting rid of civil marriages, what exactly are you saying?  You've said something about states no longer sanctioning marriage.....but you've had multiple posters telling you that the sited Alabama law would not get rid of state-sanctioned marriage, it would merely change the way people entered into such a union.
> ...


But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do. 
That's the problem with the distinction of _legal_ homo marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You are so funny and typical of the gay rights bunch. Here is a resolve that gives you everything you claim to want with the exception of the license itself, and all you seem to want is for me to acknowledge acceptance of gay marriage in some way. It's not good enough for you unless you can cram this down my throat and make me accept it. And that's because this is really what this issue has always been about. 

Yes, Alabama's legal measure to remove the state from the obligation of sanctioning marriage is going to contain certain legal requirements which the state has to meet in order to comply with the constitution and federal laws in other areas. If the new law didn't cover those things it could be challenged by some liberal goof like you who was butt hurt over not getting your gay marriage license. 

So we meet the statutory requirements without endorsing your type of marriage... but that's not good enough for people like you. Nooo... our noses have to be rubbed in it!  We have to be made to see that what we did was meaningless and didn't change anything. That the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage even though they are no longer sanctioning any kind of marriage officially. 

As for the State acknowledging your gay marriage... If they acknowledge any kind of marriage they have to now include gay marriage according to SCOTUS. There is nothing the State can do about that, or the people of the state. However, there is nothing which says the State must acknowledge any kind of marriage. If there is no State benefit or interest, there is no need for acknowledgement. 

And... all of this aside, you can never force me to accept gay marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.
> That's the problem with the distinction of _legal_ homo marriage.



I disagree. Adoption requirements have little to do with marriage. Adoption agencies will still conduct rigorous background and character checks on any couple wishing to adopt. They still retain the authority to make their determinations on any basis they please and are not bound by anti-discrimination laws when it comes to their decisions. Any and all decisions they make regarding adoption are discriminatory, that's the nature of what the process is. You are in fact, discriminating against people on the basis of what kind of parent you think they will make. This isn't service in a restaurant. 

As for the rest of your list... we don't have to give tax breaks to couples. We don't have to provide concessions for couples. I bet our government and infrastructure would operate just fine without government recognizing ANY domestic relationship.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.
> ...


Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in. That has now been undermined by giving homo marriages the exact same opportunity.
Marriage provides tax breaks for couples filing jointly. That means the rest of the taxpayers foot the difference. All privileges awarded to marriage now apply to homo marriage. That requires concessions by everyone else. This time all in the name of an irrelevant, personal behavior choice with no possibility of procreation.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



WTF are you babbling about?

You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages.  You are shown that is untrue, that instead they are removing the licensing requirement but will still sanction marriages.  Somehow you take this to mean something about acceptance of same sex marriage and the state isn't going to sanction marriage?  Under the proposed legislation Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriages.  Let me repeat that in case you somehow didn't understand.  Under the proposed law, the one you are touting as a removal of state sanctioned marriage, Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriage.  The change would be about how couples obtain those marriages.  The marriages themselves would not change.  Do you not understand that?

What is your nose being rubbed in by this?  You have, again, made a claim on this thread and been shown it is untrue.  Again, you refuse to simply acknowledge that and go off on a tangent about forcing you to accept same sex marriage.  

States may be able to stop acknowledging marriage, but the proposed Alabama law did not do that.

I don't care if you accept same sex marriage or not.  It exists regardless of your acceptance.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Bubba, parenting and procreation are two different things. I asked this before, and I'm going to keep asking it until I get an answer: Are you opposed to subsidizing heterosexual couples who cant reproduce as a couple and become parents by other means?  I will add that individual gay people can reproduce......gay men produce sperm and a lesbian produces an ovum and can carry a child. This whole "reproduction thing is STUPID and just a pathetic excuse for discrimination. Another thing ......everyone who is the guardian of a child-married or single, gay or straight get a tax break FOR THE CHILD. Being married does not automatically result in paying less taxes. How is it possible that you do not know that.

Now here are some of the real people....the human being who you refer to as it:








The number of LGBT-headed families continues to grow, as does our need to secure legal equality, fairness and respect for LGBT parents and to provide environments where all children are welcome, supported and loved. HRC provides current resources that address the many potential paths to parenthood as well as tools for issues facing LGBT-headed families or LGBT youth.  Parenting


There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

Latest statistics from the U.S. Census 2000, the National Survey of Family Growth (2002), and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (2004) include:


An estimated two million LGLB people are interested in adopting.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

In addition, adoption is legal is 49 states. Generally, acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption has been way out in front of same sex marriage. In some states, it has been occurring for decades.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nor any bona fide Christian and that is what they really wanted.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 4, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Homosexuals were divorcing before the recent SCOTUS ruling.  There was a case where some state attempted to refuse to allow a gay divorce or some such a while back.



I'm certain the divorce lawyers are clapping their hands. This is a boon of new business for them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > But you have to. That's what the legal status does. You must allow it to adopt and pretend to be parents and you must subsidize it through tax breaks and you must give it all of the concessions that hetero marriages warrant evn though it can't procreate as heteros do.
> ...


 
You speak so authoritatively about something that you clearly know little about. The only thing that you got right here is that adoption requirements do in fact have little to do with marriage.

However, you are absolutely  wrong about discrimination and arbitrary decision. It is perfectly proper and expected that an adoption agency screen INDIVIDUAL applicants for their appropriateness as adoptive parents in terms of things like mental health , maturity, adequacy of living space and a host of other factors. That is not discrimination. That is just good case work practice.

However, an agency CANNOT categorically and systematically screen out applicants on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with there abilities and qualifications to be parents-such as sexual orientation, race, religion etc.  There is a case pending in Mississippi right now on this issue:



> *Mississippi Is Actually Defending Its Comically Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban  *Mississippi Is Actually Defending Its Comically Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban
> 
> 
> When I last wrote about Mississippi’s gay adoption ban, I naively speculated that the state might decline to defend its own law in court. After all, *Mississippi is the only state in the country that still bars same-sex couples from fostering or adopting children*—and, more important, the Supreme Court’s _Obergefell _decisionclearly outlawed such discriminatory legislation. On Friday, however, I was proved a fool: Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and Attorney General Jim Hood have elected to defend their ban against marriage equality mastermind Roberta Kaplan’s lawsuit.
> ...


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 4, 2015)

You depraved animals can show your marriage form to God when you stand before the Great White Throne judgement and holler your legality.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Trogladyte, just because bad decisions have been continually made and repeated over the past fifty years doesn't make them any less bad decisions.
You need to heed the data and progress. Get with it before you help damage the culture and society even more.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages. *THEY ARE!*  You are shown that is untrue, *NO IT'S NOT.*





Montrovant said:


> Under the proposed legislation Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriages. Let me repeat that in case you somehow didn't understand. Under the proposed law, the one you are touting as a removal of state sanctioned marriage, Alabama would still have state sanctioned marriage.



And let me repeat, no they won't. If we need to go through this again, we can. 

The elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage of any kind. They're not recognizing it, endorsing it or sanctioning it. If you wish to believe otherwise, that's perfectly fine with me, you won't have a problem with Alabama's new law.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.



And that criteria is not going to change. Adoption agencies are not required to meet equality demands of anyone, the very nature of what they do is discriminatory to the benefit of the child being adopted. Affirmative Action doesn't apply to adoption. Can someone challenge that? I suppose they could... you can challenge anything these days and no telling how the liberal SCOTUS would rule... but as of now, there is no danger of adoption agencies having to dole out children to gay couples in order to be "fair."


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.
> ...


Unfortunately, with legal marriage comes equal adoption privilege for homos. My main argument against homo marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Adoption used to give priority to hetero, married couples. As demonstrated by the changes over the past forty years, that is the best situation to place a kid in.
> ...


Horseshit! As I clearly demonstrated  above.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


And that is a stupid fucking argument bubba!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> You depraved animals can show your marriage form to God when you stand before the Great White Throne judgement and holler your legality.


You're in fine company jackass....You call yourself a human being. What a fucking joke!




> The late Dr. James Luther Adams, ethics professor at the Harvard Divinity school, made a powerful impression on his young student, Christopher Hedges, who went on to become a _New York Times_ journalist and author:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> In *What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)*:
> 
> Their [the anti-gay marrige movement's] passion comes from their conviction that homosexuality is a sin, is immoral, harms children and spreads disease. Not only that, but they see homosexuality itself as a kind of disease, one that afflicts not only individuals but also society at large and that shares one of the prominent features of a disease: it seeks to spread itself. (_New York Times_, June 19, 2005)


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > You depraved animals can show your marriage form to God when you stand before the Great White Throne judgement and holler your legality.
> ...



Yes, I'm a human being. I'm not a depraved brute beast like you.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...



Its a moot point. As even if one or two states throw such tantrums, almost no other states will. And the reciprocity clause of the constitution requires that these states honor contracts made in other states. Thus, even if say, Alabama gets out of the marriage business entirely by refusing to issue any marriage licenses.....California and Utah won't.

And Alabama still has to honor the marriage certificates from those States. Meaning that same sex marriage is defacto legal in states that refuse to issue any marriage certificates.

Rendering your entire tantrum an exercise in pouting futility.

When you run into Boss, remind him that his record of predicting future legal outcomes is essentially one of perfect failure. As he keeps replacing the actual law with whatever he wishes were true. 

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...
> ...



It doesn't matter. As no other state is poised to follow. And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states. Same sex or otherwise.

Regardless of what tantrum Alabama throws......same sex marriage is still legal in Alabama.*

And of course if Alabama refuses to allow same sex couples to enter the 'contract' of marriage, the high court will smack them down. *


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Please then tell me why same sex marriage was not allowed in all 50 state prior. 

You love your semantics.  

State do not have to modify laws because of changes on the judicial level but often do without, or to stop legal challenge. 

Now, please state the compelling state interest in denying a heterosexual same sex sibling couple from the right to marry. 

If you can't, admit defeat.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you have an argument to make for sibling same sex marriage....make it. Tell us why you want it. Instead, you're laughably insisting that WE make your argument for you, telling you why we should have sibling marriage.

You want it. You make the argument. If you can't, admit defeat, Troll.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Horseshit! As I clearly demonstrated above.



No, you've not "demonstrated" anything in this thread, you've only blown pro-gay-agenda smoke and acted like a jackass. You're not interested in a debate, you're interested in hurling feces.  

Apropos for the amoral subspecies you've become.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.



Honor them? How? You want the people of the state to bow or something? 

No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You say that Alabama is going to stop sanctioning marriages. *THEY ARE!*  You are shown that is untrue, *NO IT'S NOT.*
> ...



Explain which part of this, the opening of the proposed bill, removes state sanctioned marriage?

_To amend Sections 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 30-1-12, 30-1-13, and 30-1-16 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate and replace existing state statutory marriage law with a statutory contract for marriage; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate court for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, 30-1-11, and 30-1-14 of the Code of Alabama 1975._

There would still be 'a statutory contract for marriage'.  Marriage would be 'entered into by contract'.  A judge would '_record each contract of marriage'.  _It would 'provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage'.  It would 'confirm the continued existence of common law marriage in Alabama'.  Where is state sanctioned marriage ended by any of this?

You say the elimination of marriage licenses means the state is no longer recognizing marriage, but the text of the bill contradicts that, multiple times.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> It doesn't matter. As no other state is poised to follow.



Several states are, as a matter of fact. Eventually they all will. Welcome to the 21st Century where government doesn't sanction marriages. But thanks for confirming that you feel this doesn't matter... so far, that seems to be the consensus among the pro-gay activists here and that's good! It will make this all so much easier to accept.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Horseshit! As I clearly demonstrated above.
> ...


Thank you for confirming the fact that you can only run from facts and logic, and can't support or defend you positions whatsoever. I graciously accept your capitulation


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.
> ...


Read Obergefell dude!!


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I am not going to argue statutory requirements and rules of law, that's public record. It seems to me it clearly states that marriage licenses will no longer be issued by the probate judge. Therefore, there is no more state sanctioning of marriages. Matters of contract between parties is not marriage, it's contracts between parties. The State is not sanctioning, endorsing or recognizing any aspect of any private contract intent. That is between the parties not the State. The text of the bill doesn't contradict this at all, it's essentially what it establishes. 

What is happening is, you have tried to twist my OP around and make it appear that I have argued the State removing itself from endorsing gay marriages is an end to gay marriage. That is not what my OP says or my argument. If that is what you believe my argument is, you need to go and read the OP again because you've misinterpreted me. 

People can arrange contracts for virtually anything they want to, they always have been able to do this. Gay couples have been doing this for longer than "Gay Marriage" has been around. So no matter what is done on Gay Marriage, people will still always have that option just as it has always been. Nothing is going to change that. Even a Constitutional Amendment that marriage is between a man and woman, would not stop private two-party contractual agreements in America... they would still exist and gay couples would still have that option. 

The State is not compelled to recognize the nature of any domestic partnership. There is no requirement of them to do so and the Constitution doesn't say they have to. And this is what you are now going to see happening. States are going to get out of the marrying business. 

I happen to think that is Step 1 in killing gay marriage. Once the State no longer sanctions it, no longer affords any benefit to it or for it... the motivation to do it becomes unimportant. Contract law will cover the bases, there is no need for "marriage" per say. We will see fewer and fewer gay couples bothering with the formalities. In 20 years it will be a curiosity.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I've read it... doesn't say the State is obligated to acknowledge marriages. 

If they are going to sanction traditional marriages, they have to also sanction gay marriages.... but they don't have to sanction ANY marriages.  If they don't, there can't be a discrimination.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And Alabama must still honor those marriage certificates issued in other states.
> ...



Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them as the reciprocity clause of the constitution and the USSC mandates. Remember, just because you ignore the portion of the Obergefell decision that requires States to recognize same sex marriages performed in other States doesn't mean that the USSC ruling magically changes to match.

Remember....the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

And it doesn't matter if Alabama calls marriage a 'contract' or an 'agreement' or a 'license', 'compact' or a turkey sandwich. Whatever they call it gays are afforded the same terms. Says who? Says the USSC:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) said:
			
		

> "The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
> same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.



Making Alabama's entire little tantrum gloriously irrelevant. As any terms they set for marriage must include both gays and straights.



> No... the State has no obligation to even acknowledge their existence. They can't very well honor something they don't acknowledge.



Says you, citing what you wish the law actually said. Alas, your imagination has no real relevance to the actual law or the actual rulings. As Obergefell demonstrates elegantly:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) said:
			
		

> "These cases also present the question whether the Con stitution requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. As made clear by the case  of Obergefell and Arthur, and by that of DeKoe and Kostura, the recognition bans inflict substantial and continuing harm on same-sex couples....
> 
> ....It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. "



When you see Boss, tell him he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. And rarely if ever does.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Actually, that's exactly what it says. 



> It follows that the Court also must hold—and it
> now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
> refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed
> in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
> ...



Remember, we're talking about the ACTUAL ruling. Not the silly imaginary version of the ruling that you've made up. 



> If they are going to sanction traditional marriages, they have to also sanction gay marriages.... but they don't have to sanction ANY marriages.  If they don't, there can't be a discrimination.



It doesn't matter if they sanction any marriage. They still have to recognzie marriages performed in other States. And of course Alabama is merely renaming marriage a 'contract'. It doesn't matter what they call it. The terms for marriage afforded straight couples must also apply to gays.

Says who? Says the USSC.



> "The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
> same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."
> 
> Obergefell V. Hodges



Remember, and this point is fundamental: *you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.* It tends to hamper your legal arguments.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Oh Christ! Yes it actually does.... as has been pointed out to you. In addition, the fact is that they have been all along-honoring marriages between people of opposite sex and for that reason alone must honor same  sex marriages.  No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you. It's abundantly clear that you are not a rational or reasonable person and that you are blinded to reality by your irrational and pathological desire to thwart state recognition of same sex marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Boss simply believes that his personal opinion IS the law. And that his personal opinion IS history. Thus, whatever he imagines is legal precedent must be legal precedent. And history magically morphs to match.

Ask him about Lincoln running on an abolitionist platform. He actually believes it.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


No, troglodyte neocon. It's the most relevant argument against homo marriage. 
If you would climb out of your 1960's bunker and ditch your backwards democrattle mindset you'd realize what has been going on over the past fifty years.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Says you. The Supreme Court disagree.....actually arguing the exact opposite of what you do. That denying same sex marriage hurts children. 

I'm gonna go with the courts over you citing yourself.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Kids need a mother and a father. Empirical. Homo marriage lacks half of that. You do the rest of the math.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Kids need two parents. And they have them in same sex couples.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriages are only sanctioned by the issuance of licenses?  So the state treating marriages the same, including using the word marriage, is meaningless if a license is not issued in order to obtain the marriage?  What about common law marriages and the fact that the proposed bill confirmed its continued existence?  A license is the difference between a contract which is not marriage and a marriage?  That is perhaps the most ridiculous argument I've seen you make, a high bar to surpass.  

Marriage with a license is still a contract.  What do you think civil marriage is?

I have said nothing about the end of gay marriage.  Again, WTF are you talking about?  What I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.  I've provided the evidence that the state will continue to sanction marriage, quoting the actual text of the bill.  You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.  That's pretty funny considering how vehemently you've argued that removing state sanctioned marriages would not end marriage (which I agree with).  When did a license become the be-all end-all when it comes to civil marriage?


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...



Legally valid for what? Enforce what aspect? 

Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.  I don't know what you mean by this. Enforce it how? You want to state to make sure the man is sticking his penis in the right hole? The State will recognize legal contracts between parties, is that what you meant? I'm fine with that, they always have done that. They just won't be sanctioning or recognizing marriages anymore.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.



And you're wrong. The text of the bill specifically says you're wrong. I'm sorry you're misinterpreting statutory contract law and confusing that with marriage... I understand, you seem to have a problem with what Marriage is.  This is why the State is no longer going to sanction them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


'Improved'? Hell, it is about meaningless now, and in a few years we will have people marrying goats, their own sisters, robots and electric toothbrushes for all anyone can guess.

Yeah, maybe we should have kept marriage in line with the idea of buying cattle.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I think he is either 1 talking out of his libtard ass, or 2 is going back to preRoman history.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Simply recognize them as legally valid and enforce them...
> ...



Whatever you'd recognize for a straight couple under Alabama's 'contract' conception of marriage.As whatever terms for marriage apply for straight couples apply for gays. Says who? Says the USSC.



> Again... there is no Constitutional requirement for a State to even acknowledge existence of marriage, much less "recognize or enforce" it.



Says you. But remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. 



> "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
> 
> Article 4 Section 1 of the United States Constitution.



Just because you've never read this portion of the constitution doesn't mean it magically disappears. Just as your failure to read this portion of the Obergefell ruling doesn't mean it ceases to disappear. 



> "It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
> refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges


You know this portion....the one you said didn't exist in the Obergefell ruling? But very clearly does? 

Boss.....your pseudo-legal gibberish always fails for the same reason: its based on what you WANT the law to be. Not what the law actually is. You almost always argue your imagination.

And your imagination is meaningless.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


And your imagination is meaningless as well as pointless, degenerate and goofy as fuck.

Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt fucking each other.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.
> ...


Confused it...according to you. Which is meaningless, as you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry you confused your personal opinion with the law.

They're not the same thing.

Back in the realm of ACTUAL case law, it doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage. As whatever it is, the same terms apply for same sex couples as apply for straights:



> "The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges



Call marriage a 'contract' instead of a 'license'. The same terms apply for straights and gays. Call marriage a 'compact' instead of a contract'. The same terms apply for straights and gays. Call marriage a turkey sandwich on rye instead of a 'compact'. The same terms apply for straights and gays.

Once again, your entire argument is just meaningless gibberish. Signifying nothing. Nor having the slightest relevance to the actual law.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've said is that your contention that the proposed bill in Alabama would end state sanctioned marriage is false.
> ...



Which text of the bill specifically says I am wrong?  You make the claim, but I'm the only one of the two of us actually quoting from the bill.  The bill says, over and over, right in the opening paragraph, that there will still be marriage contracts, still be common law marriage, civil marriage simply will not require the issuance of a license.  Is this another example of your deciding what the definition of marriage is and claiming it cannot be changed?  I don't ever recall hearing anyone say that part of the definition of marriage is that one must obtain a license, but I wouldn't be surprised if you decided that was the case.

If I am misinterpreting statutory contract law and confusing it with marriage, it seems the proposed bill does the same.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the USSC.....and their rulings are binding precedent. 



> Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt fucking each other.



Says you, citing yourself. And legally, you're nobody.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.



No I haven't and you won't find anywhere that I've said that. Marriages are whatever people want to call them. I can marry my fucking mailbox if I want to call it that. So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state. 

Removing States from the obligation of issuing a license for marriage, eliminates the state sanctioning of said marriage. It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage. 

Again... private party contracts have been around forever. We're going to have those no matter what happens to gay marriage. You can argue that the state would still be sanctioning gay marriage in a round about way, but that has been the case for over 200 years in America, or as long as two parties have had contract law available.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No more binding than Dred Scot, wanker.



Skylar said:


> > Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt fucking each other.
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, citing yourself. And legally, you're nobody.



I am nothing more than a man speaking his conscience, something a libtard like you will never understand.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And that's why same sex couples are getting married in every state. Because the USSC ruling *isn't* binding?

Laughing....don't stop believing, buddy.



> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt fucking each other.
> ...



You're more than welcome to your personal opinion. This is a legal discussion. And in terms of the law, your personal opinion means two things:

Jack. And Shit.

I'm surprised you don't already know this.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.
> ...



The law doesn't recognize your marriage with your mail box as legally valid. As a mailbox is inanimate. It can't offer the consent necessary to enter into any legal arrangement. 

Just so that we're clear.


> So it's ridiculous to claim that the only kind of marriages that exist are the ones ordained and sanctioned by the state.



When you're speaking of the Alabama law, you're speaking of marriage under the law. Alabama still recognizes marriage. It still recognizes the State's role in marriage. It merely eliminates the licensing portion. 

The obvious problem with your reasoning is that you assume that by renaming marriage from a marriage 'license' to a marriage 'contract', that somehow Alabama can exclude gays. 

_Nope._



> "The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges



Whatever terms regarding marriage that are used for straight couples are accorded same sex couples as well. 

Making your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish. And gloriously irrelevant to the actual law. 




> It's no longer a state-sanctioned thing. It might be replaced by a private contract between parties but the State doesn't endorse whatever intent is of any contract. Marriage has been a type of contract, but with a marriage license the State is specifically endorsing marriage.



And all the same terms apply for straights as apply for gays. And visa versa. You can't get around that. Oh, you can ignore the portions of Obergefell that are inconvenient to your argument.

But you can't make us, the courts, or the USSC ignore them. And that's why your predictions are once again meaningless nonsense. As they are an expression of your hopeless desires rather than the actual law.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It is a bullshit opinion, just like Kelo, Untied and Dred. The  Constitution does not give SCOTUS the authority to redefine words, dude. IT may come as a shock to read that somewhere, but the SCOTUS did a major over-reach there that will eventually be fixed properly.



Skylar said:


> > Skylar said:
> >
> >
> > > > Marriage is marriage and that will NEVER include two fags butt fucking each other.
> ...



What you don't seem to grasp is that the law of the land does not merely float above the people of this country, rule over us. It emanates from the culture and most commonly shared values of WE the PEOPLE

This outrageous piece of judicial shit will be fixed over time. You can bank on that.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.

As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.


----------



## Boss (Oct 4, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.



You can keep trying to drive it home. We're going to stop State sanctioning of marriage. Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.
> ...



No, you're not. The State of Alabama still recognizes marriage under the new law.* All Alabama is doing is eliminating the licensing portion. *They aren't eliminating ANY of their statutes regarding marriage, child support, benefits, divorce, property,  or anything else.

And any changes they make to marriage apply to both straights and gays. Regardless of what Alabama calls marriage.....they can't prevent gays from entering into it. Nor can they refuse to recognize marriages performed in any other state, straight or gay.

You're once again arguing what you think the Obergefell ruling 'shoulda' said. And ignoring what it actually does say. And this is why your predictions of legal outcomes are always wrong.

As no one gives a shit what you think the ruling 'oughta' say.



> Then we will see if you can force states to sponsor your sexual behavior. I'm betting we see they don't have to. In the meantime, we are all entertained by your bombastic opinions but you haven't backed anything up with the Constitution.



The USSC has already answered the question you think you're posing them with this terminology change.



> "The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex."
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges



Call marriage whatever you like. License, contract, compact, agreement, it doesn't matter. If straight couples can enter into it....so can same sex couples. The same terms apply for both.

You can't get around that. All you can do is ignore it. Which is gloriously irrelevant to the outcome of any case.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.
> 
> As all the same sex couples getting married in every state demonstrate elegantly.



My post had EVERYTHING to do with the law, its limits and what it means when the SCOTUS redefines words to get the opinion it wants to give rather than being limited by the actual words of the law itself.

In what way do laws guide or limit the courts of our nation if they can just redefine the necessary words to mean whatever in the fuck they want?

How can we be a 'nation of laws' if the courts can just pull shit out of their ass and call it law as they apparently can do now?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...


Does the spouses social security come included with their fake marriage? Can they share healthcare with that faux wedding?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 4, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And you're more than welcome to your personal opinion. It still has nothing to do with the law.
> ...



Your post has everything to do with your personal opinion of what you think the law 'oughta be'. Which doesn't define what the law actually is. 

As the lower courts and States are bound by what the court did rule. Not by what you think the court 'shoulda' ruled. Your personal opinion has no legal relevence, defines nothing, limits nothing, affects nothing.

While the USSC ruling is still binding precedent. And gay marriage is still happening in every state of the union.



> In what way do laws guide or limit the courts of our nation if they can just redefine the necessary words to mean whatever in the fuck they want?


Redefine them according to who? Necessary according to who? And which terms? 

Again, every term you're using is subjective opinion. Where the court's rulings are only valid if YOU say they are. If YOU think they agreed with the constitution.

And you're nobody. You are not the people. Nor are you granted any particular constitutional authority to interpret the constitution in any binding manner. Simply put, the validity of a court ruling is not predicated on YOUR interpretations of the constitution.

Your personal opinion is noted. And?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You have attempted to refute that with the inane claim that only marriages obtained by issuance of a license are really marriages.
> ...



I did not say that all marriages must be sanctioned by the state.  You, however, claimed that the proposed bill in Alabama would get rid of state sanctioned marriage.  You based that on the removal of marriage licenses from the process of getting married.  Since civil marriage would still exist under the bill, since common law marriages would still exist under the bill, since all of the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage would exist under the bill, the only difference appears to be in the issuance of licenses.  Therefore, if the only difference between a marriage and a non-marital contract is the issuance of a license, it follows that the issuance of a license is required for a marriage.

Can you point out any difference, other than the need to obtain a license, between civil marriages in Alabama now and civil marriages in Alabama if the bill were to pass?

It's funny that you say marriages are whatever people want to call them.  You have claimed that same sex marriages aren't really marriages because marriage is between a man and a woman.  Consistency is not your strong suit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



If you think that there was not a long defined meaning to the word marriage you are either delusional, an idiot or a fucking liar. 

And if you don't see the danger in the SCOTUS setting itself up as having no restraint or scope to its authority to even define long defined words, then you are a fucking PC Nazi.


----------



## rdean (Oct 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...


I think it's the gays most Republican conservatives want to kill.

GOP says OK to kill gays - Google Search


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I beleive I've posted many times my opposition to it, and many times I've asked the question you progressives(?)  can't or won't amswer:

What is the compelling state interest in denying this right to hetro same sex siblings?

Go ahead Sally, giver her a shot.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Oct 4, 2015)

Skylar said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Kids need a mother and a father. Get with the program, move forward and get out of the 1960's while you still can.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 5, 2015)

Like I said forget the eff'd up trannys... Just buy more guns and ammo.

See hope and change


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 5, 2015)

lol so first it was "marriage is a state right and our state says no faggot marriages!!" now it's "fuck you faggots, no marriages at all HA!"

Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages.  And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses.  Which is just what we need right?  More fed power...


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




I'll go through this really slowly for you.... 

If I am a State, and I issue to you a "license to marry" it has a specific intent. 

Can anyone in class tell us what the *intention* of a _marriage_ license would be? 

That's right, it's found in the name... A marriage license signifies an intention to marry. If I am a State issuing you a "marriage license" then I fully understand, authorize, endorse, sanction and recognize your intention to marry. 

Okay... you understand what a "contract" is? The intention of a contract is to protect the interests of the parties involved. *Why* the parties want to protect interests is not known or assumed by the State. The State is not endorsing, authorizing, approving, sanctioning or recognizing* the reason* parties want to protect their interests. 

To license something is completely different than providing a legal apparatus to two parties who wish to enter into a contract. If you are not educated enough to know the difference, then I can't do much more to help... I've explained it to you as if you were a 6th grader. Short of breaking out the coloring books, I don't what else I can do. 

Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. Instead, it will issue contracts. You may have any number of reasons for wanting a contract, the state doesn't care. It is not a party to your reasoning, that is entirely up to you. If you feel you need a contract because of the black helicopters... it's up to you. If you feel you need a contract or your God will be angered... up to you! If you want a contract so you and your gay lover can play house and file tax returns together... your call!  --The State has no association with your reasons. 

Now... Bonus points class... How long has the United States had contract law where two parties can enter into a contractual agreement with each other to resolve property rights issues and other things? I think you will  find this concept predates our nation. To my knowledge, homosexuals have never been excluded from entering into contracts. 

Furthermore, we can find that before there was ever a such thing as "gay marriage" ....when that term itself would have been considered a joke... there were homosexual couples obtaining private party contracts between each other to deal with property rights, etc. This has been going on for years and hasn't been a problem because the State isn't a party to the reasons for a contract between two parties.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...



I don't understand what you all mean when you say "have to recognize" ...what does that mean? If there is no function of the state requiring the need to know your private domestic arrangement, why does anything need to be "recognized" by the state? How would that even be done? 

Maybe the State of Alabama should build a monument like the Vietnam War Memorial, where we engrave the names of gay couples getting married? Is that the kind of "recognition" you mean? 

As for your notion of a Federal marriage licence... good luck with that, you'll need to change the Constitution. The Fed can't just "step in" whenever you don't get your way, that's not how our nation was established. That might be what some of you want, it's not what we have. 

I will add, it's amusing as hell how the lefties are spinning in the wind on this topic. You guys go from laughing and chortling that this won't mean anything and doesn't make any difference... moot point... to pounding your fists demanding that we're going to do as you say or you're going to make us!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > No state is going to get away with not sanctioning any marriages as we have been trying to drive home to you.
> ...


 Sponsor your sexual behavior??? Ha ha! Now we are getting to the bottom of what this is really all about! You and certain others see same sex relations as being nothing more than about sex. All of your bizarre and idiotic legal theories are built around the idea that gays are less than human. Why is that. ??Do you have no inkling as to how fucking stupid that is??

At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives, loved one, commitments and responsibilities. They have hopes, dreams, aspirations and problems like everyone else. Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.  This was published just prior to Obergefell.......THERE IS NO GOING BACK


*Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays* Don't Listen To Same-Sex Marriage Foes: It Was Always About Hating On The Gays | Constitutional Accountability Center



Selected excerpts:


The leading opponents of same-sex marriage have been attempting to re-write recent American history, where decades of sneering public attacks on gays and lesbians, condemnations of their "lifestyle," and blaming them for a decline of America's moral virtue are quietly forgotten.

Their argument, made in front of the Supreme Court, no less, is that gay marriage bans are not motivated by prejudice toward gays and lesbians, but by a more noble if newfound purpose

Sweeping cultural change coupled with past decisions by the Supreme Court have limited the options the states who continue to ban same-sex marriage have to defend those prohibitions. If gay couples are kept from marrying because of state-sanctioned "animus" -- an intent to deny certain people their rights -- there is little escaping a constitutional violation.


"[T]he State's whole point is that we're not drawing distinctions based on the identity, the orientation, or the choices of anyone," John J. Bursch, the solicitor general of Michigan, said during the oral arguments in the case, Obergefell v. Hodges. "The State has drawn lines, the way the government has always done, to solve a specific problem. It's not meant to exclude."


*"The states’ arguments don’t pass the straight face test, no pun intended," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of Constitutional Accountability Center, a D.C.-based legal organization, said in an interview with TPM. "These are ridiculous arguments that are being made to cover up the fact that these discriminatory laws are motivated by a desire to keep gay people out of this important legal relationship."*

To say same-sex marriage bans were never meant to "exclude" anyone is to ignore years of anti-gay sentiments -- vitriolic posters and inflammatory commentary -- not to mention the comments made by elected officials when defending their opposition to same-sex marriage and enacting gay marriage bans.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



My goodness... what has prompted such a heterophobic rant in light of a plan that you have no problems with that doesn't effect your relationship at all? 

What "discriminatory law" are you  referring to with the abandoning of marriage licensing by the State? Or have you simply not caught up with the reality of the argument we're now having? Do you somehow think we are still debating whether same sex marriage is a thing? SCOTUS has ruled, that has been established by law now... it's not debatable anymore. If the State is going to sanction traditional marriages, they also have to sanction same-sex marriages according to SCOTUS. No need to fight that battle anymore... the rant you posted is outdated. 

What is NOW the argument is whether or not the State is compelled to recognize ANY marriage. There is nothing in our Constitution which says they must... only that it must be "fair and equal" if they do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.


----------



## mdk (Oct 5, 2015)

I just checked again, it seems homosexual marriage is alive and well. Better luck next time I suppose. I wonder what other silliness people will conjure up so they can pretend they won the gay marriage debate?


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.



And all you've done is make bigoted assumptions about me. Now you seek to imply or infer those assumptions onto me by claiming that I am being dishonest about my true views. 

First of all, I don't need to prove anything to you. I don't need to defend myself by telling you how many gay friends I have or what my sentiments are toward homosexuality. You are not my moral judge, you don't get a vote. Second, it doesn't bother me to be attacked with the PC meme about "attitude toward gays" because I am comfortable with my attitude.

Finally, I am the one who sees marriage in human terms, you are the one who advocates the legal terms. I support marriage being defined by the individual and not government. You support marriage as defined by the court to ensure some protection from a perception of inequity under the law. 

From MY perspective, you are really no different than some radical religious wacko telling me my 'marriage' can ONLY be to a Christian woman who doesn't wear makeup and attends church on Wednesdays and Sundays and the only "sex" I can have is in the government-approved missionary position. I don't want you telling me these things! Not through government or the court!  Understand?


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

mdk said:


> I just checked again, it seems homosexual marriage is alive and well. Better luck next time I suppose. I wonder what other silliness people will conjure up so they can pretend they won the gay marriage debate?



Thanks for checking in, I totally understand your concern. If radicals on the right managed to squeak by a 5-4 ruling which totally redefined something that had been a foundation of society up until  then, I would be concerned as well. My nervousness and anxiety might even manifest itself into cockiness which prompted me to prematurely dismiss whatever was coming down the pike as a result of this action. I might even be arrogant, smug and condescending, just to emphasize how utterly frustrated I was that 'whatever' wasn't being accepted as I assumed it would be. 

But look, no need for you to worry! We will surely keep you posted as things develop.


----------



## mdk (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > I just checked again, it seems homosexual marriage is alive and well. Better luck next time I suppose. I wonder what other silliness people will conjure up so they can pretend they won the gay marriage debate?
> ...



Please do. Seeing this perfect record of failure and delusion unfold is comical to behold.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



They are ruling on how the State must treat marriage under the law. Religious rites and your personal opinion are free to be whatever wish them to be, as they are defined by you. 

The law isn't. 



> And if you don't see the danger in the SCOTUS setting itself up as having no restraint or scope to its authority to even define long defined words, then you are a fucking PC Nazi.



Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

A judiciary that extends rights doesn't worry me much. A judiciary that extends government power does worry me. The Obergefell ruling extended individual rights. And doesn't effect me in the slightest.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Oh, and thanks for satisfying Godwin's law with your blithering 'nazi' nonsense. If you spent half the time formulating your argument that you do spewing vitriol and verbal feces upon anyone unfortunate enough to converse with you, you'd be unstoppable.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Under the proposal in Alabama, the state would no longer issue ANY marriage license. Therefore, it ceases to recognize, endorse or sanction ANY kind of marriage. Instead, it will issue contracts.



Nope. As usual, you don't have the slightest clue what you're babbling about. The only one that says that Alabama doesn't recognize marriage....is you. Citing yourself. And you citing you is meaningless pseudo-legal drivel.

Back in reality, SB377 Alabama merely converts it to a contract and removes the licensing requirement. And then recognizes and records the contracts with their Office of Vital Statistics just like they did marriage licenses. Says who?

Says Alabama SB377, the most current incarnation of the Alabama bill in question:



			
				Alabama SB377 said:
			
		

> To amend Sections 12-19-90, 22-9A-17, 30-1-5, 12 30-1-12, 30-1-13, 30-1-14, 30-1-16, and 30-6-11 of the Code of Alabama 1975, to abolish the requirement that a marriage license be issued by the judge of probate; to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage; to provide fees for recording; and to repeal Sections 30-1-9, 30-1-10, and 30-1-11 of the Code of Alabama 1975.
> 
> http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2015RS/PrintFiles/SB377-eng.pdf



Now why would they be recording with the Office of Vital Statistics something that they don't recognize? 

Simple: *you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. *

The bill merely eliminates the licensing requirement and recognizes marriage as a contract. All the same marriage laws apply. Its still marriage. They've merely changed the way its been entered into. No where in the entire bill does it say that they don't recognize the marriage contract, nor that they don't recognize marriages performed in other States.

How did you get this so comically wrong?* And you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. *To underline this point, I offer you  paragraph (f) of section 1 of the very same proposed bill



> "This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
> to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage."
> 
> Paragraph F, Section 1
> Alabama SB377



Now how is it possible that they can apply any marriage laws in Alabama...if as you ignorantly insist, Alabama no longer recognizes the existence of any marriages?

Simple: *you don't know what the fuck you're talking about*. And Alabama obviously does recognize marriage.

As usual, you've offered us your imaginary version of the law, just like you offered us your imaginary version of the constitution, just like you offered us your imaginary version of the Obergefell ruling.

Alas, the States are bound to the ACTUAL law. And not your imagination


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?



No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?
> ...



They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

Its fascinating though. Unless we're talking about guns, conservatives almost always side with State Power over the rights of the individual. What about being a conservative makes you think that the power of the government is so much more important than individual rights?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man.

Pop- feel free to test it out- try to marry your sibling and see what the State says its compelling interest is.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.
> ...



No- you are seeing marriage strictly on your terms. 

You don't care about the opinion of any other Americans- this entire thread is your proposal to 'kill marriage' for homosexuals- and you are willing to 'kill marriage' for Americans to do so. 

That is not an 'individual' level- that is a petty revenge level.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Alabama will continue to recognize both marriages made in Alabama and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same.

The only thing that changes is that the state will not issue licenses- but will recognize marriages through a different operation.

And that is fine with me- it will probably screw over Alabamans who just want to get married, but since it will screw over all Alabamans equally- and since despite your objections- gay Alabamans will continue to be legally married- just like any other Alabamans- in Alabama- its all fine with me.

Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same- except on how the legal recognition is recorded


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Exactly. And if Alabama tries to use the change in the method of recording marriages as a justification for denying same sex couples access to marriage.......they run head long into this passage from Obergefell:



> "The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
> same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. "
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)



It doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage or how they record it. Whatever terms for marriage that are accorded to opposite sex couples are also accorded to same sex couples.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This has already been answered by Syriusly and skylar, but I'll reply as well.

Civil marriage is already a type of contract.  Getting a license does not change that.  Filling out forms for a government office rather than obtaining a license does not change the state's recognition of marriage.  The bill states, over and over, that marriage will continue to exist in and be recognized by the state of Alabama.  The only change would be in the way marriages are obtained.  Where you get the idea that obtaining a license changes a contract into a marriage or that the proposed bill would end state endorsement of marriage, despite the clear text saying that marriage would remain as a state institution, is beyond me.  

Again.....nothing would change with the proposed bill other than the method by which state sanctioned civil marriages are obtained.  Nothing.  All of the same benefits, responsibilities, etc. would continue as they had in the past.  The parties would not have to draw up their own contracts for each individual union.  The laws about marriage would all remain the same.  The bill even says that non-licensed marriages, common-law marriages, would continue to be recognized by the state. The only difference would be how a couple gets their state sanctioned marriage.

Why do you insist that a license is the only means by which the state recognizes or sanctions a marriage?  Where does that bit of opinion come from?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Why do you insist that a license is the only means by which the state recognizes or sanctions a marriage?  Where does that bit of opinion come from?



And where in Alabama SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage from other states?

No where.

You're overthinking this. Boss hasn't read SB377. He couuld give a fiddler's fuck what the bill actually says, as he's just making this shit up as he goes along. Where did he get that particular piece of opinion? The same place he gets virtually all of his arguments.

The rectal database. Pulled out sideways.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The very odd thing about Boss's pretend concern about the ramifications of Americans who happen to be gay being allowed to marry each other- is that he has no concerns about the ramifications of Alabama's proposed law.

I know I had to supply a copy of my marriage license at least once to prove to employers that my wife and I were married- for both health and life insurance purposes.

I suspect that many other organizations also require marriage licenses as 'proof of marriage'- I suspect that the Veterans Administration is one of them.

This law will probably fuck Alabamans over royally if it comes to pass- because Alabamans will not be able to obtain the form of proof of marriage everyone else uses- and that is always demanded. 

I suspect that Boss is okay with that- just so long as it fucks over gay Alabamans.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Then they'll have to "recognize" all non-state marriages. And if they want to push it and say they don't recognize any marriages from /any/ state then the fed will step in and tell them to stop acting like fucking children, possibly require them to issue FED marriage licenses instead of state licenses. Which is just what we need right? More fed power...
> ...



What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss?  They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's.  Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another.  ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that.  They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications.   That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place. 

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig.  I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power.  You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure?  You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment?  Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And one of those guarantees is equal protection.

Prior to SSM being recognized siblings could not marry because it would always be a male sibling marrying a female sibling. Now we know that would not be the case in a large number of these cases and the threat of defective bloodlines would be impossible.

Citizens are being denied equal protection under the law because off the possibility that another group, far different then these individual might have sex?

Again, what is the compelling state interest that denies those citizens the same rights afforded any same sex couple?

Seems you're interested in constitutionality issues, then not.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yes I understand that, but I'm engaging in the exercise because it amuses me.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Seems like you always drag out that same straw man.

But as always you aren't interested in an answer- you just want to attack anyone who supports Americans who are gay getting married.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies?  I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony.  Did I miss something in the bill?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



What Alabama is doing....and what Boss is describing....have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Not a thing. The only difference between Alabama's old law and Alabama's new proposed law is the method of recording the marriages. Before marriages were entered into via license. Under SB377 they're entered into via contract. Both still go to the exact same place:

The Office of Vital Records

That's it. All of Boss' pseudo-legal gibberish about how Alabama would no longer recognize marriage, how they would never recognize marriages from other states......imaginary horseshit. He literally just made that shit up. SB377 says no such thing.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license. 

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much. 

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



It would do away with any Alabaman being able to 'drag a judge, justice of the peace, notary or clerk' before a judge to force them to comply with the law.

Of course no one is dragging any pastor in front of any judge since a pastor- unless he is a 'commercial pastor' has never been in the same category as a justice of the peace.

I am sure all Alabamans will rejoice in no longer having recourse to a civil marriage ceremony.

Just to placate a few homophobes upset that homosexuals can legally marry.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest. 

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Not interested in an answer?

Try me for a change Sally


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

Well I am happy that all you left-wing  pinheads have weighed in and let me know that Alabama's measure to eliminate marriage licenses is not a problem for you. It sounds like we've found a compromise all of us can live with. Gays can pretend they are married, churches can hold on to sanctity of traditional marriage and the state doesn't have to worry about discriminating or playing favorites because it no longer sanctions marriages. 

If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's.



Nope. Not what they said. Sorry.  They  ruled that states can't discriminate, that was the issue at hand. They can't offer marriage licenses to traditional couples and deny them to same-sex couples. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the state recognize or sanction ANY marriages. And that's what Alabama is going to adopt. A measure that removes the State from sanctioning ALL marriages. No discrimination.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well I am happy that all you left-wing  pinheads have weighed in and let me know that Alabama's measure to eliminate marriage licenses is not a problem for you. It sounds like we've found a compromise all of us can live with. Gays can pretend they are married, churches can hold on to sanctity of traditional marriage and the state doesn't have to worry about discriminating or playing favorites because it no longer sanctions marriages.



'Sanctioning', I leave to you. Recognizing and upholding the laws surrounding? That is a task that Alabama engages in regardless of SB377.

Remember, you've never actually read the bill.  It tends to take the edge of your argument. As marriage still exists in Alabama in either instance. Only the method of entering marriage would change.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's.
> ...



The supreme court found that same sex couples are afforded the same terms in marriage as opposite sex couples.



			
				Obergefell v Hodges (2015) said:
			
		

> The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
> same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.



Change it from marriage 'licenses' to marriage 'contracts'....and same sex couples are still accorded the same terms as opposite sex couples.

Simply obliterating your entire line of pseudo-legal gibberish.



> However, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the state recognize or sanction ANY marriages. And that's what Alabama is going to adopt. A measure that removes the State from sanctioning ALL marriages. No discrimination.



Alabama still recognizes marriage under SB377. Remember, you've never actually read it. All it does is change the method of entering marriage from license to a contract.

As for the constitution requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, you run head first into the Full Faith and Credit clause:



			
				US Constitution Article 4 Section 1 said:
			
		

> "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."



Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.



			
				Obergefell v Hodges (2015) said:
			
		

> It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
> refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.



Remember.....you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And that tends to rob your arguments of much of their persuasive power.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL!  Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Except that they can't.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely. 

Now your turn. 

Explain the legal reasoning to deny any couple, not associated with the criminal act of incest, the right to the legal benefits afforded those issued a marriage license.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't swing your way Pops.

You do enjoy dancing with your straw man though.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well, there you have it. 

Sally said so


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Why not?  The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Well I look for the number of gay and lesbian marriages to greatly increase- now that they can get legally married.

Which is of course- all that they asked for from the beginning.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Ask the States that do.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons. 

Almost insignificant.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I don't. 

Never have, but I'm trying to find a sound legal reason to deny non incestuous couples a marriage license, which seem to be having trouble with.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I doubt you swing my way too. I'm normal. Youre plain ass weird.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Again, a CONTRACT is NOT a LICENSE!  There is no implication of state sanction with a contract between private parties, they can have contracts for anything they please, the state is no longer a party to any action. They are merely going to fulfill a statutory requirement of contract law, which they have already been doing for centuries. What they won't be doing anymore is sanctioning marriages. 

But again.. thank you for pointing out you have no problem with this and it doesn't change anything as far as you are concerned. If that's the case, we've solved this issue and can move on.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.



You are the one who declared to us that Alabama was getting out of the marriage business. 

As usual- you were ignorant and wrong- and now are trying to spin your false statements into something less than just BS.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



They are supposed to stay within the confines of the actual words written into the laws, but now they have redefined a word with the fag marriage decision and they decided to completely ignore Congressional specifications on who can get federal subsidies in exchanges at the state level.

The SCOTUS has take upon itself the authority to simply rewrite the law if the don't like it, to ignore the text of the law or redefine whatever words allow them to bring about a decision that they prefer.

We are no longer a nation of laws, but are a nation of men now.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place.  There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Sure, many siblings are heterosexuals of the same sex, wishing to marry for the benefits it brings. 

Of course a pervert like you would think otherwise. That's what perverts do. 

Have you come up with that law yet that makes sex a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?

You can't Sally?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



What Skylar said.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What does the Supreme Court's ruling have to do with forbidding incestuous marriages?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage. 

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Who treated them equally?  The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Again, it doesn't matter. As the terms  of marriage are the same for opposite sex couples as for same sex couples. Says who?

Says the Supreme Court:



> The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
> same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges



License or contract, same sex couples and opposite sex couples are accorded the same terms.

Killing your entire argument. And preserving same sex marriage.



> There is no implication of state sanction with a contract between private parties, they can have contracts for anything they please, the state is no longer a party to any action.



Entering marriage via contract however has very specific requirements. Which SB377 lays out in detail. You should actually read the law rather than commenting on it ignorantly.

Remember, other than changing the method of entering marriage from a license to a contract, none of the marriage laws change.



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph f said:
			
		

> This section shall not affect any other legalaspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



See, I've actually read the bill. You never have. Which is why I know so much more about the bill than you do.



> They are merely going to fulfill a statutory requirement of contract law, which they have already been doing for centuries. What they won't be doing anymore is sanctioning marriages.



And same sex couples will be able to enter into marriage via contract the same as opposite sex couples. As both are accorded the same terms.

Alabama still recognizes marriage. And still recognizes marriages from other states. Again, just read the bill. It will help you with so many of your misconceptions.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, I don't oppose it. Personally, I had rather see a man with more than one female wife or a woman with more than one male husband than I had to see the total depravity of gay and lesbian unions.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

_Turner v. Safley?_

_Or Obergefel?_

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



They are supposed to stay within the confines of individual rights and the constitution. When a law abrogates rights and violates the constitution, the supreme court is supposed to strike it down.

Which, of course, they did.



> The SCOTUS has take upon itself the authority to simply rewrite the law if the don't like it, to ignore the text of the law or redefine whatever words allow them to bring about a decision that they prefer.
> 
> We are no longer a nation of laws, but are a nation of men now.



They've taken it upon themselves to strike down portions of the law that violate individual rights. As they should have.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



LOL......because of course you find gay unions 'total depravity' but polygamy just good clean fun.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.



Here's the thing... You guys are not explaining what you mean by this.  "Recognize" HOW?  

Do you mean, if the State of Alabama decided to hand out free turkey to married couples, they would have to also hand out turkey to gay married couples? Okay... if they do that, fine!  ...But what if the State doesn't have any free turkey for married couples programs and doesn't offer any sort of benefit for "married" people? How are they supposed to "recognize" your marriage? 

I don't think there is anything in the Constitution about a right to be recognized. Maybe you can find that somewhere... perhaps we should ask the collective geniuses of Sotomayor, Kegan and Ginsberg? Maybe they can tell us where to look for this mysterious inalienable right you think we have to be recognized?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Says you. The Obergefell ruling never even mentions polygamy let alone authorizes it. 

See, I've actually read the ruling. You never have. You might want to try. Here, I'll even give you the link:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me where it authorizes polygamy. Specifically.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It is. It overruled the wishes of the people who expressed their wishes in a legal election.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.
> ...



Record it as a marriage in the Office of Vital Statistics. Uphold the laws surrounding marriage. And apply those laws to those who are legally married.

Just like SB377 does.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.
> ...



Well, they are getting out of the marriage business. But if you want to believe they're not or that what they're doing changes nothing, then I am fine with that... sounds like we have a winner of a plan!  You have no objections, I have no objections... we're all happy, happy, happy!


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It doesn't. It doesn't forbid it either. It opens the door though with its wording.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You should read the Constitution some time. 

Meanwhile- you are a dollar short and 50 years too late.

Feel free to start a thread about how upset you are that the Supreme Court overturned the rights of Virginia voters to ban mixed race marriages.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Good Lord you are lame.

Here we see a fool, says to be progressive. Makes a claim to be concerned about rights.

Yet the fool thinks there is an existing law that states married people must engage in sex.

This fool, who claims to be a fighter for the people's rights forgets about a few basic rights:

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (except siblings in this morons book)

And

No one can be denied a right by the state unless the state can prove a compelling interest in denial of those rights.

Sally can't provide that compelling interest for denying this right.........

So dance Sally dance.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Not getting out of marriage business at all- just the marriage license business.

I am just enjoying watching your usual spin.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



At least it's natural and not something totally revolting.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Seem to spend an inordinant amount of time thinking about gay men ya know.



you noticed, eh?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LIke I said before-

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

He does this over and over- drags out his straw man to  try to get those in favor of marriage equality to join his game on incestuious marraige- because Pops doesn't see any difference between a man marrying a man- and a father marrying his daughter.

Pop can't actually make an argument about what he really is upset about- that homosexuals are being treated equally- so he keeps trotting out his strawman

And by all evidence will continue to do so.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...
> ...



no. it isn't up to the states. you say that as a reflex in almost every thread.

civil rights are a federal issue. 

STATUS is a state issue, but not if the status is delegated in a discriminatory and illegal fashion.

and someone needs to explain to the o/p that the Court determines what is constitutional, not wingers sitting home at their typewriters. 

and for the record, once the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, it is BY DEFINITION, constitutional. you cannot call something unconstitutional after judicial review.

you're welcome


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Seem to spend an inordinant amount of time thinking about gay men ya know.
> ...



Yes, we noticed that of you.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Well that I imagine will be your argument to the courts in favor of polygamous marriage. 

"its not icky like homosexuals are'


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




^^^^a long winded dance, those high heals have gotta be killin you Sally


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Says you. They say they are merely chanting the how marriage is entered into. They still record the marriages with the Office of Vital Statistics. They don't change any of the marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage. And they never say that they don't recognize marriages from other States.

You made all that up. And you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why are you against the rights of polygamists to enjoy the bliss of marriage the same way you depraved freaks do?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Forbidding bigamy is what the States do.

The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions polygamy or bigamy. Let alone authorize them.

So what else have you got?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Do you think Sally's the shemale in its marriage? I think so. She's probably got the butt hurts.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



They are required by Federal law to record information... that's not the State sanctioning or recognizing gay marriage. Sorry.  Uphold WHAT laws surrounding marriage? Contract law takes care of that already, it always has. I don't really know what you're talking about. The State of Alabama is not going to sanction marriages. Did I say in that sentence that Alabama isn't going to comply with federal laws? I don't think I did... doesn't look like I said that... but it seems to be what you are hearing for some reason. I think you've gone off the deep end.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well, again for the umpteenth time Sally, it doesn't forbid either.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.



So the Supreme Court had no authority to overturn interracial marriage bans?

Does that mean that none of those interracial marriages since the ruling are legally valid?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



For the Umpteeth time, Mary....it doesn't even mention it. Let alone authorize it.

Try again.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Boss, this one is kind of slow and a real bigot. He doesn't want polygamists to get married and be happy. Just the fags.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > I have. Marriage laws are not specifically under the prevue of the federal government. Marriage laws have long been under the prevue of the states themselves. It was purely a power grab and only then by one vote.
> ...



Not if the ban was voted on by the duly registered voters of a state, they didn't. You are allowing 5 people to overrule the wishes of thousands.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



What would you homos do without the big old 5 members of the SCOUS protecting you?


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.



And what part of the constitution mandates the states must give status at all? 

I'll wait while you dig that up for us!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I was responding to your one, inane comment about "sponsoring sexual behavior" I'm not arguing the law with you at this point. That is clearly a dead end. It's apparent that you will not own up to truth about your underlying attitude towards gay people. You cant see the issue in human terms.
> ...




Yes, I know, bigots always try to turn it around and call me a bigot- that is called projection . I am not making any assumptions at all about you. I am reading what you have written, and it is all quite clear. You are indeed being dishonest. You do not even have the integrity to admit to what you are. I would have slightly more respect for you if you would just be truthful instead of constructing an elaborate scheme about how marriage can be abolished while lying about your motives. Yes I see marriage in legal terms because it is the legal rights that ensures human rights. Don’t try to tell me that you care about the legal or the human rights of gays.

You started this thread for the purpose of railing against gay marriage. From the beginning you have been on a crusade to deny gays the right to marry and the benefits that go with it. It is clear that you see gays as flawed and fundamentally different, and underserving of the same rights and benefits as others. Let’s look at some of the highlights from your rants:

From the OP

*



			Is my idea an unconventional strategy? Perhaps, but there are not many options remaining if we hope to get rid of this atrocious SCOTUS ruling. There isn't enough support to adopt a Constitutional Amendment and prohibition amendments don't historically last anyway.
		
Click to expand...

*
“atrocious SCOTUS ruling” ?  And, you would support a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, which you insist on calling homosexual marriage-if you thought that you could.

Also from the OP



> What the giddy left has not come down off their clouds enough to realize is how much vehement opposition is out there, who have no intention of accepting this as a "norm" of society



Vehement opposition? Really? It’s pretty quiet around here. No demonstrations, no riots. Among the defendants in Obergefell, there was not even the motivation to file a motion to rehear the case as the law allows within 25  days. The “vehement opposition  is on the part of a small number of homophobic religious right bigots, and the voices in your head.

More from the OP



> *Heterosexuals, you have to believe, are not supporting it because homosexuality appeals to them personally, it is because there has been a perceived discrimination and inequity presented. *This denial of actual discrimination is something that you repeat several times more.



And you sanctimoniously declare *: *



> *Now, what they have been denied is same-sex marriage licenses, which curiously didn't exist because marriage is the union of a man and woman.*



And ask:



> After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals?



(This is repeated again in post 44)This really strikes a nerve and speaks clearly to your pejorative viw of gay people.  What is the point for anyone then? Are you suggesting that gay folks only want to marry for those government bennies. Are you saying that they do not marry for a variety of reasons-such as love, companionship, social status-like other people?

In # 84 you *said*


*



			I reserve the right to raise an issue with it. Anyone who has followed me on this issue knows I've advocated for a Civil Unions solution for years, in order to resolve this issue and get government unattached to the institution of marriage once and for all. No one wanted to listen and now we have this ruling making gay marriage a constitutional right.
		
Click to expand...

*
Really? How is supporting civil unions over marriage for gays NOT discrimination. Civil unions are not equal to marriage, as I have explained to you. And again here you lament the SCOTUS ruling on marriage. But no, you’re not a bigot.

You claim that there is no law that discriminates on the basis of sexuality, but who the fuck do you think all of those state bans on same sex marriage are aimed at, and who is the target of all of this religious discrimination crap ?

You idiotically claimed that it is permissible for adoption agencies to discriminate against gay people, and had nothing to say in your own defense when I called you on it.

You have said Gay marriage is not real marriage/ It is a man and a woman. But no! You’re not a bigot. That is if you think that you can treat others differently, or advocate treating them differently-just because you disapprove of them and see them as inferior- is not bigotry. And same the crap about wanting to abolish state sanctioned marriage for everyone because we know why you want to do that and you believe that straight and traditional people will continue to get married but somehow gays will not. You have admitted as much but no, you not a bigot. We are done here bubba.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> They are required by Federal law to record information... that's not the State sanctioning or recognizing gay marriage. Sorry.



Not in the Office of Vital Statistics and not as a legal record of marriage. Yet under SB377......they do both.

You've never actually read SB377. You have no idea what you're talking about.



> Uphold WHAT laws surrounding marriage?



Again, look at SB377. It tells you exactly what:



			
				SB377 Section 1 Paragraph f said:
			
		

> (f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



*All those laws surrounding marriage.* You keep arguing your own ignorance, insisting that since you refuse to actually look at SB377, that Alabama is getting out of the marriage business and no longer recognizes any marriage.

Laughing...._nope._ Your refusal to look at SB377 doesn't change a single letter of the text. It merely demonstrates how little evidence has to do with your argument.

Read it and then try again. The link is above.


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



my husband would probably find that assertion amusing.

as for the courts... the supreme court exists to protect normal people from bigots like you. they don't always do it, but they did here, bless their little hearts.

and asking what normal people would do without the courts is like saying what would we do if we lived under another system of government that didn't have courts protecting civil rights... you know, like in Saudi Arabia.... someplace you'd probably be much happier.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Look fool, let me try to make it easier for you. We have a law in Pensacola that states one can make a right at a red light after coming to a complete stop and insuring there is no approaching traffic. There are NO signs indicating one may do this. Now, where it is not desirous of the state to allow this turn on red, there must be posted in plain view a sign PROHIBITING the turning on a red signal.

The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT prohibit these marriages.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.
> ...


*The 14th Amendment  Bubba!*


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > again... STATUS is the purview of the state. if that status is given out in discriminatory fashion it is up to the court to rule those regulations unconstitutional.
> ...



Full Faith and Credit Clause for those married outside of Alabama.

And SB377 still recognizes marriage. Nixing your entire argument.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Most NORMAL people don't need 9 people interfering in their lives.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You look real normal LOL


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Look, dipshit....let me try this slowly. The States forbid bigamy. The Obergefell ruling never so much as mentions it. 

Do you understand the difference between the State and Federal government? Good. 

Thus, what relevance does a supreme court ruling have with a State law unless that law violates the constitution?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Most people don't have the state violating their rights for no particular reason.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Most normal people actually approve of the Supreme Court protecting our Constitutional rights.

You this upset when the Supreme Court strikes down State's gun laws too?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Which, as anyone with a brain would know, is a right that the state would have to show a compelling interest in denying. Right?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



You  look like a faggot!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Rather ironic you attempting to use 'fool' in a sentence.

The Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit anything except bans on same gender marriage. 

Just as previously the Supreme Court's ruling did not prohibit anything except bans on mixed race marriage.

The Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with bigamy, or polygamy- except in the tiny minds of homophobes.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



If you believe that incest marriage should be legal, make your case for it. Yet every time I ask you to present your argument........you abandon it.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Of course. Those nuts are totally out of touch.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Apparently they do, but you actually don't care because these don't have sex with each other. 

Don't you find your veiw kinda weird?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



So.....what do you think the 14th amendment actually does?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



That's what we've been saying over and over.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



That is so fucking stupid that I can't stand it! STATE Law prohibits it. State laws prohibiting it have not been challenged on constitutional or any other grounds. It was not a question before the court and therefor the court had no reason to comment on it-indeed it would have been inappropriate to do so. You're just fucking with us right? You cant really be that ignorant about how things work.? OMG you are!!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Is this where you advocate incest marriage....and then abandon your argument when I ask you why?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Do you think all siblings wanna have sex, or just those that want to enter into a contract that doesn't require sex?

You are a kinky bastard aren't you Sally?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



They belong in a carnival sideshow. FREAKS!!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Well homosexuals would probably go back to being legally attacked by Christian Conservatives who want government to tell Americans exactly what kinds of sex should be legal between consenting adults.

Now what will Mormons and Jews and African Americans, and Latinos and every other minority group do without members of the Supreme Court protecting their rights?

Well probably get discriminated against.

Again.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



So how does the Supreme Court authorize polygamy......with a ruling that has nothing to do with polygamy nor even mentions it?

Remember, the STATE forbids bigamy. Do you know what a State is?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



^^^^ apparently thinks all siblings wanna have sex with each other.  

Get your freak off somewhere else Sally.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yet who is the one who keeps wanting to talk about incestuous marriage?

Always you.

You are obsessed with it.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It protects you little homo victims from sane and normal people like me.  BOO!!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are obsessed with siblings having sex with each other.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why is it whenever I ask you to present your argument for incest marriage.....you always deflect, and respond with a question?

If you have no valid argument for incest marriage, just say so. But advocating it...and then abandoning it are hardly useful.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



LOL- yeah- the KKK thinks that they are 'sane and normal' also- along with all of your buddies at Stormfront.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



And what would you do to them if they weren't protected?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Sally needs to go look at some more nude pictures of George Clooney and get off.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Wanting to talk about how to stop incestuous marriage is not talking about incestuous marriage. 

Of course a perverted freak like you can't see the difference.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Boy you really are digging up bones. They went out in the 1960's didn't they?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Then why do you keep mentioning siblings marrying if you don't want to talk about incest marriage?

You seem....confused.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



He wraps a rainbow flag around it, a teeny tiny rainbow flag.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nothing really. You're really insignificant little freaks.


----------



## Boss (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You started this thread for the purpose of railing against gay marriage. From the beginning you have been on a crusade to deny gays the right to marry and the benefits that go with it. It is clear that you see gays as flawed and fundamentally different, and underserving of the same rights and benefits as others.



Well, none of this is true at all, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it is... what are you going to do about that?  Does Gay Marriage fix that?  Do you think being a belligerent prick to me will fix that? Insulting me, ridiculing my beliefs, assassinating my character?  In the end, are you not still going to feel as if you are being unfairly discriminated against by society? And what about if you somehow, through all your hate-filled ranting and insulting me, managed to change my heart and turn me into your biggest ally... rallying me to your cause and causing me to remorsefully repent and show my deepest regrets... will that change how you feel about the way gays are treated in society?  

You see.... I don't think it matters. Homosexuals are actively engaged in an abnormal sexual behavior that is immoral and wrong and they know it is. So it's almost a pathological guilt complex you have that no one will ever be able to appease. We can't do enough for you to make you feel normal. And ultimately, that is what is driving all of this. Now it may not be the PC thing to tell you this but it's the truth and you know it's the truth.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Tell us more about your buddy Sally and how she likes to masturbate.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh, I'm not. 

You have yet to provide a law yet that states that sex is a requirement of marriage. 

You can try to hide your perversion all you want.......

You own it unless you come up with that law freak boy


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



We 'insignificant little freaks' are in agreement with the majority of Americans.

You insignificant little bigots will continue with the butt hurt that the Constitution does indeed protect Americans- even the ones you don't like.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor Pops still trying to find someone to dance with his incest Straw Man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You started this thread for the purpose of railing against gay marriage. From the beginning you have been on a crusade to deny gays the right to marry and the benefits that go with it. It is clear that you see gays as flawed and fundamentally different, and underserving of the same rights and benefits as others.
> ...



You started an entire other thread being a belligerant prick to all homosexuals- ridiculing their desire to marry- and accusing them of wanting to pass laws so that they can rape you in public.

Don't be shocked if people respond to you being a belligerant prick.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Te


Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...




Tell me, how does it feel to be pointed out and snickered at?  Do folks feel dirty when the shake your hand?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



So that's it? Just name calling now?

Feel free to get my attention when you have something significant to say.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I get it!

This pervert thought that a marriage license bestowed sex upon the signors!

Sally thinks he can get laid with a license!

God, I bet it blew your pea sized brain when you got the license and still couldn't get laid!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you're not citing sibling marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I have, did I also mention that the marriage license does not require sex?

OHHHHHH, you forgot that part.

Your assumption makes you look kinda sick.

Of course, to folks like you, sick AINT necessarily an insult, is it?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So you're saying sex is a requirement of marriage, if it is, then what kind?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I think we've done pretty good. We've established a whole lot concerning you. We've even established that not only are you a faggot but that you're also a bigot faggot. You got your little form but you want to deny the polygamists and others their rights. You're a real piece of garbage,


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh, she's sick alright POP. We both know that.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



We've established only that your argument has degenerated into calling me names.

So much for your 'legal' argument. How exactly does the Supreme Court authorize polygamy by making no mention of it?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And again, evasion. I ask you a simple question. And you refuse to answer, instead trying to change the topic.

If even you are treating your argument like garbage to be discarded, surely you can understand why we treat your claims the same way.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Actually I'm kind of leery even about corresponding with you. I'm afraid you may have aids or some sexual disease. You faggots are filthy animals.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 5, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.



Yep, you're right - Dred Scott is the law of the land, can never be reversed....


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You refuse to answer my questions. Why do you oppose polygamous marriages?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Then don't. You've obviously abandoned your entire argument regarding the Obergefell decision. If all you have is name calling......you're already done.

When you have something significant to say, find me. I'll be around.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Who says that I oppose polygamous marriage?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.
> ...



Looks like another faggot has appeared on the thread.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



How much longer before AIDS takes you away from us?


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 5, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.
> ...


Yeah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days.  The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Well, I figured you were since you evaded my question. You still have. Are you for or are you against them?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 5, 2015)

BOSS SAID: 

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



So...that's no one that has said I oppose polygamous marriage. And you admitting that I've taken no position on the matter one way or the other.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss Obergefell, gay marriage, or any topic relevant to the thread that you've conceded those arguments?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Dred Scott?  Wasn't he a black football player for Chicago? Played under Mike Ditka?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Um, no.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Conceded what?  I keep telling you over and over that no ruling forbids but you keep saying they do.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


I heard he became a Judge in the future 


BA DUM TSSSS


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You're very confused. I've said that the Obergefell ruling never even mentions it. And that the _States_ forbid bigamy. 

You do know what a State is, right?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Where's the groan button?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No problem. The Supreme Court by a ruling of 5 to 4, will just have to overturn that one as well.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Actually, I think in order to help out with the herds of gays and lesbians that will be traipsing through all the probate judge offices in all the sates, Walmart could issue the forms and collect the fees just as they do with the hunting and fishing licenses. Once every month or so they could forward the money and the forms to the probate offices for filing. This way, if a faggot went to Walmart with his lover and picked up a form then met and fell in love with the check out boy, he could turn around right there and fill out another form and pay another fee.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 5, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Yeah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days.  The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.



The SCOTUS passes some of the most damaging laws the nation has seen. The destruction of marriage law that SCOTUS created is a direct infringement of the 1st amendment rights of Americans. When the court dictates law that punishes the religious beliefs of a large segment of society, trouble is brewing.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well I am happy that all you left-wing  pinheads have weighed in and let me know that Alabama's measure to eliminate marriage licenses is not a problem for you. It sounds like we've found a compromise all of us can live with. Gays can pretend they are married, churches can hold on to sanctity of traditional marriage and the state doesn't have to worry about discriminating or playing favorites because it no longer sanctions marriages.
> 
> If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.



Perhaps what is needed here is an explanation of what you consider the state sanctioning marriage.  Is your definition of that issuing a license?

Marriage law is not changed by the proposed bill.  The status or married couples in Alabama is not changed by the proposed bill, neither previously married couples nor those married after its passage.  Laws regarding divorce, taxes, power of attorney, custody of children, etc. all remain the same.  The only thing the bill does is changes the means by which one enters into marriage.  Is the means by which the state grants marriages part of the definition of sanctioning marriages to you?

The state of Alabama would still recognize marriages, they would still be legally binding, they would still be covered under all of the same laws with the proposed bill.  The only change would be that instead of being issued a license to get married a couple would need to fill forms and submit them to the proper government office.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX. 

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or 

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Unless they don't. As you've noted, the Supreme Court has never so much as mentioned it. Let alone shown the slightest interest in protecting it as a right.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days.  The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.
> ...



Save of course that marriage isn't destroyed. Its fine.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I am, have, and will continue to do so. 

Now please produce the link to the law that requires sex within marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Then give us your argument for why you advocate incest marriage. 

Make your case.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Link to my advocating for the state forcing sex within a marriage, since that is what you contend. 

Or, advocating for incest. 

Be so kind.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you don't advocate incest marriage.....or you do? Again, you run from any question about it so often, its hard to tell.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Oh, and you were so sure I was, but can't find the link?

You could simply post a link that requires sex as a requirement to marriage and YOU WOULD HAVE ME!

Produce the post in which I advocate siblings having sex (remember, sex isn't a requirement of marriage), a law requiring married couples to have sex. 

OR ADMIT YOU ARE A TROLL. 

Thanks in advance
Sincerely,

Pop23


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The Supreme Court usually doesn't comment on anything unless it is brought before them. I can't figure out why you're so bigoted against it. You claim you're not but anyone can see you really are.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Te
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> ...



Projecting much? 

The majority of Americans support the rights of Americans who happen to be gay being able to allowed to marry- like I do.

You of course want to deny Americans their rights- whether it is mixed race couples or gay couples. 

Sucks to be you.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Te
> ...



Well, apparently those in Kentucky and Alabama and a few other states don't agree with your depraved lifestyle. Aren't they Americans too?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Why is a depraved immoral faggot against it?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



LOL. 

All you have demonstrated with that statement is that you have the usual pea brain of all bigots.

You make assumptions based upon your own prejudices and think that calling other people the names you use- would offend anyone. 

What an ass.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I'm not a sexually perverted freak of society like you and you answered no question.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Wait- Kentucky and Alabama don't agree with my 'depraved lifestyle'?

Which part of it don't they agree with?

That I am educated
That I am gainfully employed
That I pay taxes
That I have been married to the same woman for over 20 years
That I am a father- and actually parent my child
That I don't advocate the discrimination against American couples who happen to be gay?
That I don't advocate the discrimination against American couples who are mixed race?
Tell me - which part of my 'depraved lifestyle' don't they agree with?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Prove it.

So far you sure seem like a sexual pervert obsessed with the private sex lives of others.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Sure....that's what you say on an anonymous message board.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You should find one and ask him.

Preferably a really big one- and make sure you call him that specifically.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

bodecea said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



LOL........


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Trolls like Pop love to dance with their Straw men.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



How then can the Supreme Court authorize polygamy.....by never mentioning in a case that has nothing to do with polygamy?

By your logic, Madison v. Marbury authorized polygamy. As it had nothing to do with polygamy nor ever mentioned it.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'm still trying to figure out exactly what your argument is. As you advocate incest marriage...then abandon it as soon as its mentioned. Then declare that its what you're talking about. 

If even you don't have the slightest clue what your position is, what chance do I have?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Incest is an act.

Provide the link to a law stating that Sex is an ACT required in marriage.

You may think it is, but without the link to that ACT being a requirement, you are simply being an attention whore.

Only a pervert would think that the only reason two siblings would enter into a contract is to have sex with each other.

I know many siblings that are contractually obligated to each other AND NONE HAVE EVER HAD SEX WITH EACH OTHER.

Now explain why you think marriage MUST INCLUDE SEX.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you are advocating incest marriage or you're not? Because all you seem to talk about is siblings marrying.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



That you are a homosexual.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



How did they authorize gay and lesbian marriages?  A 5 to 4 vote.  Besides, the Supreme Court cannot authorize anything.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Looks to me like he has destroyed your arguments.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



And you fantasize that I am a homosexual because........?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Well you haven't shown yourself to be the brightest bulb in the room. 

Hard for you to see through all of that bigotry clouding your vision.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

bodecea said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well? You are a bigot and a freak.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You started this thread for the purpose of railing against gay marriage. From the beginning you have been on a crusade to deny gays the right to marry and the benefits that go with it. It is clear that you see gays as flawed and fundamentally different, and underserving of the same rights and benefits as others.
> ...




OK then, none of it is true. Those were not your words? OK, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt for a second. You’re not a bigot. Oh, but wait! Fast forward to the next paragraph where you say :*“Homosexuals are actively engaged in an abnormal sexual behavior that is immoral and wrong and they know it is. So it's almost a pathological guilt complex you have that no one will ever be able to appease”.*  Holy shit! Do you realize how you just contradicted yourself and outed yourself for what you are? It is still all about the sex and nothing about the human factor. You are still moralizing and pontification as though you were the highest authority on such things.

The other thing is, you keep making this about me. I think that I pointed out to you the stupidity of making assumptions about a person’s sexuality based on their political views but I guess that was lost on you. And you’re the one that was ranting about how it was straight people who won the day for gays based on the” perceived discrimination” against gays. Well dude, I one of those straight people who “perceive” the reality of discrimination and can’t stomach it.

You can call me hate filled and bigoted all you want. It does not change the fact that you are projecting your own hate and bigotry onto me. I will add that it matters little how I feel about how gays are treated in society. What matters to all decent people is how gays are actually treated in society, and under the law.

I do believe that I have detected some cracks in your armor. That you are coming to see that you’re on shaky ground and that you are running out of bull shit. You keep tossing dung at the wall to see if something sticks and guess what? The only thing that is sticking is the egg on your face. We are really done here Boss Man


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Well then why did you ask- the Supreme Court never authorized anything.

Which they didn't.

The Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional laws- and that is exactly what they can do- and did.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Because you are one.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Only a pervert thinks the two must be the same. 

Tell me perv, can't two same sex siblings marry simply to share the economic benefits that gays say is the reason they claim they were being discriminated from?

Or is sex a requirement of marriage?

Common dude, you're not very open minded are you?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Does this mean another faggot is leaving the board?  AIDS got you down?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Nah. He's a real bigot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



It also thinks that 3 individuals can't wish to be married for the economic benefits, that somehow marriage is about sex even though it's not a requirement of the law. 

All the sudden these morons want to argue about tradition. 

You can't make this shit up!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So are you advocating incest marriage or not? You keep deflecting every time I ask you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not going anywhere


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No they didn't overturn anything.  All they did was render a ruling. It's still up to the states whether or not to adhere to their opinion.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Then show us the ruling where the courts authorized polygamy and overrode state laws. You said that the USSC ruling already authorized it. 

Where? Quote the ruling you're referring to.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Oh, their rulings are quite binding. The States don't have the option of ignoring them. 

As demonstrated by 50 of 50 states issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Remember, our legal system and what you imagine our legal system is really have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



He does it with most everyone. Hope blossoms eternal, I suppose.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Where's the deflection? 

Incest is an act I detest.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Equine excrement! You really are that stupid aren't you? You are right down there on the IQ scale with Huckabee and Cruz


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So now you oppose sibling marriage. 

Sigh...make up your mind.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You are a true idiot. I have stated over and over and over and over and over that their ruling did in no way forbid it. Please don't make me repeat it yet again.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



He added the last part Cuz he likes them.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You'll never see the day you are as smart as Cruz. Nor as moral.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Pervert, incest is an act, sex is not a requirement of marriage. 

You're not the sharpest tack in the box are you?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You said the Supreme Court opened the door for any almost kind of marriage to take place. 

Show me. Don't tell me. Quote the ruling that authorizes polygamy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



But, from your perspective, even the gutter is up. 

Just sayin


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you support incest marriage....but you oppose incest marriage. 

Sigh...its like talking to a schizophrenic. Can you tell me which personality supports incest marriage...and then have him make his case. Then after you can let the other personalities debate it with him


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

I've got to sign off. Some of the guys are going out and


Skylar said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I am not going to repeat what I said to you yet again.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



We call them low-life trash.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> I've got to sign off. Some of the guys are going out and
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> ...



You said this:



			
				the_human_being said:
			
		

> "The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place."



Show me. Quote the passage of the ruling that you believe authorized polygamy.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Just like the Supreme Court overturned bans on mixed race marriages, the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriages.

And despite the grumblings from bigots- the States obeyed the Constitution and complied.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 5, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


     Here is some horseshit that I think you can relate to...

*Chuck Missler: Homosexuality Proves That America Is Doomed* Submitted by Brian Tashman on Monday, 10/5/2015 2:15 pm

During televangelist Jim Bakker’s September “Prophetic Conference,” pastor Chuck Missler said that there is little to no hope that America can avoid God’s judgment, insisting that the U.S. is already experiencing divine wrath. “*It’s going to get darker and darker and darker,” he said*. Missler lamented that hate crime laws have supposedly *criminalized the freedom of speech* while members of the media are somehow not in jail for treason: “We have a media that is the lapdog of the government.

The purpose of the media in a democracy is to inform the electorate; we have a media that takes pride in shaping opinions rather than informing them and that should be a crime and they should be tried for treason in effect because that’s their job.” *Increasing acceptance of homosexuality, Missler said, is a sign that “there is a judgment of God prevailing and it’s going to increase,” in addition to the fact that “the people who are trying to destroy America have taken over.”* - See more at: Chuck Missler: Homosexuality Proves That America Is Doomed


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You seem to think sex is a requirement of two family members entering into an economic beneficial contract, just like literally millions of Americans have. 

I suppose the Clintons have a few, the Kennedys likely have many. None of which require sex between their partners (Hint: neither does marriage). 

Since you appear to think sex is a marriage requirement, can you explain just what kind of sex is required? The amount of sex required? 

Go on pervert, let us in on this big secret cuz, damn, I can't find anywhere within the law that requires this sex requirement you think there is. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I seem to think that you keep contradicting yourself. Insisting on your advocacy of incest marriage before condemning it before reaffirming that incest marriage is what you're arguing for. Its like watching a dog chase its own tail.

By all means, make your case for incest marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You do understand that there is no requirement for sex in civil marriage.

Are you with me so far.

Incest is an sexual act.

Since there is no requirement for any sexual acts within marriage, then it is your presumption that my statement that:

Same sex siblings are being denied equal protection under the law. 

Is somehow advocating incestuous marriage.

It would be equally logical that your implication that sex MUST be a part of marriage, that you are an advocate of marital rape.

You are truly a disgusting pervert or a member of some male dominance cult.

Which one?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 5, 2015)

OMG!

Pop is saying that incest is an act, therefore incest marriage is marriage based on sex between close relations.  If you use a different term, such as close relation marriage, this whole side argument can at least change a bit.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 5, 2015)

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex.  More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that's not making your case for incest marriage. Or even stating if or why you support it.

Do you always try to evade such plain invitations to make your argument? Or only when discussing your obsession with incest?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex.  More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.



Oh, you want to use tradition, assumptions and vast majority as marriage qualifications?

HOW CUTE IS THAT!

Go on with your other arguments, of course, most of those will occur outside of closely related families.

You do understand, I do not want close family relatives to gain the ability to marry, but since marriage is no longer simply between a man and a woman, make your argument (keep equal protection in mind) that two siblings, wishing to Marry so they can share the economic benefit, are not being discriminated against. Also, the Compelling State interest in the denial of the right.

Understand, the couple involved are allowed to define what the marriage is, not the State.

Thanks in advance for, what I am sure, a post that will straighten this all out.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex.  More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.
> ...



So now you _don't _want close family relations to gain the ability to marry. 

Wow. You literally switch your position with every post.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



What might straighten it out would be a link in where I advocate for incestuous marriage. 

Go ahead, provide the link. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Supply the link to where I said that's what I wanted nut bag.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So you're demanding that we make an argument that even YOU don't agree with?

Can you see why that might induce some....snickers?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Oh, I see you can't supply a link to what you insisted I said. 

You're not simply a troll, but an obvious liar. 

But we already knew that. 

Accusing others without back up. 

Why am I not surprised.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You speak of little else than incest marriage...in any thread. You now apparently can't make a rational argument for the very topic you constantly bring up. And bizarrely insist that we do. 

I mean, if you want to present an argument in favor of incest marriage, feel free. But why would you expect me to?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Oh, you want to change the goal post?

You said I advocated incestuous marriage. 

Provide that link or admit the lie.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You speak of little else than incest marriage, in any thread....and demand that we make an argument in favor of it.

But you DON'T support it? Can you see my confusion?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic. 

You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.
> 
> You're in luck. I can't think of a single reason either.



^^^^The lying King of deflection is an ass hat


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > And its obvious you can't give me a single reason why I would make an argument for incest marriage. As you refuse to discuss the topic.
> ...



Or....I'm just profoundly confused by your compulsive obsession with incest marriage and bizarre demands for its advocacy in virtually any thread you comment in on any topic.

And yet despite your constant demands that people advocate the position of incest marriage....to claim you DON'T support it?

Huh? Really?

Why would I make this argument when even someone as obsessed with incest marriage as yourself won't support it?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex.  More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.
> ...



Did I mention tradition?  Feel free to provide a quote where I argued tradition as a reason to have close familial relation marriages illegal.  Thanks in advance.

Whether or not close familial relations can marry would depend in part on the marriage laws of the state.  However, as I've said to you before, with close family there is a danger of someone abusing their authority over the other person.  This is more of a concern with grandparents or parents and children, but the argument could be made that the same danger is too great between siblings as well.

There is also an argument that part of the reason for civil marriage is the creation of a new family unit.  Close family relations are already part of a family unit and so do not create a new one but extend a previous one.

Obviously couples cannot define what marriage is.  States do that so long as their marriage laws do not violate constitutional protections.  

Nothing will straighten this out.  Between the basic disagreements about the Obergefell ruling and what it means going forward and your seeming insistence that close family marriages are only banned based on sexual relations, I'm not expecting any middle ground to be found.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I can't make heads nor tails of Pop's bizarro incest obsession. Most of his posts are veritable word salad at this point. Just random, disjointed talking points that have nothing to do with what he's responding to.

Its like he pulls his responses out of a hat at random.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Of course you're confused. You think I said something I did not. 

You need help, serious help. 

You said I advocated incestuous marriage. Then you said I didnt. 

Figure it out on your own


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Of course you can't. You can't link to one of those post you say confuses you because it doesn't exist. 

No wonder you're confused. 

Lol, what an ass clown


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I think you're obsessed with the topic of incest and speak of little else. And that you've demanded the advocacy of incest marriage. A lot.

But you *don't* support incest or incest marriage?

Um, are you sure? Because I've never known someone to so relentlessly demand the advocacy of a position they didn't share. You'd be the first.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And yet you still can't produce a post of such advocacy. 

Typical lib bullshit


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you're compulsively bringing your obsession with incest into almost every thread you comment in.....AND demanding people advocate incest marriage. 

But you *don't* support incest marriage?

That doesn't make much sense. Why would you be demanding advocacy for incest marriage so obsessively if you didn't support it?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.

The funny thing is that this will come back to haunt you libtards and you just don't get it.



Skylar said:


> > The SCOTUS has take upon itself the authority to simply rewrite the law if the don't like it, to ignore the text of the law or redefine whatever words allow them to bring about a decision that they prefer.
> >
> > We are no longer a nation of laws, but are a nation of men now.
> 
> ...


They have also taken it upon themselves to redefine the words of laws to make the law mean what they want and they have simply ignored legal text in laws to arrive at concocted decision they want.

What you are justifying is taking the law into the hands of nine old farts and letting them redefine it however they want to and that is not constitutional, nor is it due process.

You libtards are lighting a bonfire that you stand right in the middle of.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.



If the specific wordings of the law violate the constitution, they're supposed to overturn those 'wordings'.

Something being written into a law doesn't magically make it constitutional. Or beyond judicial review.

You get that, right?



> hey have also taken it upon themselves to redefine the words of laws to make the law mean what they want and they have simply ignored legal text in laws to arrive at concocted decision they want.



You can define marriage anyway you wish.

But the law is bound by constitutional guarantees. And the court ruled on how the State must deal with marriage* under the law. *Exactly as they should have. I understand that with the exception of guns, conservatives side with the State and government power over individual rights.

But rights are not subject to a vote. And the state can't violate the rights of individuals. Or offer unequal protection under the law.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The courts are not supposed to ignore the specific wording of the law, nor redefine words to engage in judicial legislation, which they did.
> ...



What you don't get is that when they make the final ruling on a law that says specifically that states without exchanges don't get subsidies and then the courts say that they will just give them the money no matter what the law actually says, unless that law is a specific violation of the Constitution, which it is not, then they are supposed to follow the words of the law.

And redefining words to mean whatever they want them to mean is also judicial legislation and saying you think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution is horse shit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee a right for two men to butt fuck each other and call it marriage.



Skylar said:


> > hey have also taken it upon themselves to redefine the words of laws to make the law mean what they want and they have simply ignored legal text in laws to arrive at concocted decision they want.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And when activist judges read the Constitution they are supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution,  instead they are redefining words and ignoring entire amendments to render rulings that are simply insane.

This will be fixed, I guaran-damn-tee it, dude.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Of course then there are two reasons you can't see it. 

1. You don't take the time to actually read the arguments

Or

2. You lie that I said something I never did without providing requested links. 

Or both, which is the obvious answer.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 5, 2015)

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

The problem with libtards is that they hijacked an honorable tradition of classic liberalism and turned it upside down from the inside.

Where a classic liberal would advocate free speech and letting people voice their opinions, libtards want to silence their opposition by any means necessary.

Where classic liberals respected the rule of law, libtards since the late 1960's have started advocating judicial legislation and judicial activism to use the courts to circumvent the will of the people of the nation by twisting the Constitution and the law to mean whatever they want it to mean..

Where liberals used to advocate respect for our nations Founders, the current libtards disrespect them and dismiss them as slave owning white rapists.

A libtard is not a classic liberal, they are  a Pod People copy of the real thing that is now extinct.

What is ironic though, is that Obama is setting the precedent for a conservative President, backed by the military, doing whatever the hell he wants with the laws of this nation, and after stacking the SCOTUS making almost any kind of ruling they want.

Libtards don't seem to realize that they are only about 20% of the population and they are undermining their own right to use the law to protect their own interests in the face of a hostile public.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



So you've just completely abandoned your gay marriage babble then?




> And redefining words to mean whatever they want them to mean is also judicial legislation and saying you think it goes against the spirit of the Constitution is horse shit. Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee a right for two men to butt fuck each other and call it marriage.



And where in the constitution does it say that a right has to be in the constitution_ to exist_?

You might want to take a look at the 9th amendment. As it explicitly refutes such nonsense. The constitution defines powers. Its not an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever intended to be.

*You've literally reimagined the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. *Apparently, citing yourself. As neither the courts nor the founders ever argued this.



> And when activist judges read the Constitution they are supposed to interpret the words of the Constitution,  instead they are redefining words and ignoring entire amendments to render rulings that are simply insane.



With an 'activist judge' being anyone who disagrees with you? First, the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. So your entire argument that unless a right is in the constitution, it doesn't exist is a fundamentally false premise. Complete horseshit actually.

Second, the 14th amendment mandates equal protection under the law. And denying same sex couples the right to marry violated the 14th amendment. Says who? Says the USSC, the body with the judicial power and the responsibility to interpret the constitution.

You disagree. Um, so. You're nobody. You're not delegated any authority to define any legal term or interpret anything. You're welcome to your opinion. And I'm welcome to ignore your opinion.

The USSC on the other hand creates binding precedent.



> This will be fixed, I guaran-damn-tee it, dude.



It is fixed. And most Americans are fine with it. With gay marriage support at an all time high of 60%...while opposition lingers at anemic 37%.






That's  a 23 point spread.  With most of the opposition concentrated among the elderly.  Folks under 30 support same sex marriage by rates approaching 80%.

*So....you don't have the numbers.* Not in the electorate. Not on the court. Not among the states for an amendment. And not among our fighting age folks if you wanted to go extra-constitutional over this issue.

Same sex marriage is the law of the  land. And there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is. Not whatever YOU said it is.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The problem with libtards is that they hijacked an honorable tradition of classic liberalism and turned it upside down from the inside.



Not this shit again. 

Jim, the term 'liberal' has a specific meaning in modern English. And it not the one you want. Too fucking bad. Much like the constitution, the English language isn't subject to your whims and wishes.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



lol, no, I have not imagine the Constitution to be an exhaustive list of rights, but I am saying for the courts to rule something as unconstitutional it must be written in the Constitution or else they are engaging in Judicial legislation.

And I know what the old polls state about fagot marriage, and I also know that that is turning around already.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Not this shit again.
> Jim, the term 'liberal' has a specific meaning in modern English. And it not the one you want. Too fucking bad. Much like the constitution, the English language isn't subject to your whims and wishes.



rolmfao

You are hilarious. You act like this is a settled issue, when  it is not.

The libtards like you today would not be recognized as liberals by JFK, Truman, LBJ or FDR as you people are nothing more than radical neoMarxists hiding behind what used to be a respectable term.

Now it is shit and only 20% want to have anything to do with you losers.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> lol, no, I have not imagine the Constitution to be an exhaustive list of rights, but I am saying for the courts to rule something as unconstitutional it must be written in the Constitution or else they are engaging in Judicial legislation.



Claiming that a right has to be in the constitution or it doesn't exist *is* claiming that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of rights. Which the 9th amendment clearly demonstrates it isn't.

The Constitution does not contain all rights. Nor was ever meant to. The constitution is a list of *powers.* You don't even understand what the constitution is.

The courts have long since recognized the right to marry. Its got about half a century of legal precedent at the very least. You're insisting that the right to marriage has to be in the constitution to exist. You're just wrong. A right doesn't need to be enumerated to exist.



> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, *shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*
> 
> 9th Amendment of the United States



The entire premise of your argument is pure pseudo-legal horseshit.

And of course, the 14th amendment is part of the constitution. And it explicitly forbids the states from unequal protection under the law. You summarily ignoring any portion of the 14th that you don't like doesn't make it disappear. Nor magically eliminate the court's judicial power to intepret the 14th amendment and its meaning.

So you have to ignore the 9th amendment, the 14th amendment, the entire concept of judicial review, and the entire premise of the constitution as a list of powers to believe as you do.

No thank you.



> And I know what the old polls state about fagot marriage, and I also know that that is turning around already.



That's a poll from *this* year. You don't have the numbers. And you know you don't have the numbers.

Which is why your argument is based entirely on hypothetical polls that *don't actually exist *showing majority support for your position. I'll stick with the polls that actually do exist, thank you.

There's not a thing you can do about same sex marriage. There is no fact based scenario where you can win. So you must flee to your imagination, where everyone thinks like you do. Alas, your imagination doesn't pass amendments or reverses rulings.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Not this shit again.
> ...



When you say the word 'liberal', 99 people out of 100  think progressive/left leaning. Not 'Thomas Jefferson'. 

That you feel otherwise doesn't matter. As the English language isn't subject to your personal opinion. The term liberal isn't used the way you're using it. 

What fool uses a term they  KNOW doesn't communicate their intended meaning? It would be like referring to 'faggots' and then being dumbfounded that people hear a slur for gays rather than reference to a bundle of sticks.

Why be surprised? *You know what these term means in American parlance. And you  know how they are used. *Pretending otherwise doesn't change it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...



Here is where Skylar will say I'm advocating again. 

Prior to same sex marriage the law excluding all family members from mariage met the equal application of the law application. 

No two closely related individuals could marry as one would be male the other female. The possibility of defective bloodlines was a compelling state issue great enough to deny the right. 

Since now the requirement for each to be of opposite sex is gone, you now have the possibility of siblings marrying without either the ability to procreate nor, in the case of hetros, the want to procreate. 

Let me state this again. I am against close family marriage. Having said this again, what is now the compelling state interest in the denial of marriage to hetro same sex siblings who only wish to marry for economic purposes?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


If you have an argument for incest marriage, make it. But why do you keep demanding I make it for you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



What I ask for is your link to any post in which, as you said I did, advocate for incestuous marriage. 

You lied before, you'll lie again. 

In 3.....2.....1.....


----------



## jillian (Oct 5, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



proves your inability to understand the simplest threads.......


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

Skylar said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > lol, no, I have not imagine the Constitution to be an exhaustive list of rights, but I am saying for the courts to rule something as unconstitutional it must be written in the Constitution or else they are engaging in Judicial legislation.
> ...



That is not what I said, retard. I said the judges should only rule on rights that are in the Constitution. Sure other rights exist, but until they get put into the Constitution they are not part of US legal code, dimwit.




Skylar said:


> > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, *shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*
> >
> > 9th Amendment of the United States
> 
> ...



Not it isn't ass hat. The limitation to court rulings is what is actually in the Constitution and US legal code. Judges do not have the authority to simply make up new rights and put them into law. That is rule by nine men, not rule by law, and as a nation of laws, not men, that is the gold standard, not whatever makes your libtard brain get warm fuzzies, idiot.



Skylar said:


> > And I know what the old polls state about fagot marriage, and I also know that that is turning around already.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a poll from *this* year. .



I don't give a fuck what your bullshit polls say because I have seen better polls that are not done by fagot hacks.


The majority for fagot marriage coming from millennials and they are losing support from them because of the heavy handed way the libtards like you are shoving it on every one.  A majority are against letting SCOTUS redefine marriage, and are against forcing people to violate their religious beliefs from bakers in Oregon to Massachusetts.

The slim majority in favor of fagot marriage are also responding to a slanted polling questions, like polls asking if people support marriage equality for fags, instead of asking them something like 'Do you favor homosexuals being abler to force people to violate the First Amendment rights by compelling them to do homosexual weddings?' 

And guess what else, jack ass? Conservatives have more babies, the minorities are far more in agreement with social conservatives on this than the fags, and the future belongs to us, not you sodomites.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 5, 2015)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Oh, my Gawd, the irony was choking me.

Jillian you re one of the dumbest stumps in the place.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BOSS SAID:
> 
> "It's not up to me, it's up to the States."
> 
> ...



Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages. 

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule  5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won.  We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument. 

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses. 

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BOSS SAID:
> ...



And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do.  More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you *think* would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort.  Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

jillian said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Can you point to the part of the law that sex is a requirement of a marriage?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 6, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The problem with libtards is that they hijacked an honorable tradition of classic liberalism and turned it upside down from the inside.
> 
> Where a classic liberal would advocate free speech and letting people voice their opinions, libtards want to silence their opposition by any means necessary.
> 
> ...



_Ya Nailed it!_


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen, now that we have been so thoroughly entertained by the liberal secular push for homosexual marriage legalization in all 50 states... {yay}... We can sit back and look forward to it's demise.
> 
> What's that, Boss? Did you mean to say "demise?"  What's wrong with you man, the high court just ruled it constitutional across the land... it hardly seems likely we're going to see it's demise!  What kind of drugs are you smoking these days?  ...Yes, I know... bold statement... I've been known to make those here.  It's what I do!
> 
> ...


It's not your idea. Are you so mentally deficient that you believe if you hear an idea somewhere, it becomes yours because you post it here?

But about the notion of cutting off your nose to spite your face, what you call eliminating state-issued marriage licenses for all ... unless you get it done in all 50 states, it's pointless because gays will merely get legally married in states which do issue licenses.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BOSS SAID:
> ...


The court did not change the Constitution.


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 6, 2015)

In the end, Bazile refused to vacate the conviction, instead issuing on January 22, 1965, a racially charged ruling defending Virginia's antimiscegenation laws. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," he wrote. "And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Bazile's decision was both appealable and, from the perspective of the Lovings' lawyers, helpfully inflammatory. By clarifying the judge's motivations and introducing religious and moral elements to the case, the ruling may have helped win attention to the case. Many years later, Hirschkop told an interviewer, "When Judge Bazile rendered his opinion, he couldn't have done us a bigger favor than that horrible language about the races on a separate continent."

The Loving case wended its way through the state and federal appeals process until, on March 7, 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals again upheld Virginia's antimiscegenation laws. At the same time, the court set aside the original conviction, finding a sentence that required the defendants to leave the state "unreasonable." The court also chided the trial judge for sentencing the Lovings to one year in jail, suspended, when the Code of Virginia required that they be sentenced to the penitentiary. The case was returned to the circuit court of Caroline County. The Lovings, however, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and this time the court agreed to hear the case.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of _Loving v. Virginia_ on April 10, 1967. The Lovings declined their attorneys' invitation to attend the hearing. On behalf of the commonwealth, Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine III argued that Virginia law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that even if it did it would be legitimate on the grounds that it protected the state from the "sociological [and] psychological evils which attend interracial marriages." In particular, McIlwaine cited academic research that suggested "that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

For the Lovings, Hirschkop argued that Virginia law violated the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law by denying potential spouses and their children their civil rights simply because of race. "These are slavery laws, pure and simple," he said. In reference to the Act to Preserve Racial Integrity, Hirschkop noted that Virginia was "not concerned with racial integrity of the Negro race, only the white race." In fact, he noted, nonwhite non–African Americans could marry African Americans without penalty.

Perhaps the most dramatic moment in the courtroom came when Cohen, arguing that the law violated the Lovings' rights to due process, told the justices, "No matter how we articulate this, no matter which theory of the due process clause or which emphasis we attach to, no one can articulate it better than Richard Loving when he said to me, 'Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife and it is just unfair that I can't live with her in Virginia.'"

*On June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court **ruled unanimously** in favor of Richard and Mildred Loving, striking down Virginia's law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren described marriage as "one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival … To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."*


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> OMG!
> 
> Pop is saying that incest is an act, therefore incest marriage is marriage based on sex between close relations.  If you use a different term, such as close relation marriage, this whole side argument can at least change a bit.



Pop is just desparately trying to find someone to dance with his straw man.

He can't make a rational argument against same gender marriage, so he tries to condemn homosexual marriage by equating it to other 'couplings' he doesn't approve of- or maybe he does? 

Either way- he just wants someone to dance with his Straw Man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex.  More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.



Actually there is a presumption that sex will occur within marriage. Marriages can be nullified if a man is impotent- or if either party entered a marriage with the inability- or unwillingness to have sex with their partner. 

Not that that has anything to do with Pop's straw man, but just a point of fact. 

Pop's whole argument revolves around one thing: he has declared that the only reason to deny siblings marriage is procreation.

He wants someone to argue with him but he ignores actual citations from judges citing other reasons. 

He is a troll.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.


 

I see where this is going.. 

Why take a revenue loss giving tax breaks to a situation that the state no longer can control to its own benefit.  Fatherless sons and motherless daughters grow up to be statistically on drugs, indigent, depressed and suicidal.  They are statistically-guaranteed to become burderns to the state.  

Also, and fiscally just as important, normalizing homosexuality by being forced to give it a public stamp of approval ("gay marriage licenses") will result in an upward trend of adolescents and kids imprinting themselves to sexually orient "gay".  On average, each indigent HIV/AIDS patient (they all become indigent quite quickly) costs the government over $500,000 before they die the horrible death of AIDS.  With the price of HIV drugs tripling recently, this places an unbearable burden upon the state who ultimately has to pay for the new "Supreme Court Cult" that was retooled into society's fabric by the fource of five, to its collective detriment...

...not the least of which is to children who are getting swept up in all this to a terrible end:

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> 
> Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC


----------



## mdk (Oct 6, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.
> ...



Nowhere?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex.  More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.
> ...



^^^talk about strawman. 

Of course you could win this by simply posting the law requiring sex as a requirement to obtain a marriage license.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Do you beleive that men should have the right to rape their wifes to keep their license valid?

If it's a requirement afterall......

You seem to be a warped lil pervet, aren't you?

So post the link to sex being a requirement to marriage or just go away lil Sally


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Says the pervert who just wants to talk about siblings marrying each other in every thread.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.
> ...



This is going back to you lying about the Prince's Trust survey and attacking homosexuals again.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly  suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME! 

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.



You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What do you mean by "recognize"?  How? In what way?  You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean. If the State has no benefit or requirement depending on "marital status" then how can they be recognizing marriage of any kind? So this whole "will recognize" thing doesn't make any sense... what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.
> ...



Save that the children of same sex parents are fine. Nixing your entire argument. 

And of course, the State still gets to control marriage, subject to con situational guarantees. Any changes they wish to make that don't violate constitutional guarantees are theirs to make. 

Nixing your argument again.

And of course, same sex marriages make up a comparitively tiny number of total marriages. After the initial surge immediately after legalization, same sex marriages generally make up 5 to 6% of total marriages. A state that would dismantle all marriages over 5% of them deserves what it gets. 

And no states is interested in doing so. Not even Alabama. Nixing your argument a third time.



> Also, and fiscally just as important, normalizing homosexuality by being forced to give it a public stamp of approval ("gay marriage licenses") will result in an upward trend of adolescents and kids imprinting themselves to sexually orient "gay".  On average, each indigent HIV/AIDS patient (they all become indigent quite quickly) costs the government over $500,000 before they die the horrible death of AIDS.  With the price of HIV drugs tripling recently, this places an unbearable burden upon the state who ultimately has to pay for the new "Supreme Court Cult" that was retooled into society's fabric by the fource of five, to its collective detriment...
> 
> ...not the least of which is to children who are getting swept up in all this to a terrible end:


And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It doesn't. Denying same sex couples marriage doesn't help a single child. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean their children will magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the 10s of thousands. Harm you're more than happy to inflict...if it means you can also hurt gays. 


> Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> ...



As you well know, the Prince Trust study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It doesn't even mention gays, gay marriage, or anything you're arguing. It speaks of good same sex role models. 

You insist that this can only be a mother or father. *The Prince Trust study contradicts you, citing mentoring programs that meet that need. *Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument. 

Again, you know you're completely full of shit with the Prince Trust nonsense. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit. So who are you trying to convince? You can't even convince yourself.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Its already been explained to repeatedly. Shall I quote you quoting the answer you insist you've never received?

I will. I'll laugh and point at you as I do. But I'd be more than happy to. 

Shall I?


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



The only answer you provided (once, not repeatedly) was full of a bunch of platitudes and nonsense. Statutory aspects of contract law have nothing to do with intimate relationships of the parties. State agencies and courts are obligated to observe statutory contractual requirements of law, (always have been, always will be) in NO WAY does that signify any endorsement, sanctioning or recognition of the nature of the relationship or reason for such contracts.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.

Show me anywhere in SB377 where it states that Alabama no longer recognizes marriage. Show me anywhere in SB377 where Alabama refuses to recognize marriage from any other State.

You'll find you hallucinated both passages. As they don't exist. SB377 merely changes marriage from a license to a contract. It doesn't change any other aspect  of marriage law in the State. Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph F said:
			
		

> "This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



As usual, Boss......you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.



> Statutory aspects of contract law have nothing to do with intimate relationships of the parties.



A contract called the 'contract of marriage' doesn't have anything to do with marriage? That's really your argument? *Then why is it a legal record of marriage recorded in the Office of Vital Statistics? *

Remember, you're fucking clueless. So it tends to limit your ability to debate the legal aspects of this issue


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.



LMAO... who said I have never read it and refuse to read it? 

It is clear as a bell, the State will no longer sanction marriages. The only thing you've cited is their legal obligation to record vital statistics and the statutory obligations of contract law. Neither of these functions are recognizing or sanctioning marriage. Both of these functions have been around, observed and performed by the State long before the issue of Gay Marriages. 

*SB377 merely changes marriage from a license to a contract.*

And in doing so, removes the State from being a party to the action. 

What is interesting is how you continue to attempt insulting me and denigrating me, even though you don't think this law changes a thing. I would think you'd be happy and pleased that a solution had been reached which resolves my opposition to state sanctioning of gay marriage and doesn't interfere with your rights. But here, it almost seems as if you want to fight. 

I don't have anything to fight about with you, nor do I care to. I am going to work toward changing the laws in my state so that we don't sanction gay marriages. You can work to stop me from doing that if you like... that's what makes America great.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.
> ...



Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals. 

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage.  That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.


----------



## jillian (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



there are over a thousand rights and obligations that go with marriage.

medical proxy

pension benefits

etc.

you do understand that, right? and yes, Alabama will have to recognize gay marriage and the rights and obligations that go with it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It is not 'education' that he is lacking- we just disagree with your unsubstantiated claims. 

You say one implies sanctioning and the other doesn't- yet they do the exact same thing- they both recognize marriages as legal in Alabama. 

Neither sanctions marriage or doesn't sanction marriage- they both recognize marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Exactly as Alabama recognizes marriage now. Just with a fill in the form rather than a license.

All of Alabama marriage laws will still apply- divorce laws will still apply- annulment laws will still apply. 

And Alabamans, regardless of whether you approve of their marriage or not, will still continue to get legally married, recognized by the State of Alabama.

And if that still is too hard for you to figure out- check the Alabama State Income Tax form- and see if it contains the word 'married' or some equivalent on it- that is recognition.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.
> ...



I do. As you keep asserting claims that aren't even mentioned in SB377 as being written into SB377. While being explicitly contradicted by the passages that actually do exist.

You quite simply have no idea  what you're talking about. Watch. I'll demonstrate:



> It is clear as a bell, the State will no longer sanction marriages.



Save that SB377  never says that any of that.  If you believe it does, quote it:

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

Not there, is it? It doesn't even include the word 'sanction' in any context. You literally made that shit up.

Laughing...I don't think 'clear as a bell' means what you think it means.



> The only thing you've cited is their legal obligation to record vital statistics and the statutory obligations of contract law



I've cited the contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage with the Office of Vital Statistics in Alabama.

Says who? Why SB377 of course!



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph E said:
			
		

> The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county *and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage.* A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
> Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



A contract of marriage is legal record of the marriage. And its recognized by the State of Alabama as such. Just destroying any ignorant prattle that the state of Alabama won't 'recognize marriage'.

And as a hint.....*the Department of Health doesn't record any old business contract,* no matter what blithering nonsense you believe. They record births, deaths, marriages, divorces and health statistics.

Laughing.....remember, you're fucking clueless. Which is what makes this so comically easy.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.
> ...



The State will be 'sanctioning' marriage exactly as it does now- merely changing the forms required. 

But prove me wrong- show me the language in the law now which states 'sanctioning marriage' and how the new law changes that language.

Because the Bill very clearly states it changes nothing about marriage law- except the license

(f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I didn't tell you to 'sit down and shut up'.  Not even close.  I made a suggestion that you might want to wait until what you claim actually happens rather than continue to say it will with such little evidence.  You're obviously free to continue to spout your nonsense.

You have claimed that removing licensing removes state recognition of marriage....but you've claimed that without providing evidence.  I'd be happy to see any dictionary definition which says that states only sanction things when they are licensed.  If you can show that only things licensed by the state are recognized by the state, feel free.  As it stands, all you have are your unsubstantiated claims that this is so.  Claims which, by the way, run counter to the text of the bill you claim would end state recognition of marriage.  Relevant passages of the bill have been quoted to you, passages which state that no other marriage laws will be changed, which state that common law marriages (which are already unlicensed) will continue to be recognized.  In fact, here's a quick link about common law marriage in Alabama : Common Law Marriage Alabama - Marriage | Laws.com.  Let me post a quote from the beginning of the article "Two people who are in a relationship may have their status as a married couple legally recognized even without an official license from the state of Alabama.".  Note that right off the bat it tells us that the state is recognizing marriages without a license.  Assuming that this is true (and if it is not, it would be strange for the author of the bill in question to include it!) there is direct evidence that a license is not required for a state to recognize marriage.  A number of other states recognize common law marriages as well.

So, once again, your claim is that only through licensing can a state recognize or sanction a marriage.  When that is questioned, when evidence counter to it is presented to you, rather than providing any evidence yourself, you basically say, "It's true, if you don't already know that I'm not going to prove it to you.".  This seems to be a common tactic for you.

If you can't comprehend how marriage law exists with or without licensing, that states can recognize unlicensed marriages, that Alabama does so and would continue to do so if the bill were passed, and that the bill in no way stops state sanctioning and recognition of marriage, I don't know what to tell you.  After all, unlike you, multiple posters have actually shown you the clear evidence that the bill does not do what you say it does.  Perhaps (Remember this word?  Do you need an explanation of how it is a suggestion and not a command?) you could provide even the slightest evidence other than your own opinion that the proposed bill would end Alabama's recognition of marriages, or that only marriages obtained through a license are recognized by states?


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.*

And the context of that statement was sarcasm. You know this, everyone who read it knew this. Now that it's inconvenient for people to go search for the comment, you present it as an attempt to smear and jeer, like the dishonest piece of trash you are. It's why the majority of what you post should simply be ignored. 

*You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.*

I have NEVER said that I want to kill marriages. I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others. I want marriages to be retained by the individuals and their churches and clergy. I believe that when there is no more governmental tie to marriage, the act of homosexual marriage will end as suddenly as it began. 

*Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage.  That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.*

It may not conform to the specificity of the OP but it is a related issue. 

In the past, an "incestuous" relationships that could be considered for "marriage" were confined to male-female relationships, as that was what marriage used to be. Under that confining restraint, we could arguably deny incest marriage because of risk in procreation. It's a humanitarian ethics thing and not necessarily religious or moral thing. But now that marriage has been redefined to include homosexuals, you lack that same constraint when it comes to certain situations.  For instance: Two homosexual  brothers. Why can't they marry?  

You simply don't have a legitimate answer to this, so you declare the question a straw man.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> The State will be 'sanctioning' marriage exactly as it does now- merely changing the forms required.
> 
> But prove me wrong-



I've already proven you wrong. 

A license is a *directive* from an authority that you have permission to do something. 
A contract is an arrangement between parties *unrelated* to the authority enforcing it legally. 

It's not "changing the forms" it's changing from licensing to contract. 
In doing so, it removes the state from association. The state is not a party to the action. 

I don't know that it can be explained to you any clearer. If you don't understand the difference between the state sanctioning a particular act and the state enforcing contractual law between private parties, I don't know what else to tell you. They are NOT the same thing.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'? 



> I want to end state recognition of marriages and I believe that will be done soon in my state and others.



Not by SB377. Contracts of marriage are recognized by Alabama as legal records of marriage and stored with the Department of Health. No where in SB377 does it say that Alabama will no longer recognize marriage or that it won't recognize marriage from other states.

You just made that shit up.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > The State will be 'sanctioning' marriage exactly as it does now- merely changing the forms required.
> ...



And no where does either eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. Alabama recognizes a contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage under SB377 just like it does a marriage license now. 

And other than entering into marriage by contract, no other marriage law in the state is affected. 

Your gross misconceptions are the product of you never having read SB377, ignoring any quote from it, and just making up your own version of the law based on your imagination.

Which never works out well.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'Sarcasm'?

Didn't sound like sarcasm to anyone who actually read it. Glad to remind everyone of the actual quote- where you told people not to laugh at your prediction- why would you tell someone not to laugh if you intended it to be 'sarcasm'?

_One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough._

Before you whine about context- here is your entire OP- from sad beginning to angry sick ending. 

_I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.
_
_One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough._
_
At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You said you want to kill homosexual marriage. 

And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone. 

Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> *Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage.  That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.*
> 
> It may not conform to the specificity of the OP but it is a related issue.
> 
> ...



I have provided 'legitimate' answers- actually quoting a judge, ruling on a case. Just you and Pops always ignore actual citations and prefer to offer your own opinions as facts.
Case: 3:14-cv-00064-bbc Document #: 118- U.S. District Court Western Wisconsin
_
For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._

_BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
_


Now answer me this- why- in your opinion, before Obergefel and Loving v. Virginia, was it prohibited in Alabama for an infertile brother to marry an infertile sister?

If procreation was the only concern regarding sibling marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


*So was the thread title 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' was just more 'sarcasm'?*
Nope... I do want to kill homosexual marriage. 

*Not by SB377*
Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation. 

It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it. Statutory requirements of contract law which have always existed will still exist, have nothing to do with what the state formally recognizes or sanctions in an official capacity. Yes, they will still have to perform divorces for gay couples... that is not the State recognizing gay marriage. 

The problem is, you are trying to take this from one extreme to another. You are claiming that anything short of completely ignoring something and acting like it doesn't exist, constitutes recognition. The State is bound to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, including contractual law, including contractual law from other states. That is NOT THE ISSUE! The State was obligated to do this BEFORE gay marriage! It's impossible for them to pass ANY legislation to absolve themselves from this obligation.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.
> 
> And you want to do it by ending legal marriage for everyone.
> 
> Which of course would result in killing marriage as effectively for everyone as it does for homosexuals.



How about you STOP posting for 5 minutes and READ the fucking replies? 

I don't want to end marriage for anyone. I want to end state sanctioning of marriage and state or government benefit associated with marriage. I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone. I do believe, after we've made things so that there is no state/government benefit of marriage, the practice of "gay marriage" will become a thing of the past. Thus killing gay marriage. 

The OP spells out how this works in detail. All you want to do is muddy the water with dishonesty about what I've said and flood the board with nonsense. You manically go from claiming this doesn't change anything or mean anything to smearing and insulting me like I kicked your mother. You're not the least bit worried or concerned, but you've spent hours here typing so fast your fingers are blistered to flood the board with your rants.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


For the same reason the state recognizes I own my property because I filed my deed with the state.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You merely look forward to it demise then? 



> *Not by SB377*
> Well, nothing will be done by SB377 since it failed to get super majority vote. Sorry you wasted your time memorizing all aspects of it. The bill that eventually does pass will be completely different but will undoubtedly address the various legal entanglements regarding contract law and probate as well as vital records. I can't imagine them failing to deal with that in any legislation.



Ah, so you've been citing an *imaginary* bill that hasn't even been written yet and doesn't actually exist. That would explain why you've been so comically inaccurate in explaining SB377. 

So what measure were you referring to here?



> It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.
> 
> Boss
> Post 10
> ...



So you *weren't* talking about SB377......or you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about regarding it? If the former, which bill were you referring to?



> It will end the state sanctioning of marriage and thus, recognition of it.



Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license. 

Remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about. And you can't actually back any of your pseudo-legal gibberish factually. You can merely repeat your claims over and over...

....backed by jack shit. 

While I can actively disprove them. As I have repeatedly with citations of SB377.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




*To Boss Man and all of those who still insist that government can be divorced from marriage, this is the reason why it is not happening. The real issue is not whether or not there is a right to marry, it is about equal protection under the law, as well as religious discrimination. Feel free to comment:*

So far we have established two things on this thread:



The legal question of same sex marriage is settled, at least for now


Most or all of those who were pushing to get government out of marriage before Obergefell, and  continue to now are doing so for the purpose of  thwarting government recognition of same sex marriage
Now the question on the table is “Can government from a strictly legal standpoint actually abolish legal marriage? To put it differently, do people have a “right to marriage?” under the constitution? Now, we know that while there is no mention of marriage in the constitution or any of the amendments, the SCOTUS has ruled on numerous occasions that marriage is a “*fundamental right”* in cases that sought to secure the rights of individual couples to marry, where the states sought to exclude them for various reasons.  But are those rulings the same as saying that marriage generally speaking is a right?  I will concede that the answer is probably not. But, don’t start dancing for joy just yet

*The fact is, that while you might be able to question the right to marriage, you cannot you cannot question the right to be treated equally* and as long as some people are allowed to marry and reap the benefits of it, then others must also be allowed to marry- in the absence of a compelling government interest in preventing a particular group of class of people from doing so. That my friends is the rub-getting from where we are now, to a point where no one is able to marry nationwide or, at minimum, where everyone is treated equally by the federal government regardless of marital status in any particular state.

To do that, and thus avoid running *afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment* one of two things would have to happen. 1) All states would have to simultaneously end legal marriage-including the marriages that are already in place- so as everyone, regardless of their home state would be equally deprived of federal benefits or 2) the federal government would have to end all of the benefits of marriage. In either case, it would result in no one being able to say that they are being treated unequally either by their state or by the federal government.

Now let’s consider the first scenario more closely. How exactly is that going to happen? I contend that it can’t Common sense will tell you that 50 states are not going to coordinate such legislation, even if there were popular support to do so, which there would not be. You might say that it could be enacted on the federal level-perhaps as a constitutional amendment banning all marriage. However, that is equally unlikely to happen. In addition, it is the same people who screamed about federal medaling in states affairs when it was about same sex marriage, are likely to have a problem with this as well-the ultimate act of melding.

And, what is to be done about all of the people who are already married? Unless those marriages can be invalidated, you will still have a problem of inequality –between those married people and the ones who wish to marry both for federal and state benefits.

Now for scenario two.  Since getting all states to abolish marriage is not practical and most likely not even doable, we turn to the possibility of the abolishing of all federal benefits and all mention of marriage in the tax codes or any other federal legislation. That way people in states that have in fact abolished marriage will not have a case for being treated unequally. That too seems like a real long shot, but perhaps not quite as much as getting all states to abolish marriage and to invalidate existing marriages. However, consider the infamous  Washington gridlock when it comes to far less drastic and controversial matters, couples with what is sure to be  considerable opposition from those on both the left and the right. It seems to me that anyone pushing either of these proposals would in fact be committing political suicide.

Lastly, there are those who are pushing for state sanctioned unions to be called civil unions.  Those folks do not seem to have a problem with government involvement in, and regulation of relationships as long as they are not called “ Marriage” To be married they contend, people would have to go to a religious institution. Let’s think about that. First, you are again running into a problem with federal benefits since the federal government does not recognize civil unions for that purpose. The same would be true of “private contracts. OK, you might be able to get federal laws changed to address that, although it is also a long, long shot and there are many different statutes that would have to be changed.

But even if you were successful, there is another problem not fixable through legislation. That is the religious aspect of it. Many people consider “marriage “ to be more than a religious matter and many more don’t consider it to be religious at all  but want to be able to call their union marriage for the status that it conveys and the fact that "marriage" is a term that is universally understood. If it were necessary to submit to a religious institution in order to be married, it’s apparent that non-religious people would have a first Amendment claim for religious discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite apart from all of the other reason’s that I have presented to show why to try to get government out of marriage is an ill-conceived idea, I submit to you that there is no way of doing it without running afoul of the constitution either on the basis of  the 14th  or the first amendment. Feel free to try and prove me wrong.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


'

Well of course you are correct.

The only way to achieve in any form what Boss and other antagonists of legal marriage want would be to eliminate incrementally legal references to marriage- most demonstrably in the tax code.

And that just isn't going to happen. 

They are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, but people actually want to keep the baby- and they don't care.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.



Yes, it will end official state sanctioning and recognition of marriage. The State is not associated with the reasons for contracts between parties. They are required to administer probate according to statutory law regarding contracts between parties, without regard for the reason the contract was made. They've had to do this for over 200 years and will continue to have to do this as a matter of requirement by the Constitution of both the state and federal government. 

Thank you so very much for continuing to point out how this in no way violates or interferes with anyone's civil rights. The sooner we can make this law of the land nationwide, the better!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.
> ...



I don't believe this effectively kills marriage for anyone.....Thus killing gay marriage.

Contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.

Bravo.

By any logic that ending 'legal marriage' will kill 'gay marriage' it will also 'kill' marriage. 

Yes- some people might still get married for quaint religious reasons. But since people have a myriad of reasons to get married, there is no reason that is not based upon anything other than pure bigotry that would assume 'straight couples' would react any differently to the end of legal marriage than 'gay couples'.

You are suggesting killing marriage to kill 'gay marriage' 

Bravo.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.
> ...



Alabama will still recognize both marriages performed in Alabama- and marriages performed outside of Alabama.

The State doesn't sanction marriages- they recognize marriages. 

And Alabama does that now- and will do the same if that law ever passes.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You said you want to kill homosexual marriage.
> ...



Why just gay marriage Mr. Boss Man? Do you think that gays marry only for those government bennies and that other marry only  for love and companionship? You can't possibly believe that because, as you states......you are not a bigot. Absolutely not!


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



What has been proposed in Alabama is not an inequity to anyone. You can continue to make arguments that are now obsolete, the argument is over and your side prevailed. The State cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. If there is any benefit, licensing or sanctioning for traditional marriage it now has to also include homosexual marriage. 

However.... nothing in our Constitution requires the State to sanction any marriage. Nothing requires the State to offer benefits to married couples. Problems the Federal government may have are not the concern of the State nor is the State obligated to find a remedy for their problems.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, as my OP pointed out, this "gay marriage" initiative is being driven largely by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. I think when we remove the source of this perception of inequity, gay marriage will become obsolete. So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.
> ...



How do you explain, then, that every law regarding marriage, other than the issuance of licenses, would remain the same?  How do you explain common law marriages, which are recognized by the state of Alabama and require no license?  Do you think that the state only recognizes things which are licensed?  Do you think that marriages which require licenses are not a form of contract law?

Perhaps most importantly, do you think heterosexuals will be accepting of losing the state benefits of marriage and the ease of entering into legal marriage that now exist?  Do you believe there is enough anti-SSM sentiment that people would be willing to completely change the nature of civil marriage?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



He has gay friends- some of his best friends are gay.

He just thinks it would be better if Americans stopped treating gays equally legally.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Equal protection under the law Mr. Boss Man Sir. Is you reading comprehension really that poor or is it your understanding of the constitution. If Alabama really did end legal marriage, they would be  depriving their people of the federal benefits that those in other states have.  And, unless they invalidated ALL existing marriages, there would be inequality between those currently married people and those who want to get married . That is pretty damned simple.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Despite every single court case that resulted in the over turning of bans on gay marriage being 'driven' by homosexual couples who wanted the right to legally marry their partner- just like my wife and I are married.

You have a rich imagination, that doesn't let facts get in your way.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Can you show where the proposed bill, or any other legislative proposal, would remove benefits or perks for married people?  The bill from Alabama seemed to pretty clearly state the opposite.  Why do you think some hypothetical future bill(s) would remove all benefits or perks?

Do you think comparing marriage to dog ownership is going to make a resonant point with many people?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer heterosexuals or homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage.

Eventually Boss could manage to kill marriage.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



He doesn't. His entire argument is just imaginary nonsense. He's even abandoning reference to SB377 now, as it doesn't say anything he does.

Boss genuinely has no idea what he's talking about.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Can you show where the proposed bill, or any other legislative proposal, would remove benefits or perks for married people? The bill from Alabama seemed to pretty clearly state the opposite. Why do you think some hypothetical future bill(s) would remove all benefits or perks?[/QUOTE

Boss shows over and over he has quite the imagination when it comes to marriage and the law.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Ah,  but he's not talking about the proposed bill (now). He's talking about an imaginary bill that doesn't exist. And its the imaginary one that does everything he claims.

See how that works? Its the perfect circle of bullshit. Where Boss cites his imagination as evidence. And laughably...

...believes it is.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Save that it won't end the recognition of marriage. With a marriage contract being recognized as a legal record of marriage. With no changes to existing marriage law save that marriage would be entered into by contract rather than license.
> ...



Nope. The state still recognizes marriage, still recognizes a contact of marriage as legal record of marriage, still has that record of marriage filed with the Health Department of Alabama. With all the same marriage laws applying.

That's not the end of the recognition of marriage. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Thank you for again putting the 'pseudo' in 'pseudo-legal gibberish'.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Save of course that SB377 doesn't do any of that. All the same marriage laws apply. The only difference is how marriage is entered into. A contract of marriage under SB377 rather than a license of marriage.

All the nonsense about Alabama 'no longer recognizing marriage', and the 'sanctioning of marriage', and the 'killing homosexual marriage' babble you've offered us?

*That's just bullshit you made up. Its no where in SB377.*  You're simply not informed enough to discuss this topic intelligently.



> So we disassociate government from marriage and return marriage to the people and clergy where it belongs. No benefits or perks for "married" people... fewer and fewer homosexuals are motivated to go through the formality. Love and companionship do not require marriage... ask any dog lover.



SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.
> 
> Destroying your entire argument.



Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!  

Why all the emotion?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.
> ...



Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nope, I don't see how that works. I know that if the State of Alabama is not issuing licenses for gay marriages they aren't sanctioning them. I never claimed they could refuse to acknowledge contractual or statutory laws regarding legal instruments from other states. 

You keep making up nonsense that is unconstitutional, then claiming that I have said it's in this bill, then waving the bill around to proclaim the stuff I never said isn't in the bill. I really don't know what the point of that is unless you're just trying to intentionally mislead people regarding my position. 

Now we have to realize, the bill Alabama will pass to remove the State from sanctioning marriages is not the ONLY bill the State of Alabama can ever pass. Other bills can be passed to remove "marriage" from the lexicon of state business. Benefits or tax breaks afforded to "married" couples can be changed. There is nothing preventing that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 6, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.

SB377 does cite the contract of marriage, that contract of marriage being a legal record of marriage, and that contract of marriage being held at the Department of Health. The same place marriage licenses are stored now. With SB377 indicating that no marriage laws are changed beyond this switch from licenses to contract.

Just obliterating all the silly shit you've been shilling about how Alabama will 'not recognize marriage'. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You've never even read SB377.

You're literally arguing your imagination.



> I never claimed they could refuse to acknowledge contractual or statutory laws regarding legal instruments from other states.



Oh, I believe you. But this Boss fella? He says you're a fucking liar.



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!
> 
> Post 11
> Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Um, of course you were laughably wrong. None of the marriage laws change under SB377 save the method of entering a marriage. Says who? Says SB377, of course!



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph F said:
			
		

> This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.
> 
> Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session



*So there will be no laws to accommodate marriage ....except for EVERY law on the books accommodating marriage.* As none of them changed save on how marriage was entered.

Sigh.....do you ever think to fact check the silly shit you say?



> You keep making up nonsense that is unconstitutional, then claiming that I have said it's in this bill, then waving the bill around to proclaim the stuff I never said isn't in the bill. I really don't know what the point of that is unless you're just trying to intentionally mislead people regarding my position.



I keep quoting you. And I keep quoting the bill. See above. Your problem is...*they have nothing to do with each other.*

See how that works?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yeah, but what you're describing doesn't actually exist. There's not a single perk removed. There's not a single law changed except 'contracts' in place of 'licenses'. And Alabama still recognizes marriages. 

So the 'argument' you've moved onto....is pseudo-legal gibberish. Either that or a hallucination. It simply doesn't exist in the actual bill.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Let us know when anyone in Alabama proposes a law to remove the State from sanctioning marriage.

So far that is all just your imagination.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No one is misrepresenting your position. You have made it quite clear that you do not want Alabama or any other state to sanction marriage which would result in the loss of the legal benefits of marriage and result in gay people abandoning their desire to marry.  In doing so, you completely ignore the fact -as I have pointed out- that to do so will result in the states being vulnerable to action under the 14th Amendment due to the loss of federal benefits. Like all logical and factual arguments that you can't refute, you simply ignore it.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'.  From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

Of course Alabama can pass various laws.  Is that your argument?  It's possible for Alabama to pass multiple laws which will, eventually, remove civil marriages?  That Alabama will pass multiple laws so that the state government no longer recognizes or grants any benefits for marriage?  And you base this on a bill which did not pass and did none of those things anyway?

'It's possible' and 'Because I say so' are not compelling arguments, but that is what your arguments on this subject boil down to.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Boss's new argument: screw over all legally married couples so that in the end homosexuals will decide not to get married.

Because of course heterosexuals marry only for love- and not for any legal benefits.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would  not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties



A contract of marriage....*that is recognized as a record of marriage by the State of Alabama *and the Department of Health of Alabama. Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 paragraph E said:
			
		

> The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record



Yet you keep ignoring the very bill you claim to be citing. A bill you've never even read. Worse, you're insisting there will be zero laws to accomindate marriage. And of course, you're wrong. Says who? Says SB377 of course!



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph F said:
			
		

> This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
> to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage



So 'zero laws to accommodate marriage'....*.except for every law currently on book, statutory or common law. *

Again, you ignore the very bill you claim to cite. And you have nothing save your imagination to back your claims. You're literally making this shit up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Faun (Oct 6, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.
> ...


How do you envision the state verifies the legality of the marriage?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.



And the 14th Amendment doesn't make the slightest mention of Gay Marriage, so how about a big tall glass of STFU?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.



When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean? 
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean? 

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?" 

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you. 

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties
> ...



*sigh* This is getting really boring. All you are doing is citing the parts of the legislation which ensure the bill complies with all aspects of federal law and SCOTUS rulings. There is really not any point in passing some unconstitutional and rebellious defiance of federal law because it obviously couldn't be allowed to stand. So the law covers all the bases of the requirements mandated by SCOTUS and the federal government. Leaving you with absolutely no argument against it. 

Most halfway intelligent people should be able to surmise, there is really no point in passing a bill that does nothing and changes nothing. So what does this bill change? As I've explained numerous times to you and others, it removes the state from association with the act. They will not be approving, licensing, sanctioning or otherwise condoning your gay marriage. They will provide the required statutory administration, paperwork and recording of information as they are subject to do by federal law. That is not to be confused with their official recognition of your marriage. 

If you want to argue that the State is still "recognizing" gay marriage... that's fine with me, I don't care... sounds like you've found a way to accept the law. So why are we having all this trouble? Why can't you just say, hey, glad you guys worked this out and found a way to resolve your issues with regard to sanctioning of gay marriage? Seems to me this would be a cause to celebrate. 

Instead, you want to denigrate, attack, insult, ridicule and mock anything that doesn't march in lockstep with your worldview. Even when there is nothing to fight about, you want to pick a fight. You just can't stand it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Well no you clearly haven't moved on, you are still mewing about equality. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the State to sanction marriages. Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that. 

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh Christ big guy. Is it possible that you really don't understand what is going on here or what I've been saying? I actually agreed with you on the issue of what constitutional law says and does not say about marriage. You're not even going to try to deal with what I had to say about "equal protection" and the conundrum that it presents for the abolition of government sanctioned marriage and the benefits that go with it-UNLESS you can abolish marriage across the board in one swoop everywhere, for everyone-which cannot happen for the reasons that I clearly explained.

See post 635 above! You had nothing to say about it directly. I invited you to try to refute the logic that I presented. You cannot even touch it. Unless you can explain how I'm wrong, this is over. You nonsensical pipe dream about ending marriage is not happening.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.
> ...


Brilliant big guy! Just fucking brilliant. Did you actually think that you had to tell anybody here that the 14th does not mention gay marriage? To think that you did have to- to present that as some sort of profound insight is very telling about your level of functioning and understanding of the constitution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.
> ...



Sweet Home Alabama!!  To keep things in perspective.....these are the people who we are dealing with there. I'm not sure who is more bizarre, you or them

*Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker: State Courts Must Defy The Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling*
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 10/6/2015 3:53 pm
On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer interviewed Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, a former Religious Right activist and aide to Chief Justice Roy Moore who has become a radical justice in his own right, for two segments about the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling earlier this year.

After making the case that the Obergefell decision does not even apply to Alabama, Parker absurdly asserted that the Supreme Court had no grounds upon which to issue the decision in the first place because gays are not being denied equal treatment under the law since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex. 

As such, Parker said, it is imperative that state supreme courts stand up to the U.S. Supreme Court in defiance of its ruling in this case in order to foment a "revival" that will return this nation to its founding principles.

- See more at: Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker: State Courts Must Defy The Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

The 14th Amendment applies to *all* laws which *includes* laws pertaining to marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Are you saying Alabama will only recognize civil unions and not marriage?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Civil contracts DO NOT solve the pesky  problem of federal recognition as marriage and therefor the loss of federal benefits. I point that out in #535 above which you are still ignoring because you can't get around that. The result of civil unions or contracts will be the unequal treatment -by the federal government between those who have "marriage" and those who do not. That is an actionable violation of the equal protection clause of  the 14th amendment. I don't now how many more ways I can explain that to you.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.
> ...



I object to your unsubstantiated claim that removing the licensing requirement of marriage means the state no longer sanctions or recognizes marriages.  I object to your claim that marriage becomes a contract without a license.

The state of Alabama would still sanction and recognize marriages after the bill as before.  The only difference would be in how the marriages are obtained.

Marriage, even with a license, is still a form of contract.  So saying that without a license marriage becomes a contract is ridiculous.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence other than your own opinion that the issuance of a license is the determining factor in whether the state sanctions something.  While getting a license certainly indicates approval by the state, that doesn't preclude the ability to gain state approval through other means.  One might obtain a permit or file appropriate paperwork for a state sanctioned activity.  What makes you think that a license is the only valid way for something to be state sanctioned?

You can be done explaining if you like.  That's pretty easy for you considering your explanations have contained no actual evidence.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Irrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

Alabama recognizes marriage, records marriages, has both statutory and common law regarding marriage. *None of which changes under SB377.* Making your assertion about 'sanctioning' gloriously irrelevant to SB377 or your fantasies about 'killing homosexual marriage'.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you you have no idea what you're talking about.



> Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that.



You're not one of those 'others'. You're the poor, confused soul who insisted that there would be NO law accomidating marriage.



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!
> 
> Post 11
> Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



I'm glad that you've finally admitted that no laws changes save how marriage is entered into, that you didn't know what you were talking about, and that you've based your entire pseudo-legal argument on your own misconceptions.

Gay marriage is fine. And SB377 does nothing to it. Nor even mentions it.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Of course you do. As both claims are blithering idiocy. The contract of marriage is a legal record of marriage, held at the Department of Health of Alabama. Just like licenses are now. No marriage laws change save how marriage is entered into. With that lone exception every law regarding marriage that exists today exists after SB377.

Which even Boss has admitted. This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage. Simply destroying his entire argument.

Boss, as is so tedious typical, doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. Nor can he, even hypothetically, explain how SB377 would 'kill homosexual marriage'. Making the entire OP little more than a demonstration of Shakespeare's more memorable quotes:

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.



And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays. 
(same exact point, same exact logic.)


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.
> ...



Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

*You've conceded the entire argument.*

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:



			
				14th Amendment Section 1 said:
			
		

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction *the equal protection of the laws.*



See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, I've given you a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary about what the words we're using mean. Your failure to comprehend is not my problem. The fact  that you want to continue to spin and manipulate what I've said and "find a way" to contradict me, is also not my problem. 

Of course there  are other ways for the state to 'sanction' something besides licensing it. But we're  not talking about the state changing from one way of sanctioning to another. We're specifically talking about the state changing from sanctioning marriage to administering a contract. 

Now... I don't have any problem with this, you don't have any problem with it... it doesn't effect anyone's rights to make this change... all  it really does is  change the  state's association with your action. But for some weird and strange reason unbeknownst to me, you want to argue and fight about something. And you are joined by every pro-gay-marriage advocate out there. 

You guys have the right to object to this and explain why you are opposed to it but none of you are. All I keep getting is that you disagree with my understanding of this and I've even offered that you don't have to agree with my understanding. That still doesn't seem to be good enough. 

It's almost funny, it's like you are all worked up and pissed off because my side has found a solution we can all live with that doesn't interfere with your rights and lets us live with what has been done. Does it upset you that we're not trying to pass a law that violates your rights or the constitution? Apparently, that is the problem here... you want to fight something but there is really nothing to fight.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377.



Again, there is nothing about gay marriage in the 14th Amendment OR the Constitution. 

Same argument. Same logic and reasoning.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.
> ...




You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.



You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The actual SB377.....or the hapless batshit that you've made up?

The actual SB377, I'm fine with. As converting a license to a contract actually makes same sex marriage easier. As it removes a judge from the equation. All the same marriage laws otherwise apply. And the contract of marriage is a legal record of marriage, just like a marriage license is now.
_
The silly nonsense you've imagined where Alabama 'no longer recognizes marriage' and there are 'zero laws accommodating marriage', with Alabama 'not recognizing marriages from any state'?_ That batshit I'd probably take issue with. But since no such law exists nor even proposed, its a moot point.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.
> ...



Oh, I've posted it repeatedly, once this morning alone. And I'll happily post your silly batshit again:



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!
> 
> Post 11
> Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Deny saying it. It would amuse me.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have not given a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary.  You have yet to provide a single dictionary definition of sanction or license which supports your claim that removing the licensing requirement for marriage means the state will no longer sanction marriage.  You have given no evidence that the proposed bill, or any proposed bill, will end the perks and benefits of marriage.  You have, in fact, changed your claims along the way to say that some hypothetical bill in the future will end state sanctioning of marriage, yet still seem to want to claim the proposed Alabama bill will do that.

You say we're not talking about the state changing from one way of sanctioning to another.  The only change the bill would make is that marriages would be obtained by filing paperwork through an office rather than obtaining a license.  Every single other detail of marriage law would remain the same.  Every benefit, every perk, every change in legal status of the participants would remain the same.  Common law marriages, which are already marriages without a license, would continue to be recognized by the state.  The law regarding marriage would remain the same in all ways except the means by which marriage is obtained.  Despite this, you continue to say that it means the state will no longer sanction marriage and instead will simply be allowing couples to enter into a contract; this, despite the fact that licensed marriage is itself a form of contract.

What is the detailed explanation and what are the dictionary definition which back your claims, again?

I'm not upset about 'your side' finding a solution.  I don't believe 'your side' constitutes anyone but you, however, besides that, it is not your proposed solution I am arguing against.  It is your erroneous claims about what the proposed Alabama bill would do, what the difference between obtaining a marriage through a license and through filing with a government office is, what the meaning of the state sanctioning something that I am arguing.  I am arguing against you pulling claims out of the air and trying to pretend they are backed by evidence when you refuse to provide one iota of that supposed evidence.

Are you only comfortable with an us vs them mentality?  You couch your arguments in those terms almost constantly.  'We' have come up with a solution.  'We're' not trying to pass a law.  'Your side' is opposed.  Is there a reason you don't want this to be between two people and instead keep trying to push the discussion into groups and sides?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

You don't think LLC's never are in court to force dissolution?

Not all marriages would require child support to begin with

What are you babbling about?

Traditions?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Again- you are just making crap up.

Government still is a party to marriage. 
Alabama still says what is a legal marriage and what is not.

You still can't legally marry your brother or sibling- unless of course Alabama changes that law also.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code. 

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Just a slight change for perspective....


Just a few months so:

You still can't legally marry your same sex lover - unless of course Alabama changes that law also.

See how well your simpleton arguments work when the shoes on the other foot?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



How many times between this thread and the 'Easier to Condemn Homosexuality' thread has Boss made a claim about something he said which was then proven to be completely untrue by quoting his own words, I wonder?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I'm not hiding. I already responded to your post. The State of Alabama is going to abolish state sanctioning of marriage. If you don't think they are, that's fine with me, you are entitled to that opinion. We're not passing the law to piss you off and challenge your rights under the Constitution. 

If you believe this law doesn't change anything, that's great... It means you don't object to it. If it satisfies others who are opposed to gay marriage and it doesn't interfere with your rights (which it doesn't) then you should be happy that the opposition has found a way to accept this. But for some odd reason, you can't tolerate that. 

I really think this illustrates the level of outright HATE you have for those who oppose gay marriage. It is causing you to be completely irrational and angry about something that you admit, doesn't make any difference. There is nothing in the Constitution about us having to share the same opinions.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



That pretty much covers most of your posts.

We all know what Alabama current law is- current law allows couples in Alabama to legally marry- regardless of their race, religion or gender- and recognizes marriage- those performed in Alabama and without.  

The proposed law will allow couples in Alabama to legally marry- regardless of their race, religion or gender- and recognizes marriage- those performed in Alabama and without. 

I have no problem with the proposed law- I only object to how you falsely characterize what it is. 

But since the law itself allows Alabamans to continue to marry equally- I have no objection to it.

Probably is going to fuck over Alabamans when they need to provide a marriage license in another state or to insurance companies- but hey- it will fuck over Alabamans equally.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And that is your opinion.

Nothing in the proposed law says any such thing.

In my opinion your opinion is as wrong about this as with everything else- but IF it makes you sleep better at night believing that- fine with me.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



How many times has he been caught doing that now, in this thread and the last one? I have lost count.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I'll translate this:

Since you are a heterosexual, your opinion matters not.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well you do like to make crap up.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Thank you. I used a poor choice of words. Accommodating and sanctioning are two different things. I should have been paying closer attention. My apologies.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



How so pinhead?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yet- all of those records are listed in the Health Department together.

Any records could be kept anywhere.

Why do you think that all of those records are typically maintained by Health Departments?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Tradition?

But traditions are horseshit to progressives


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You have not given a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary.



Yes I have and you're just blathering idiocy. 

*Every single other detail of marriage law would remain the same. Every benefit, every perk, every change in legal status of the participants would remain the same.*

So you don't have any problem with it, correct? 



Montrovant said:


> I'm not upset about 'your side' finding a solution.



I think that's a lie. You're doing everything you can to tear that down and render it irrelevant. It doesn't seem to be satisfactory that we have different opinions, you feel the need to destroy my opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Well you have never been able to think of many reasons for anything other than 'tradition'.

Shows in the stunning failure by your ilk in the courts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You have not given a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary.
> ...



That in the same post where you say

_Yes I have and you're just blathering idiocy._

He is showing as much respect for your 'opinion' as you show for anyone else's- including his.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No worries. If you recant a particular phrase, I won't cite it again when refuting your claims. As its no longer your claim.

Alabama would still recognize marriage under SB377.  With the lone exception of how a marriage is entered into, no marriage laws change. A contract of marriage is held as a legal record of marriage with the Health Department of Alabama exactly as a marriage licenses is now. And there's no mention in SB377 of any change of the way Alabama would view marriages from other States.

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.




I see where this is going.. 

Why take a revenue loss giving tax breaks to a situation that the state no longer can control to its own benefit. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters grow up to be statistically on drugs, indigent, depressed and suicidal. They are statistically-guaranteed to become burderns to the state.

Also, and fiscally just as important, normalizing homosexuality by being forced to give it a public stamp of approval ("gay marriage licenses") will result in an upward trend of adolescents and kids imprinting themselves to sexually orient "gay". On average, each indigent HIV/AIDS patient (they all become indigent quite quickly) costs the government over $500,000 before they die the horrible death of AIDS. With the price of HIV drugs tripling recently, this places an unbearable burden upon the state who ultimately has to pay for the new "Supreme Court Cult" that was retooled into society's fabric by the fource of five, to its collective detriment...

...not the least of which is to children who are getting swept up in all this to a terrible end:

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



> Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.
> Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC






Syriusly said:


> This is going back to you lying about the Prince's Trust survey and attacking homosexuals again.



The links in the OP of the Prince's Trust thread linked here can be read by anyone and anyone will see that the deductions of that survey are correct.  Boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers are around 65% more likely than their peers to wind up depressed, on drugs and indigent...ie: burdens to society.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.
> ...



You really don't.



> Why take a revenue loss giving tax breaks to a situation that the state no longer can control to its own benefit. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters grow up to be statistically on drugs, indigent, depressed and suicidal. They are statistically-guaranteed to become burderns to the state.



Same false premise as the last time you spammed this block post:

The State does have control over its marriage laws....within the bounds of constitutional guarantees. Same sex marriages in the States that have long since legalized them make up about 5% or 6% of marriages each year. If a State wants to spite 95% of all marriages just to get back at 5%.....they're idiots.

And of course, there's no State indicating that's what they want to do.



> Also, and fiscally just as important, normalizing homosexuality by being forced to give it a public stamp of approval ("gay marriage licenses") will result in an upward trend of adolescents and kids imprinting themselves to sexually orient "gay". On average, each indigent HIV/AIDS patient (they all become indigent quite quickly) costs the government over $500,000 before they die the horrible death of AIDS. With the price of HIV drugs tripling recently, this places an unbearable burden upon the state who ultimately has to pay for the new "Supreme Court Cult" that was retooled into society's fabric by the fource of five, to its collective detriment...
> 
> ...not the least of which is to children who are getting swept up in all this to a terrible end:
> 
> ...



Same problem as always. The Prince Trust Study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting, by your own admission. It makes no mentions of gays, homosexuality, same sex marriage, nor same sex parenting.

Worse for you, it cites mentoring groups it offers as providing a positive same sex role model. Explicitly contradicting your claim that only a mother or father can do this.

And of course, you already know this. You just really hope we don't.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?



By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend. 

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That _could_ happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother.  And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. *Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must  recognize marriage*. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.
> ...



I see where this is going- Silhouette just copying and pasting the same crap again.

Just to point out- Prince's Study doesn't say anything about gay parents, or parents- at all.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> [
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> ...



The Prince's Trust study does not even mention fathers or mothers.

You are just lying again.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?
> ...



Your solution will 'kill marriage' equally for all Alabaman's which to be fair- is equitable. Some heterosexual couples may still wish to go through with it, but most will not bother. Just like most gay couples will not bother.

Of course your solution screws all Americans who want to be legally married- like my wife and myself. 

But that is okay to you- because it would 'kill homosexual marriage'

It is also the reason why your 'proposal' will go nowhere.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?
> ...



You may want to go back and read the OP. As you don't make a single mention of 'cultural change'. You make dozens of references to changes in the law. And in post 10, on the same page as the OP.....specifically cite the Alabama law as an example of the changes you've proposed. With the changes, again, being a legal one.

And the Alabama bill does nothing you've proposed. See my previous points for specific legal points that you've misinterpreted.



> We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That _could_ happen but it's not likely to succeed.



Agreed. Technically possible. Snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.



> So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage.



Do you acknowledge that SB777 *doesn't do this*? That the 'contracts of marriage' are used identically by the State as licenses of marriage are? That they are both legal records of marriage, both held by the Health Department of Alabama as such? With all the same marriage laws in place save the lone change of how you enter marriage?



> As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother.  And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.



Why would married people want to remove the perks of being married? Even in Alabama, a state whose motto is 'Always on the Wrong Side of History', they're merely proposing removing the judges from the process. All the same perks apply.

SB377 doesn't do any of what you're proposing. Nor is there any significant support for in any State legislature. You're offering us a vast wish list. Not the summary of any law or even a seriously proposed possible law. Nor anything that there is much public support for.

Worse, the Full Faith and Credit clause would still require Alabama to honor the marriages of other States. So even hypothetically.....your argument is moot. There's no angle where your claims work. There's no match with any State bill. There's no policy that matches your description.

Your OP might as well begin with 'Once Upon A Time". Or "Mukashi, Mukashi' if you prefer the Japanese.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

The vast majority of people, straight and gay, marry to make a life long commitment to the person they love, not for government benefits.

Eliminating those benefits, even if you could, would not dissuade many from getting married.

But you do reveal how enormously butthurt you are over same-sex marriage; and dayam! Those fags sure kicked your ass, huh? There was a time folks like you were suggesting straight folks get to marry but gays would have to settle for civil unions.... they fucked you so hard, you're now eager to take away marriage from straight folks.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

It's time for civil disobedience.  Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats.  They can't put us all in jail.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Okay, so now you've swung back to an argument that your rights are being denied somehow. 

I have not said that I want to kill marriage for everyone. If you want to marry your mailbox, I believe you have that right... I don't have to agree with your opinion of what constitutes marriage. Although, when it comes to benefits and sanctioning, I don't believe I should be forced to sanction your opinion and disregard my own. I want "marriage" to be defined by the individual and not government. I want the government to offer NO benefits to married couples, gay or otherwise. There is no Constitutional requirement to force States to endorse or sanction any marriage.... the SCOTUS ruling is about equal application but if there is no application it is equal.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox. Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.

SB377 does however recognize marriage. And it isn't on the basis of your 'opinion'. Its on the basis of the criteria of the law. With contracts of marriage being legal records of marriage in Alabama. 



> Although, when it comes to benefits and sanctioning, I don't believe I should be forced to sanction your opinion and disregard my own.



Again, the standard of the law isn't 'what you believe'. Nor does SB377 make any mention of 'sanctioning'. In any capacity. The arguments you're making aren't part of Alabama law, or SB377. Neither of which contain the changes that you propose.

Nor does any State. Nor does any bill with any significant support. Nor is there significant support among the public of eliminating state recognition of marriage, repealing all marriage laws, or removing the 'perks' of marriage.

So your proposal lacks any legal foundation in existing law. It lacks any legal foundation in proposed law. And the people don't want it. 

Making it nothing more than an imaginary wish list.



> I want "marriage" to be defined by the individual and not government. I want the government to offer NO benefits to married couples, gay or otherwise. There is no Constitutional requirement to force States to endorse or sanction any marriage.... the SCOTUS ruling is about equal application but if there is no application it is equal.



There's no support for that among the people. Especially the married ones. And no one is proposing that. Not Alabama, not SB377. 

Just you. And you aren't nearly enough.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And where did I say anything about my rights being denied?

Just provide that quote.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> It's time for civil disobedience.  Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats.  They can't put us all in jail.



I agree- go to courthouses everywhere- and openly refuse to get married to homosexuals. 

They can't put you all in jail!

LOL


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> It's time for civil disobedience.  Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats.  They can't put us all in jail.


Why can't they?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



But he is willing to fuck over all married couples- just so he can 'kill homosexual' marriage.

Because of course eliminating legal marriage would fuck over every legally married couple in the United States. 

But maybe he is willing to just limit it to fucking over married couples in Alabama?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.



It doesn't recognize ANY marriage from an official state standpoint...  that is the point.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well, when you say it "screws you" then it implies a damage to something you think you are entitled to. You've not explained how removing state sanctioning of marriage "screws" anyone. It is your opinion which seem to be that you are screwed if the state doesn't sanction what you're doing. 

It's certainly not "screwing" you to treat you equally to everyone else.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Nah, he's just fucking deranged. For his insidious plan to work, all fifty states would have to pass similar legislation.  Otherwise, Alabamian who still want a state-issued marriage license will simply cross the border to a state which issues them. Alabama, of course, will still have to recognize them as legally binding marriages.

But if such lunacy were to occurr in some states, I can see a time when Democrats control the Congress where they give states additional federal funding to states which still issue marriage licenses. Blue states will get that whereas all non-participating red states will not.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.
> ...



Except that Alabama does, recognizing the contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage and holding these records with the Department of Health of Alabama. Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph e said:
			
		

> The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
> record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
> Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.



Exactly as they do with marriage licenses. Nor are there the slightest changes to any marriage law save the method of entering a marriage:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1  paragraph F said:
			
		

> This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
> to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.



*You* claim that Alabama doesn't recognize any marriage under SB377. Alabama never says this. SB377 never says this. But instead, explicitly contradicts you.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Precisely. And the exact point I made when I joined the thread. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution negates Boss' entire premise.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.
> ...


It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

But every other aspect of marriage remains the same.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.



But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage. The law doesn't say that you and I must agree on the definition of marriage. It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally. 

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> It's time for civil disobedience.  Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats.  They can't put us all in jail.


Ah! A new zombie troll bot in town. Welcome!  Things were getting tedious around here.  So Sally, what do you think about all of this? Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater also, and if so how would you do it?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.



Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints...  Why are you complaining?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > It's time for civil disobedience.  Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats.  They can't put us all in jail.
> ...


I want constitutional government.  The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children, period.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition. 

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


Bzzzz Wrong. It does not say anything about slaves . Apparently you are not happy with Obergefell. Do you also disapprove of Loving?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



marriage licenses were TRADITIONALLY tracked by health departments as a way to maintain healthy bloodlines. 

So why now since same sex coupling can't produce children?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



And marriage licenses say nothing about the couple being required to have sex. 

You forget about that?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.
> ...



And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law. 

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted. 



> It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.



But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill. 

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites. 



> Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.



Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater



I've got another analogy besides the baby and bathwater... Cutting the head off the snake. 

Remove state sanctioning of marriage, take away government benefits of marriage, and let culture take care of the rest. Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades. 

Homosexuals represent less than 10% of society, so without this "perception of inequity" you have no support from heterosexuals because there is nothing to support. The reasons for the "perception of inequity" have been removed and no longer exist. Your rights are not being violated, you have the same "equality" as traditional couples, the state is just not a party to your action anymore.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What word salad jibber jabber is this? 

Why are marriage records kept at the Department of Health in Alabama? Because that's where Alabama laws says they're stored.  

I know you're trying to be clever and make some point about 'tradition'. But its awkward, forced, and worst of all...poorly thought through.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And the part I don't think you get is, I don't give two shits about what you think. 

*And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'*

Great! Then you are not opposed to SB377 or any bill that is similar to it... correct?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead. 

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards. 

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them. 

Not the State.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bzzzz Wrong. It does not say anything about slaves .



LMAO... Bzzz... it also doesn't say anything about marriage, gays or gay marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Really?

This is like your claim that the ONLY reason for laws against siblings marrying was regarding birth defects.

Just you pulling stuff out of your ass and asking us to believe that crap is a fact.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You stupid putz, there is a reason the department was chosen the depository of this information. That was to maintain records, easily discoverable for health purposes. Originally to insure that potentially incestuous couples could be discovered and denied state License.

You really are stoopid.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I am not.

SB377 will probably screw over Alabamans who get married- but if that is what Alabama wants to do- no skin off my back.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you are just pulling crap out of your ass again.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater
> ...



Again, SB377 doesn't do this. Alabama isn't proposing this. And there's little support for this with the public. And of course, its moot....as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution will require Alabama (and every other State) to honor marriages from other states.

There's just no plausible path to your proposal. Its a pipe dream. 



> Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.



That assumes that gays and lesbians are neither moral nor religious. And that their only reason to get married is the 'perks'. None of which are accurate.

You are working with a series of nested fallacies, each dependant upon the last. And none of them factually accurate. 

In a generation we'll look back at people like yourself with the same dumbounded mix of confusion and revulsion that we now experience when discussing folks like Leon Bazille and George Wallace. History is not going to be kind to your ilk.



> Homosexuals represent less than 10% of society, so without this "perception of inequity" you have no support from heterosexuals because there is nothing to support. The reasons for the "perception of inequity" have been removed and no longer exist. Your rights are not being violated, you have the same "equality" as traditional couples, the state is just not a party to your action anymore.



Or.....we can just do nothing you propose. And get the same lack of inequality. 

Its simpler, quicker and costs less. Which is why we're doing that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then the other reasons were?

Deflection in 3.....2......1.......


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I guess you're well versed at pulling things out of your ass, aren't you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage. 

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.
> ...



Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions. 

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377. 

Get it?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater
> ...



Heterosexual couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. IN this environment marriage becomes obsolete- a curiousity of the past...something that pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Of course it would screw over every married couple in America. 

Makes me more and more convinced that you are neither married, nor have ever been married.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



It's funny how these pinheads think.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> I am not.
> 
> SB377 will probably screw over Alabamans who get married- but if that is what Alabama wants to do- no skin off my back.



GOOD! Then you need to shut your yapper and move on.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Back in reality, every State does recognize marriage. And they set the critiera for that marriage within the bounds of constitutional guarantees.

Again, nothing you've proposed is happening anywhere. Nor is there any significant public support for any of it. Even Alabama, your poster child, does *nothing* you propose. With SB377 having no relevance to your descriptions.

You have nothing. Not existing law. Not proposed  law. Not public support. With doing nothing providing us with all the benefits that you propose. For free and instantly.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hey, did the State define your marriage?

They didn't mine

Of course you're the type that requires the State to wipe your ass for you too. 

And my yes, let's get lectured by folks who can't even figure out who they're supposed to breed with.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.
And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Notice how it changed from defining marriage to setting criteria?

Good God you're easy


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Pops can't keep on topic any more than a 3 year old with ADD.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Notice how you don't actually have an argument, nor disagree with a word I say. 

Try again when you can manage either.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Of course not. His purpose is to shut threads like this down with irrelevant babble. Its why I so enjoy trolling the troll. I call it 'uber trolling'.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Nope, the judges stating that incest will remain illegal does nothing in regards to the argument since, just like any other legally binding, State recognized, partnership document, marriage does not have a sex requirement. So incest is not any more an issue than an LLC comprised of family members.


You lose again

Of course you knew that when you hit the submit button


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless babble.

IF you have an argument to make for incest marriage, make it. Present your case. But I'm not making the case for you, troll. You'll have to do it yourself.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And your not very good at it, but how could you be? You can't even figure out who you're supposed to breed with.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Sex is not a requirement in marriage, nor in an s-corp or and LLC. 

Do you think that members of an LLC are bound to have sex with each other? If not, why the assumption with marriage?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Who mentioned anything about 'breeding'? 

Um....awkward.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



An 'S-corp' or LLC? Are you still trying to polish your little turd of an argument that a marriage treated the same way as an LLC?

Because I already demolished that, troll. It was easy.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Again, SB377 doesn't do this. Alabama isn't proposing this. And there's little support for this with the public. And of course, its moot....as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution will require Alabama (and every other State) to honor marriages from other states.



Again, you have a different opinion and you're entitled to that. I disagree with your opinion. 

SB377 did end state sanctioning of marriage, that was the point of the bill and the reason it was proposed. It passed but failed to gain a super majority which was required by state law because the issue wasn't on the governor's agenda. That will be rectified next session and the bill will pass... so it obviously MUST have some support from the constituents who vote. Again, if you don't believe it does, you are entitled to your opinion. 

You keep harping on this "honor marriages from other states" like that means something. I've not argued that point it's covered clearly by SCOTUS and the Constitution. However, if there is no state consideration of marriage in the laws then there is no need  to "honor" anything. The State is bound to uphold statutory and contractual legal requirements and record vital statistics but they have been doing this for over 200 years and no one is proposing any change to that. That is not "honoring" your gay marriage, it's upholding statutory law. I'm not arguing the State doesn't have to uphold statutory law.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Again, SB377 doesn't do this. Alabama isn't proposing this. And there's little support for this with the public. And of course, its moot....as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution will require Alabama (and every other State) to honor marriages from other states.
> ...



Obviously. But I'm not citing me. I'm citing SB377, the USSC and the Constitution. You're citing yourself.

Our sources are not equal. You can tell....because of all the gay marriage. And how nothing you've proposed is being done by anyone.



> SB377 did end state sanctioning of marriage, that was the point of the bill and the reason it was proposed.



SB377 *doesn't even mention* the 'sanctioning of marriage'. You do. Citing you. Which is legally meaningless.

The bill changes nothing but the method of entering a marriage. Save that, all the same laws apply. And a contract of marriage is treated as the same legal record of marriage as a marriage license is.

Says who? Says SB377:




			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph e said:
			
		

> The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.



With no marriage laws changing save the method of entering a marriage. Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1  paragraph F said:
			
		

> This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.



All of which you ignore.....and then laughably cite yourself. Again, our sources are not equal. And you citing you isn't evidence. Especially when you have to ignore the very law you claim to be describing as you do it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater
> ...


Hey are you the guy who said that you are not a bigot? Then you post this horrendous horseshit about  "moral and religious couples"? Gay people can't be moral or religious? This is the stupidest shit yet.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bzzzz Wrong. It does not say anything about slaves .
> ...


Very good!! You are right! It does not say anything about marriage, gays or gay marriages. However, it does say something about equal protection under the law.


----------



## northpolarbear (Oct 7, 2015)

I find homosexuals mentally broken. I mean, they are not following the biologically designed urges but something from "not the work of the hormones". I don't believe in soul whatever. So, I consider it mentally broken. They are not functioning right or "biologically". Something mentally twisted overwrites & imposes them to be homosexuals. However, if that's the way they want to be, they have the right to do so. It's their call. I just find it mentally broken. Of course it is moral. They are being with who they want to be with as opposed to being with someone they don't want to be with. But for being religious, that would depend on the religion. I'm not sure if Christianity approves gay.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Well,  where I disagree with you is your OPINION that this would effect traditional hetero couples the same. I don't believe it would... now that is my opinion, but I base that on sound judgment. 

We can agree that most marriages are traditional and between heterosexual couples. A substantial chunk of those marriages are based on a religious teaching and upbringing, a moral foundation of family and something vital to all Christian couples as a matter of their religious faith. It's not about government benefits or perks. Those couples are not effected by whether or not the state officially sanctions or endorses their marriage. 

On the other hand, most homosexual couples are not strongly tied to religion... some may be, but we're already talking about a very small percentage of society who are even gay... now divide that small slice of pie even more... the number of religious gay couples is virtually non-existent. The main people who are gay and want to have a gay marriage are motivated by government benefits of  marriage... tax breaks... perks... incentives... things that government offers to "married couples." But even then, the "Gay Marriage Movement" is not the result of this rather small and insignificant number in society who seek gay marriage, it is largely promoted by secular heterosexuals who have a 'perception of inequity' they are fighting, mostly for political reasons. 

So when we remove this "perception of inequity" and render it irrelevant, there is no more issue. As we have seen in this thread, you have absolutely nothing you can object to other than my opinion. You're really left with what amounts to a hollow argument where you simply want to reject my opinion and force your opinion onto me against my will, and like I said, that ain't happening.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

northpolarbear said:


> I find homosexuals mentally broken. I mean, they are not following the biologically designed urges but something from "not the work of the hormones". I don't believe in soul whatever. So, I consider it mentally broken. They are not functioning right or "biologically". Something mentally twisted overwrites & imposes them to be homosexuals. However, if that's the way they want to be, they have the right to do so. It's their call. I just find it mentally broken. Of course it is moral. They are being with who they want to be with as opposed to being with someone they don't want to be. But for being religious, that would depend on the religion. I'm not sure if Christianity approves gay.


Brilliant! That really added to the level of intellectual inquiry on this subject. So what is your position on marriage Mr. Polar Bear?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And of course you are lying again. Which I knew would happen as soon as I hit the submit button replying to any post of yours.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and* other types of marriage restrictions. *For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nothing you're proposing is actually happening. That's not an 'opinion'. That's the laws themselves explicitly contradicting your assertions. And a complete lack of any such laws.....anywhere in the country. 

You making up shit about SB377 that it never even mentions isn't a 'difference of opinion'. Its you literally ignoring the bill and making up whatever you'd like. 

Notice you've never once cited any portion of SB377 backing any of your claims. Nor have you even bothered to read it. Making your assessment of its impact meaningless. As you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> SB377 *doesn't even mention* the 'sanctioning of marriage'.



LOL... Again, because you seem to be slow... It doesn't HAVE to mention it!  The 14th Amendment doesn't mention slavery! It doesn't mention homosexuals! It doesn't mention gay marriage! It doesn't mention marriage at all!  

So if the criteria is only things that are specifically mentioned, then there is no such thing as gay marriage or any constitutional right regarding marriage of any kind. You've sort of shot yourself in the head with that stupidity.


----------



## northpolarbear (Oct 7, 2015)

I find that gay marriage should be allowed as their right although I don't understand them. I shouldn't have to understand them. They have the right to live how they want regardless of me understanding them.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have provided no evidence that your 'opinion' is based upon sound judgement- or even that any of your posts are. 

Frankly you are willing to gamble that your 'proposal' would kill 'homosexual' marriage- and not 'kill straight marriage'.

Why would you be willing to gamble with something that is obviously so important to you- heterosexual marriage?

In my opinion- based upon my sound judgement- it is clear that killing homosexual marriage is more important to you than preserving marriage for heterosexuals.

My sound judgement says that is the only logical conclusion.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nothing you're proposing is actually happening.



LMAO... Well, things don't happen between Oct 2 and Oct 7 or else not happen at all. That's the problem with your analysis. Sometimes things take time to happen. Maybe a few months, maybe a few years... Nothing gay marriage proponents wanted to happen was happening for a long time... until you got a SCOTUS ruling in your favor. 

The fact that something hasn't transpired in a week is a really weak argument to make.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I have been legally married for over 20 years. 

You want to reject my legal marriage- against my will- and force me to end my legal marriage.

And like I said- that ain't happening.

Not even the rubes of Alabama are going to vote to end their own legal marriages.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You have provided no evidence that your 'opinion' is based upon sound judgement



Well, I went on to explain my sound judgement. You just want to ignore it because you disagree with my opinion. That's fine but you can't say that I haven't explained this.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



LOL... I said nothing about rejecting your marriage or ending anything.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing you're proposing is actually happening.
> ...



On the other hand- you proposing something that is not a serious proposal by anyone- anywhere- i.e. to end legal marriage- is really weak sauce.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You have provided no evidence that your 'opinion' is based upon sound judgement
> ...



No- you went on to explain your opinion- based upon your bias. 

There was nothing in that post that was close to sound judgement.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

northpolarbear said:


> I find that gay marriage should be allowed as their right although I don't understand them. I shouldn't have to understand them. They have the right to live how they want regardless of me understanding them.


Thank you. There is really not a lot to understand. They are just people who have a different kind of sexual attraction than you. I don't understand heterosexuals who are into S &M or foot fetishes but no one questions their right to get married .


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have advocated ending the legal form of marriage that I and millions of Americans enjoy.

You have advocated eliminating every 'government benefit' associated with marriage- and yeah- that is ending a lot for my wife and I.

Social Security survivors benefits: gone
Inheritance tax exemption for surviving spouse: gone
Automatic legal assumption of a spouse being a legal guardian: gone

You are willing to end legal marriage for all Americans- just to kill legal marriage for homosexuals.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing you're proposing is actually happening.
> ...



Oh, I've looked at your evidence. *SB377 doesn't say anything you do.* It doesn't eliminate Alabama's 'recognition of marriage'. It doesn't even mention of the 'sanctioning of marriage'. And it doesn't change any law save how marriage is entered. With the contracts of marriage

Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph e said:
			
		

> The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.



With no marriage laws changing save the method of entering a marriage. Says who? Says SB377:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1  paragraph F said:
			
		

> This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.



And your only source for all the pseudo-legal gibberish you've offered? Just you. Citing you. Which is meaningless.

So is there any part of your argument that isn't you just making shit up?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Probably, you however should try it sometime, but I doubt anyone of the opposite sex (the correct ones to breed with) would allow you that close. 

But you can take my word for it

It's a friggin blast!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You probably couldn't even demolish a turd, you admire where turds come from!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



How often do you breed?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > SB377 *doesn't even mention* the 'sanctioning of marriage'.
> ...



Which might have some relevance if it was the 14th amendment that outlawed slavery.* Alas, that was the 13th amendment. *Remember: you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

As for the 14th amendment, it does call for equal protection of the law. Which is the *actual* basis of the Obergefell decision (well, one of them). Not 'homosexual'. 

Says who? Why the 14th amendment of course!



			
				14th Amendment Section 1 said:
			
		

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction* the equal protection of the laws.*



And who cited the 14th amendment's equal protection of the law as one of the bases of the Obergefell decision? Why the USSC itself:



			
				Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) said:
			
		

> The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal
> protection.
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf



See how that works?* I cite the actual amendments and the actual caselaw. And you just quote yourself. *And apparently you haven't quite caught on yet that you citing yourself isn't actually evidence of anything.

Now, its your turn. Here's SB377 in its most current form:

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

Show us where in SB377 they mention the 'sanctioning of marriage'. And where they insist they will no longer recognize marriage. And where SB377 states that it will no longer recognize marriages from other States. And where it SB377 states that it is eliminating any of the benefits of marriage. 

Laughing....or you can keep refusing to read it and continue to quote yourself and your imagination. Either is worth a giggle.



> So if the criteria is only things that are specifically mentioned, then there is no such thing as gay marriage or any constitutional right regarding marriage of any kind.



The criteria don't exclude same sex couples. ....._now_. They did before Obergefell. Now any same sex couple can qualify for the 'contract of marriage' as easily as they can the 'license of marriage'. This is why your distinction between 'contract' and 'license' is so wonderfully irrelevant. 

See how that works?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL- Pops is literally pulling crap out of his ass now.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Only about 10% as often as all those lovely ladies wish I would!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I dump things out of my ass

Syriously shoves shit up his.....

True Story


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



They have pills for that now.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill. 

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes_ himself. _And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Sorry for the delayed response I just finished a breeding and about to mount the next one.......

What were you sayin again?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Was it a mare or a filly?

And which pill did you take?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Except you two........

There I go, staying the obvious again

Gotta go lil fellas, there's more breeding to get done!

Where does the time fly?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Dude, do you know the rules this place has about accusing others of such naughty things?????


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh you are naive lil fella


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You were the one who brought up breeding- not me.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Now you are changing the argument again. You can't argue that because SB377 "doesn't mention" something that it can't mean something...then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mention something but does mean it. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention gay marriages, marriages or state sanctioning of marriages. Obviously, it applies... I've not argued that it doesn't.  But the same standard also applies to SB377, it doesn't have to say something specifically to mean something.



> 14th Amendment Section 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, you seem to be wanting me to argue with you about something that can't be argued. I'm fully aware of the equal protection clause and nothing in my argument attempts to refute it. I'm fully aware of the Obergefell ruling and I am not arguing against that... it's settled law now. Those points no longer need to be debated. 


> The criteria don't exclude same sex couples. ....._now_. They did before Obergefell. Now any same sex couple can qualify for the 'contract of marriage' as easily as they can the 'license of marriage'. This is why your distinction between 'contract' and 'license' is so wonderfully irrelevant.
> 
> See how that works?



Well, if you think that it's irrelevant, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree that it's irrelevant and I think the proponents of the bill thought it was relevant. But if you think it's so irrelevant, why are you spending so much time on this? If it truly doesn't change anything regarding rights or recognition, then it shouldn't bother you... right? 

But it seems like this really bugs the piss out of you. Here you have spent most of the day responding feverishly to every post I make, trying your best to downplay my points. What is your reasoning for that if none of this really means anything or matters?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Wow... over 800 replies yet "no one gives a shit!" 

I must be far more interesting than I imagined myself to be!


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.
> ...


What the fuck is wrong with your brain?  Where do you see a complaint in there?


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


This has been explained a hundred times to you. It's no one else's fault you are incapable of understanding; and as a result of your own limitations, you keep asking this over and over.

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Now you are changing the argument again.



Nope. Same argument. You just don't know how to read.



> You can't argue that because SB377 "doesn't mention" something that it can't mean something...then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mention something but does mean it.



I said that the 14th amendment mandated equal protection in the law. And that's exactly what it does:



			
				14th Amendment Section 1 said:
			
		

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction* the equal protection of the laws.*



See how that works? I say that the 14th amendment includes a particular passage. *And then I quote the 14th amendment itself saying it.*

You insist that SB377 mentions the 'sanctioning of marriage'. And then.....you just quote yourself. Notice in all of your pseudo-legal babble...in your entire reply, you never quoted SB377 once.

You've never even read SB377. Let alone quoted it. And have ignored actual citations from the bill repeatedly, instead making up whatever you can imagine about a bill you know nothing about.
*
Is there anything to your argument that *isn't* you just making shit up? *


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.



Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head. 

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage. 

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic partnership and leave that to the individual.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married. 

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No one has accepted you citing you as evidence of anything. That's the part you don't seem to get. 

You've never cited SB377. Yuo've never read the law. You know nothing about it. Instead you've ignored every citation of SB377. And made up your own imaginary version of the bill.....that only you can see.

And I'm having a ball demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.
> ...



I haven't mentioned a thing about the Constitution regarding your desire to end legal marriage. 

I have pointed out repeatedly that you want to take away the legal aspects of marriage that myself- and pretty much every married couple in the United States enjoys. 

What your proposal would do would require my wife and I to set up specific contracts to replace what is already in place, to negotiate with employers, and of course you pooh pooh social security payments. 

That will go over about as well as proposals to end the home owners interest deduction has. 

I understand that you are willing to screw over all married Americans just so you can 'kill homosexual marriage'- that is quite clear.

But it isn't going to happen.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I just can't believe the stupidity and hatred exuded by Pop and Boss Man.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.



LMFAOooo... Where are you "explaining" anything here... other than your bigoted moral-based opinion? You are making the exact same argument against brother-sister gay marriage as was made against gay marriage. But for some reason, you think that stomping your feet and pounding your fist proclaiming that "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage" is somehow supportable now. 

Are you that much of a narcissist? You honestly think the world genuflects toward you for wisdom on what IS or ISN'T something?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> What your proposal would do would require my wife and I to set up specific contracts to replace what is already in place...



Nope. Not what I advocated at all. 
Please try to read my posts without interjecting your own interpretative methodologies. 

When you can do that honestly, we can talk further.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.
> ...



Again, what does that mean?  Do you think the bill would have ended marriage laws?  Prevented benefits?  Stopped people from being legally recognized as next of kin?  Other than not needing a license to be married, what is the change this bill would have enacted which would make the state stop recognizing marriage and what does that mean?

Nothing in the text of the bill seems to indicate what you claim, you have yet to actually quote the bill to support your claim, yet you keep repeating it as though you expect someone to just take your word for it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.
> ...



Where does he say "they can't do THAT because that's not marriage"


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.
> ...



Getting rid of the 'perks' of marriage were one of the changes of your proposal. Can we add that to the list of shit that you've said....that you now admit the bill *doesn't* do?



> Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.



He never mentioned the constitution. You're just running from his argument.

There's no state that does what you do propose. There's not state that is even considering doing what you propose. *And there's utterly insufficient support among the public for it.*

*Which of course, you know. As whenever the topic is raised......you run from it.  Exactly as just did.*

Even in Alabama, one of the most right wing states there are.....all they proposed was changing the method of entering marriage. Not the laws, not the perks, not the records, not the recognition.

You made up all of that. And your imagination has no relevance to the law.



> Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties.



Unless they can't....which is almost always the case. As the pensions involve a third party: the organization paying them. Which almost never offers pensions to any adult 'beneficiary' of your choice.* But instead, to a spouse or dependents.* Social Security certainly doesn't.

You're confusing a savings account with a pension plan. They aren't the same thing.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about. And instead offer us layer upon layer of pseudo-legal gibberish that is invariably meaningless.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > What your proposal would do would require my wife and I to set up specific contracts to replace what is already in place...
> ...



If I waited for an honest post from you, I would never be responding.

You have called for an end for all government 'benefits' to marriage.

All the benefits my wife and I either currently have access to- or would be eligible for as a married couple or surviving spouses.

That would specifically harm my wife and I. It would harm almost every married couple in America.

And you are okay with that.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Where is any of the silly shit he's said in any law? Again, he's making this up as he goes along. The only source he ever cites.....is the rectal database. 

And he's almost always wrong.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.
> ...


I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as well. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED !  She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED.  No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You don't understand.

That is okay- because at least homosexuals won't get those benefits!


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



*But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.*

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership. 

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires. 

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The states clearly disagree with you. Including Alabama which most definitely sets criteria of marriage. And per the USSC have every right to, subject to constitutional guarantees.

Once again, you're ignoring the *actual* law and the *actual *supreme court rulings....in favor of what* you want* to be true. And what you want has no relevance to the law.

This is why your predictions of legal outcomes are almost always wrong: you keep replacing the actual law with your desires. And the law doesn't give a shit what you 'desire'.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

I said none of what you think I said.

What I did say is that no siblings can marry each other.

Who knows what the fuck is wrong with your brain that it translated that into what you posted?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Clearly you do hope that legal equality in marriage will end legal marriage. 

I do have a problem with you proposing eliminating every government- and private- recognition of my legal marriage and requiring every married couple to come up with alternate arrangements.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I didn't. Boss truly is fucking deranged.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And the law Alabama proposed would not change that. Nor have I advocated changing that. If, in the future, you have a Civil Union contract, it serves the exact same purpose.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Especially when doing nothing.....has the same outcome: legal equality. 

Its simple, free and instantaneous.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Wow....in charge, and on point.

Do you drive a huge 4-wheel drive?

At any rate...it sounds like the only thing you'll accomplish, and it also sounds like it's what you want...

If gays change the definition of marriage, you won't care about marriage anymore.

If so....what does it matter what's rattling around in your psyche?

Gay will still fall in love, have sex, and since natural selection hasn't resulted in their elimination...absolutely nothing reslts form you being in charge, and on point, wit your anti gay marriage crusade


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You have advocated getting rid of all the perks of marriage. And social security benefits are one of those perks.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Of course you also don't know which sex you're supposed to breed with, so your credibility is, at a minimum, suspect.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Complete horseshit on both counts. You have in fact consistently advocated  
the  elimination of  marital benefits, AND you know damned well that a civil union would NOT secure Social Security for my wife.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Unless their siblings, right?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Do you have that sentence as a macro...because its becoming your standard reply for almost everyone.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If you have a case to make for incest marriage, make it. 

But everytime I ask you to.....you always  abandon the argument. Strange that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I don't know about Boss, but I am completely cool with that idea.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.
> 
> What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.



And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't *have* to MENTION it!  Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium? 

As for "my version" ...we have  three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version. 

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Hey, just stating the obvious lil guy.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



As he said- gender is no longer a roadblock.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.
> ...



Reason left this thread in the OP.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You really think natural selection can weed out OCD?

Really?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



And up until a few weeks ago, neither could same sex.


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


I may regret asking this, because you're probably just trolling...

But, you don't think being gay is somehow linked to OCD.....do you?

(crossing fingers)


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.
> ...



Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.  In fact, you ignore that Alabama recognizes common law marriage, which is a type of marriage which does not include a license.  How can the state recognize common law marriage if not having a licensing requirement means it is not a recognized marriage?


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 7, 2015)

What is the matter with you who oppose gay marriage....I just don't understand the draw.

Is watching the occaisonal gay couple walk by so unbearable?

Is thinking of them living down the street freaking you out?

I know guys who were raised by low life Hells Angels, or guys who went to Prison, and I get why they have that hostility to anyone who isn't prepared to be bad ass at the drop of a hat. They're used to those guys getting abused.

But for regular people, needing to be macho...enough that you take out your insecurities on gays you don't even know, or didn't cause your baggage.....it's just savage, and uneccessary. Maybe if you hate gays, you should look to your own insecurities, or abuse from the past.

Of course if you're just against it because Republicans are, or your church is, that's different


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.

They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.

Lozers and boozers are what they are.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.
> 
> They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.
> 
> Lozers and boozers are what they are.



Imagine what these boards would have been like if they had existed back when Loving v. Virginia passed?

"Well we can just end legal marriage to 'kill mixed race marriage'
'If mixed race couples can marry- well why can't brothers and sisters?"


----------



## toxicmedia (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.
> 
> They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.
> 
> Lozers and boozers are what they are.


Well, it's never too late to drop the booze and get that monkey off your back.

Sometimes you'll find you're not so angered by stuff that doesn't affect you


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.
> ...


What they said was, "why can't gays marry then?"  So what?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.
> 
> Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?



Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another? 

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz  it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"  

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Nah, just keep messing with Boss.  This has been explained to him over and over, and his come back is, "Nuh uh," what a dork.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.
> ...



Which might have some relevance if  'homosexual' or 'homosexual marriage' was the basis of the Obergefell citation of the 14th amendment. Its not.

Instead, the* equal protection of the law* clause of the 14th Amendment  is one of the bases of the Obergefell ruing. And as I've taught you again and again, *the equal protection clause is most definitely part of the 14th amendment.*

So you're refuting an argument neither I nor the courts ever made. Also known as a strawman. A fallacy of logic.

The court's basis for citing the 14th is actually part of the 14th amendment. *Your basis for citing SB377....exists nowhere. Just the wastelands of your imagination. *

See how that works?



> As for "my version" ...we have  three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version



Remember the last time you tried accused me of a 'false' perception? Remember the pardons you had to ask of me?* I know your position better than you do, and I can quote you. *

*You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.* I can quote you. I can also quote SB377 obliterating your argument by citing the contract of marriage being a legal record of marriage in the State.

*You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage. *I can quote you. And I can also quote the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US constitution that requires every state to recognize the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State.

And I can cite the Obegefell decision explictily stating that states must recognize marriages from other States. Contradicting you twice.

And backing your claim? You. Citing you. Or as we call it in this thread: jack shit.

*You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'.* I can quote you. And you're clearly wrong. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'.

*You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. *Which is clearly nonsense. As the bill obviously states that a contract of marriage is considered a legal record of marriage. And that none of the marriage laws save the method of entering into marriage are changed.

*You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage.* And I can quote you. But SB377 sets strict criteria for marriage. Contradicting you.

Deny any of those claims I attribute to you. I know your argument better than you do. And can refute you, with evidence, on every point. You can't back any of those points with anything.* As none of your claims are mentioned in SB377...or anywhere else.*



> . You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.



I'm hell bent on holding you to your actual claims. And disproving them with better evidence, reasoning and command of the topic.

And I've already done that. Repeatedly. You're squirming now. Whining vaguely about 'misrepresentations' you can neither cite nor articulate. While I can quote you on every one of your claims.

Try again. This time with less whining.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.



Again... pretend I am a State... 

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law. 

As opposed to: 

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law. This does not make me a party to your reason for contract nor does it mean I condone, sanction or otherwise approve of your reasons for such arrangement. 

As I've said, I don't know how to break it down any further. One is clearly state implication in authorizing a specific act, the other is required state administration of statutory and contractual law. If you want to pretend there is no difference, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me if you understand the difference between the two or not. As long as neither of us have a problem with it, what is the beef here? Why is this thread blowing up to such huge proportions over something meaningless?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



How can the state recognize a contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage if they don't recognize marriage.

Boss' argument is hapless nonsense from beginning to end. And even he can't explain it.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.
> ...



To the contract *of marriage*....which is a legal record of marriage. A record submitted to the State Health Department and held by the State Health Department. With no other marriage laws changing.

*How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage......when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377? *

This is the part where your argument always breaks. You insist that the State no longer recognizes marriage.....when they obviously do. They've merely changed the way marriage is entered into.  This is why you can't find any support for your claims in SB377.....because SB377 does nothing you claim it does.

It doesn't mention 'sanctioning' marriage. Killing your silly argument yet again.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Yes, unless they're siblings. Or any other immediate family members. Or under the age of consent. Or one is not human.

There are restrictions on marriage. None of these have changed because of Obergefell.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.
> ...


Yup! Haters have to hate. Is just a matter of the target de jour.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Instead, the* equal protection of the law* clause of the 14th Amendment is one of the bases of the Obergefell ruing. And as I've taught you again and again, *the equal protection clause is most definitely part of the 14th amendment.*



And as you have already pointed out, the measure in Alabama does not violate equal protection... so why are you vociferously protesting? 

To me, it's a very dangerous thing when a political party goes this far off the deep end and can't be reasoned with anymore. When you  become trapped in perpetual "protest mode" and simply can't be dealt with rationally, then eventually it culminates in violence. Is that what you want? That's exactly where you are headed if you don't snap out of it and start being reasonable with people. 

Now, here has been presented a solution that traditionalists are satisfied with and it doesn't interfere with gay couples rights in any way... but you are hell bent on protesting... proving me wrong... denigrating me and insulting me... continuing to infer awful things about me... lying and manipulating things I've said... arguing just to hear yourself argue over things you admit don't really matter. 

I've not said that you aren't entitled to your opinion, but that continues to be your argument against me... I'm somehow not entitled to my opinion on this... you won't allow that. Well, you don't get to decide what my opinions are. If you ever manage to get SCOTUS to say you can, you can expect me to take up arms and declare war on you. I'm not a slave to you or government.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.
> ...


The Constitution also doesn't mention munchkins. That's because it's neither a statute nor the Wizard of Oz.

Unlike the Constitution, statutes, however; must contain all attributes of the desired law. Anything missing is not covered by the statute.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, the* equal protection of the law* clause of the 14th Amendment is one of the bases of the Obergefell ruing. And as I've taught you again and again, *the equal protection clause is most definitely part of the 14th amendment.*
> ...



Strawman. I'm not protesting SB377. As you well know, as you've quoted me saying as much.

*I'm objecting to your mischaracertizations of it.* SB377 doesn't eliminate marriage in Alabama, nor does it eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. It has nothing to do with 'sanctioning' anything. It doesn't even mention 'sanctioning'.

And when I challenge you to show us ANY of your claims in SB377.......you start babbling about the 14th amendment. The basis that the courts cited the 14th amendment under actually exists in the 14th amendment: equal protection of the law.
*
On the other hand, none of your batshit is anywhere in SB377.* Nor have you ever been able to quote anything supporting your argument about 'killing homosexual marriage' in SB377.

You made it all up.



> To me, it's a very dangerous thing when a political party goes this far off the deep end and can't be reasoned with anymore. When you  become trapped in perpetual "protest mode" and simply can't be dealt with rationally, then eventually it culminates in violence. Is that what you want? That's exactly where you are headed if you don't snap out of it and start being reasonable with people.



Or....*I've actually read SB377 and recognize that your claims have nothing to do with it.* As you do as well, as you can't cite any portion of the bill that supports your claims. And have ignored any citation of it.

The harder you try to change the subject, the more I know I've got you in the corner.



> Now, here has been presented a solution that traditionalists are satisfied with and it doesn't interfere with gay couples rights in any way... but you are hell bent on protesting... proving me wrong... denigrating me and insulting me... continuing to infer awful things about me... lying and manipulating things I've said... arguing just to hear yourself argue over things you admit don't really matter.



Here's what I've attributed to you. Highlight those that are 'lies and manipulation'.


You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. 

You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

*You don't deny any of these claims. As you know I can quote you making them all. *And I've already refuted every single one of your batshit allegations.

You keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.
> ...



There are several problems with you post. 


You keep saying that I am saying "I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz  it ain't right" - but that of course is to be charitable- false. I haven't said that at all. 

I have explained repeatedly why a constitutional right can be denied to one couple and not to another- for the same reason a state can deny the right to legally own a gun to one person- but not another. Why should I explain it again- when you will ignore it again?
But I will anyway- the State can deny a right when there is a compelling benefit- a legitimate interest- to the State- quoting from Wisconsin again:. 
*but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as*
_*marriage,* then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that *the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo*_
...
_Accordingly, this interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici,* does not provide a legitimate*_
*basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.*


And  what is that 'compelling state interest'? Well an interest most people can figure out- but not you?

 *Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*

*Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*

*IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?*


*

*
_*
*_


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The concept of the 9th amendment confuses Boss. He keeps arguing that if a right isn't in the constitution, it doesn't exist. 

Alas, the constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Nor was ever meant to be. A point the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear. 



> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution



And 'poof'....another piece of Bossy Batshit collapses in a little brown puddle.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Then you  should have absolutely no opposition to this and it wouldn't even concern you enough to comment. If you were compelled to take ANY position it should be that of absolute support for this... how can you possibly condone a state issuing a license for a constitutional right? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

Again, I think you've done an outstanding job of pointing out how nothing in the Alabama law will change the constitutional rights of any couple. We both agree on that! Now we are going to pass this bill in the next session and I think other states will follow.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.
> ...


For the same reasons a father couldn't marry his daughter before Obergefell even though marriage between a man and a woman was allowed.

You really suck at this.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.
> ...



Yet here you go writing three paragraphs demanding that we understand your opinion.

Clearly you do care every bit as much as we do. 

You are the one who started the thread- you were the one who insisted on arguing over 'sanction and recognition'.

Stop arguing the points and no one will argue back.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.
> ...



You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license.  You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.  

If the form you have to fill out says that the state of Alabama will grant you a marriage, does that still mean the state does not recognize your marriage?  The proposed bill stated repeatedly that marriage would remain the same under the law, just that the method of entering into that legal relationship would change.

I don't get why you put so much stock in a license with regards to state recognition of marriage.  I also don't get why you seem to think that marriages obtained through a license are not a form of contractual law.

Let me ask you this : do you think that anyone can write up a contract and legally become the immediate family member of another person?  Not through marriage, not through adoption, instead through a separate contract.  Do you think that Alabama would recognize those unmarried, not adopted people as immediate family members?  I believe there are certain aspects to marriage unique in contract law, but perhaps I am wrong.

Most everything discussed here could be construed as meaningless.  Certainly predictions of future laws which have no current precedents or backing might fall into that category.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



LMFAooo... A-GAIN.... you tear off on a long-winded rant that simply dodges the question! 

"Most people can figure out why it's wrong" is NOT answering the question! 

In fact, it is the very SAME ARGUMENT made by those who once opposed gay marriages. 

SUDDENLY... it seems to be a valid argument!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Strawman. For the *7th time*...its not SB377 that I object to. As you well know, as you've quoted me saying as much.

Its your characterizations of SB377 that I object to:


You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. 

You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage
None of your claims are true. All of which I can quote you saying. All of which I've already disproven with citations from the actual bill. Which is why you won't discuss any of them any more.

The harder you try to change the topic....the more I know I've got you in the corner.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.



When did I ignore that?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'Dodging the question"? Here's one that you run screaming from every time I ask it:

*How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377? *

Gee, I wonder what your excuse for refusing to answer will be this time?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Don't some firearms require a license to own?  The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, yet can require a license.

Alabama may well pass the bill.  Unfortunately it will not end the state's recognition of marriage, merely change the way those marriages are entered into, presumably to prevent those with an objection to same sex marriages from having to put their name to any such unions.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.
> ...



Right now. You refuse to address it, and have consistently this entire thread. 

If Alabama doesn't recognize marriage under SB377.....why do they recognize common law marriage under SB377?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.
> ...



When you claimed that removing the licensing requirement for marriage would end state sanctioning and recognition of marriage and instead turn it into just another contract.  How does that work if the state already recognizes marriages without contracts (common law)?  In fact, only a small number of states recognize common law marriages and Alabama is one of them.  Strange that a state which goes against the majority in recognizing non-licensed marriages would somehow end recognition of non-licensed marriages while, in the same bill, state that nothing would change regarding common law (non-licensed) marriages.....


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Good luck. I've asked him about SB377's recognition of contracts of marriage as legal records of marriage with the State health Department. And he has run like my question had a hockey mask and a machete.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You just ignored everything in my post.

Let me repeat.

First I pointed out that you lied about what I said.
Then I pointed out how you ignored what i had said.
Then I answered one of your questions- which you ignored again.
And then I asked you a question- which you dodged- so once again:


*Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*

*Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*

*IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?*


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Strawman. For the *7th time*...its not SB377 that I object to.



Good, then shut the fuck up and move on. 



Skylar said:


> Its your characterizations of SB377 that I object to:



And I don't give a shit what you object to. 



Skylar said:


> None of your claims are true.



Good, that's your opinion... now shut the fuck up and move on. 



Skylar said:


> All of which I've already disproven with citations from the actual bill.



You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it. I disagree with your opinion. The legislators who crafted SB377 disagree with your opinion. But what difference does it make if the legislation (admittedly by you) changes nothing? 

It seems to me, if your opponent has found some way to accept your victory, you should be thankful for that. Especially if that way doesn't interfere with any rights or change anything. That should be cause to celebrate. But it seems like you don't feel like celebrating with me... seems like you want to be as belligerent as you can and keep on arguing for gay marriage and equality as if those issue are still unsettled. 

It's almost feeling like you are angry and mad at me because I am not trying to defiantly reject the SCOTUS ruling or denounce gay marriage as unconstitutional. You are livid that the State of Alabama aren't acting like a bunch of 50s era segregationists and trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. It pisses you off that the rednecks aren't standing in the schoolhouse door so you can protest and work people into a frenzy. Our SB377 is simply denying you all of that and you can't hardly stand it... it's too much to bear. How DARE we pass a law that doesn't violate your rights in any way or fail to uphold the statutory requirements of your gay marriages! We could have AT LEAST included some homophobic language for you to attack!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it.



You're confusing us. YOU have presented nothing but your opinion.* I've quoted SB377 explicitly refuting you. *And the USSC refuting you. And the 14th amendment. And the Constitution.

Our sources aren't equal.



> I disagree with your opinion. The legislators who crafted SB377 disagree with your opinion.



Says you, pretending to be those legislators.*See how at no point do you ever quote anyone but yourself?*

You pretending to be a legislator in Alabama isn't evidence. Quote Alabama legislators disagreeing with me. Or admit you can't.



> But what difference does it make if the legislation (admittedly by you) changes nothing?
> 
> It seems to me, if your opponent has found some way to accept your victory, you should be thankful for that. Especially if that way doesn't interfere with any rights or change anything. That should be cause to celebrate. But it seems like you don't feel like celebrating with me... seems like you want to be as belligerent as you can and keep on arguing for gay marriage and equality as if those issue are still unsettled.
> 
> It's almost feeling like you are angry and mad at me because I am not trying to defiantly reject the SCOTUS ruling or denounce gay marriage as unconstitutional. You are livid that the State of Alabama aren't acting like a bunch of 50s era segregationists and trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. It pisses you off that the rednecks aren't standing in the schoolhouse door so you can protest and work people into a frenzy. Our SB377 is simply denying you all of that and you can't hardly stand it... it's too much to bear. How DARE we pass a law that doesn't violate your rights in any way or fail to uphold the statutory requirements of your gay marriages! We could have AT LEAST included some homophobic language for you to attack!



Wow. How many desperate attempts at changing the topic was that? I lost count at 11. Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:


You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. 

You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

*You don't deny any of these claims. As you know I can quote you making them all. *And I've already refuted every single one of your batshit allegations with direct quotations from SB377.

Which is why you refuse to discuss any of them. If even you are going to abandon your own batshit....surely you can understand why none of us take it seriously.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Oh, and you were babbling earlier about 'dodging questions'. I want you to demonstrate it for us. Now please:

*How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377? *

Keep running. It makes me giggle.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?



Well, I have answered this several times but I can answer again if you like... 

It's because "licensing" is a legal authorization on behalf of the authority to do something and administering or documenting legal and statutory contractual arrangements between private parties is not.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it.
> ...



So now, apparently what you've decided to do is flood the thread with repeats of what you've already posted.
*
The moderators should ban you from USMB for this... they won't but they should.*

This tactic is used often by pinheads who are losing their argument badly. You just flood the board like a cat in a cat box trying to cover it's turds... page after page of the same thing over and over again, so that any point I may have made is lost in your kitty litter.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?
> ...



So Alabama doesn't recognize marriage...except for every legal record of marriage, common law marriage, and all laws pertaining to marriage on their books. 

I don't think 'recognize' means what you think it means.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What I've decided to do is challenge you to show me a single 'lie or manipulation' in the positions I've attributed to you.


You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. 

You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage
*Just highlight the one that is a 'lie or manipulation'. And I'll quote you saying it*. You know and I know that I've_ perfectly_ relayed your position.
*
You were just wrong.* And I can prove you're wrong with citations from SB377. And have repeatedly. Which is why you won't discuss any of those positions, refuse to show me which of the positions I've attributed to you is a 'lie', and are desperately trying to change the topic.

Its your tell.


> The moderators should ban you from USMB for this... they won't but they should.



Obvious nonsense. As I'm discussing your claims specifically and directly. You're the one going on personal tangents. You're trying to change the topic to *anything* but your debunked nonsense.

Smiling.....no thank you. I like this topic. You've got nothing to back your claims about SB377. Jack shit. While I have SB377 explicitly contradicting you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:
> 
> 
> You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
> ...



1. It eliminates official state recognition and sanction of marriages. It does not seek to defy statutory requirements or obligations to record vital statistics. Nor does it seek to deny recognition of any other contractual domestic relationship. I've never claimed otherwise. 

2. The Constitution doesn't require any state to sanction any kind of marriage. 

3. It is.  Otherwise, there is no purpose to the bill... it's pointless. 

4. Nonsense, I didn't say that. The State is not going to sanction marriages. They will still HAVE marriages. 

5. No, I claimed that under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to call whatever they want marriage.  The state doesn't have to recognize it, you don't have to agree with it and we don't have to bestow benefits to it... but you can call anything you want marriage and no one can stop you.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:
> ...



If a license is required for official state recognition of marriages, how is it that multiple states, including Alabama, officially recognize unlicensed common-law marriages?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?
> ...



Do you believe that licensing is the only means by which the government can legally authorize someone to do something?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:
> ...



Nope. Not even close. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'. That's just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless jibberjabber.

Back in reality, Alabama stilll recognizes marriage, despite your claim that it doesn't recognize marriage of any kind, it still recognizes common law marriage. Contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage, held at the Department of Health of the State of Alabama. Just like licenses are now.

Every marriage that's legal now...is recognized under SB377. Common law, statutory, out of state or otherwise. Says who. Says SB377, of course! 

Alabama recognizing contracts of marriage as legal records of marriage in Alabama:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph E said:
			
		

> e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
> record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the  Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.



And no other changes to marriage, including common law marriage:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph F said:
			
		

> (f) This section shall not affect any other legal  aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
> to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.



Nothing you've described regarding 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' is happening under SB377. Not a single perk is stripped from anyone. Not a single marriage is not recognized. 

There is nothing in SB377 to back any of your imaginary nonsense. 

Next Fallacy please!



> 2. The Constitution doesn't require any state to sanction any kind of marriage.



The Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution says otherwise.



			
				US Constitution Article IV Section 1 said:
			
		

> Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof



 Even if Alabama no longer had marriage (which it obviously does under SB377), other states will. And Alabama is constitutionally obligated to honor them. 

Next fallacy please!




> 3. It is.  Otherwise, there is no purpose to the bill... it's pointless.



What's pointless is offering us your personal opinion as SB377. You citing you is legally meaningless.

SB377 makes no mention of 'sanctioning' anything. You made that up, pulled sideways out of your ass. Making the term legally meaningless. So ends your legal argument.

As for opinions on its purpose, it removing judges from the process both saves money and shields Alabama from lawsuits when an Alabama judge tries to Kim Davis up and refuse to respect the Obergefell ruling. *Especially when your chief Justice Moore is telling Alabama judges to violate Federal Court orders on the matter.*

There's your purpose. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense than your imagination narrative. Which of course, you can't back up with anything.

Next Fallacy please!



> 4. Nonsense, I didn't say that. The State is not going to sanction marriages. They will still HAVE marriages.



Of course you did:



			
				boss said:
			
		

> The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married.
> Post 135
> 
> Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 14 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



SB377 never mentions 'sanctioning' anything. You made that up. So any argument using the term is legally meaningless. Alabama most definitely has marriages under SB377, marriages recognized by the State, marriages recorded by the State, marriages whose records are held by the State in their Department of Health. 

*In fact, the marriages of SB377 aren't valid...until the State records them.* 

With every law pertaining to marriage still fully enforced and honored. Save.....licenses are then contracts. Read SB377 above and weep, buddy. 



> 5. No, I claimed that under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to call whatever they want marriage.



No, you cited the Alabama law. See your post #155. 

Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where you insisted this had 'already happened in Alabama and it passed'"



			
				boss said:
			
		

> Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.



And you were obviously wrong. Alabama law has very specific criteria on what marriages it will valid



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 paragraph b2 said:
			
		

> (2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.



So how can the state eliminate recognition of marriage.....*.but legally authorize people to be married? *

*"Legally authorize' explicitly contradicts your entire narrative.* As it demonstrates BOTH legal recognition of marriage by the State and permission by the State. As how can they 'legally authorize' something over which they have no control nor say?

You yourself made it clear that the state could only eliminate recognition if they got rid of tax regulation:



			
				boss said:
			
		

> People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations.
> 
> Post 84
> Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 9 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



But SB377 doesn't even mention taxation, let alone do away with it. *Meaning that by your own standards the State would still need to recognize marriage under SB377. *

Another piece of Bossy Batshit puddles into a little puddle of brown goo.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Obviously SB377 doesn't. As Section, Paragraph 2B makes ludicriously clear:



> (2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.



And there you have it. Legally authorized. So how can the state eliminate recognition of marriage.....*.but legally authorize people to be married? *

Sigh.....Silly Bossy. He really didn't think this through.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I think you just answered your own question. 

We've already gone through this obtuse meandering over the word "recognize" and what we are talking about in context of *state authorization* versus *statutory requirement*. It's a pretty significant difference between "recognition" in the context of *authorizing and sanctioning* as opposed to "recognizing" in the context of _acknowledging the existence of_. 

I recognize Peyton Manning is a football player. It doesn't mean that I am bestowing an award of recognition on Peyton Manning for being an outstanding football player... those are two completely different concepts and contexts for the word "recognize" and most non-retarded people comprehend that sort of nuance in definition and context... you apparently are missing that gene.  

Even though, I have patiently explained it to you several times already, you still seem to want to cling to your obtuse reasoning which is very simple-minded and devoid of contextual understanding.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Nope. Not even close. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'.



AAAAnd... the Constitution and 14th Amendment doesn't even mention marriage, homosexuals or gay marriage.... so we are back to square one.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And by 'obtuse meandering', you mean we agreed that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about?

The State of Alabama obviously recognizes marriage under SB377. As they still have marriage, they still have requirements of marriage, they still *require people be legally authorized*, they still recognize contracts of marriage as legal records of marriage, and they hold those records with the State Health Department.

With every other marriage law, including common law marriage, upheld and unchanged.

*Yeah, I don't think 'recognized' means what you think it means*. Especially when none of the distinctions you've offered have a thing to do with 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'.



> It's a pretty significant difference between "recognition" in the context of *authorizing and sanctioning* as opposed to "recognizing" in the context of _acknowledging the existence of_.



In terms of any of the 'perks' of marriage or any of the laws surrounding marriage...its irrelevant.

Even you can't explain how switching to a contract does anything to foward your silly 'Killing Gay Marriage'. Or removing the State from marriage.

Remember, under SB377.....*the State HAS to be involved. A marriage isn't valid until its recorded with the State.* Worse of all for you is Section 1, Paragraph 2B:



			
				Alabama SB377 Section 1 Paragraph 2B said:
			
		

> A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.



"Legally authorized to be married.*" So now your 'significant distinction' is down to 'Authorized' and 'Authorized'. *

With no loss of perks for anyone, no change in legal status for anyone, the State still intregally involved in marriage, all marriage laws still in effect, the State still recognizing marriage, still recording marriage, common law marriage still on the books...

.....and not a damn thing toward your 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' gibberish.

As I said....SB377 includes none of your claims. As you demonstrate for us each time you ignore it.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Not even close. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'.
> ...



AAAAnd... its still a strawman. As the courts citation of the 14th amendment was on the basis of the *equal protection clause*. Which is absolutely mentioned. 

While none of your 'sanctioning' jibber jabber is EVER mentioned anywhere in all of SB377. You made it up. Do you see the difference?* The courts cited an actual quotation.* *You cited an imaginary quote.*

And can I take it from your complete abandonment of every other point you raised and I just refuted....that you concede those points:


You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind. 

You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage
If so, that was easy.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 7, 2015)

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.

Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


If you required Payment Manning to submit legal documentation to you that he is an outstanding football player for him to be considered an outstanding football player; and you accept said documentation that he's an outstanding football player, then yes, you would be recognizing he is an outstanding football player.

Much like the way my state recognizes my legal authority to drive my car on public roads because I submit auto registration to them and they accept it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



This bill would* abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license* from the judge of  probate.  This bill would provide that marriage would  be entered into *by simple contract*, would specify  the information required to be included in the  contract of marriage, would specify that each party  entering into a contract of marriage would submit a  properly executed contract to the judge of probate  for recording, and would require the judge of  probate to forward a copy of the contract of  marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics.

Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, *the only requirement* to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein. 
 (b) A contract to be married shall contain the 
 following minimum information: 
 (1) The names of the parties. 
 (2) A statement that the parties are legally 
 authorized to be married. 
 (3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and 
 based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage. 
 (4) The signatures of the parties.

Again... the purpose of the bill is NOT to infringe on any  person's constitutional rights or defy the recent SCOTUS ruling.  IF you believe that is what I have argued or what I have claimed this bill will do, then you are either being dishonest or you've misinterpreted what I've posted. 

I have repeatedly (about 50 times now) said that this is about the official state sanctioning of marriage through the process of licensing... (Licensing being the official authorization to do something, as the dictionary will confirm.) Replacing that process with one of CONTRACT between parties, of which the State is not associated or affiliated in any way, nor a party to the reason for said contract between private parties. 

A-GAin.... ALL of you are essentially claiming this doesn't change a thing and doesn't matter with regard to "gay marriage" at all... I say GREAT!  We've obviously found a solution we can all live with!  But that doesn't seem to be satisfactory because the thread continues to be a constant fight with me having to correct your inaccurate interpretations  of what I have said and your incessant ranting that this does nothing to effect gay marriages. 

I really am curious as to your explanation on why you are all so hot on this topic if it doesn't matter? 

I mean... it makes no sense... isn't there something more compelling you need to be spending your time arguing about with right-wingers? Why bother wasting this much time on something that matters so little and is so insignificant?  Just go to the top of the thread and check "unfollow this thread" have a laugh and move on!  Isn't your time more valuable than to waste it on something that doesn't mean anything and won't matter?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

toxicmedia said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > toxicmedia said:
> ...



Indeed dude


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.
> 
> Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?



Well Skylar... since Alabama legislators don't generally construct legislation just for the sake of nothingness... I have to assume they had some justification and reasoning behind this. Unless they all just went bat-shit crazy one day and decided to start writing up absolute meaningless bills for no reason. Since most of them are up for re-election, I can't see them doing such a stupid thing. 

I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to think they crafted this rather long and arduous bill because they were bored and didn't have anything else to do... so be it! I don't care what you think to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. You keep acting like it should, but I don't know why... it's like a riddle or something. 

If you don't think  this bill does anything to violate the rights of gay couples or interfere with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage... I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I agree... I don't see anything wrong with the bill whatsoever. If you don't think it changes the nature of the state's association with marriage, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.. I disagree. But if you want to believe that, it's fine with me too. I don't have a problem with you having a wrong opinion.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Except, of course, that under the proposed bill Alabama would still recognize marriages exactly as they did before.  The only difference would be how those marriages are obtained.  Your entire premise in this is based on the idea that only through licensing can the state sanction or recognize something.  You provide no reason or evidence for why this is true, simply claim it and expect it to be believed.

Alabama would do more than 'acknowledge the existence of' marriage under the bill.  The state would do everything it had done previously, including all marriage related laws, taxes, rights and responsibilities.  The only thing that would change would be that instead of obtaining a license the parties involved would submit the proper paperwork to the appropriate government office.  This prevents those opposed to same sex marriage from having to 'sanction' or 'recognize' those marriages as individuals while still allowing the government to do so.

Can you show anywhere, through definition or example or statute, that licensing is required for a government to sanction or recognize something?  I can give you a definition, such as 'Official permission or approval' for sanction sanction | an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country, etc. which indicates otherwise, as marriages would still require official permission/approval under the bill.  Marriage would still be granted by the state.  

You also still haven't answered one of my previous questions : do you think that two unrelated people can enter into a non-marital, non-adoption contract and the state will recognize them as immediate family?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I do object, but objecting and.........

Finding a compelling state interest to deny these individuals the rights and benefits to of the licence, one that does not have sex as a requirement are, once again........

Two different things entirely


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.
> ...



It's been brought up to you multiple times that the bill would avoid problems of same sex marriage opponents having to put their name to marriage licenses ala Kim Davis.  No one has said the bill had no purpose but you.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Is there any reason you would think that licensing is the only way for the state to officially authorize something?

Is there a reason you think licensed marriage is not a form of contract?

How is the state not associated nor affiliated in marriage if there are numerous laws regarding marriage, civil marriages can only be obtained through state authorization, civil marriages must be recorded by the state, etc.?  

Do you think that under the bill marriage would be subject to changes not available with licenses?

Why do you think licensing is the only way the state is involved in something?  It boggles the mind.  If every other law and regulation regarding marriage remains the same, every marriage is authorized, granted and recorded by the state, unlicensed marriages are already recognized by the state, there are other forms of sanctioning or authorization already in use by the state (ever heard of a permit?), how can the state be not sanctioning, not recognizing, not associated with and not affiliated in any way with marriage?  Please, show the definition of license in which it is the sole measure by which government sanctions or recognizes or is associated with or affiliated with marriage.  Or give an example of something gaining or losing a licensing requirement which changed state recognition.  Or any evidence, at all, to bolster your claim.  

Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage (pun intended ).


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Your state LICENSES you to drive your car on public roads. 

The Peyton Manning example was regarding the usage of the word "recognize" or "recognition" in context.  Manning wouldn't have to submit documentation to me that he is an outstanding player for me to consider him one. That is a determination I am free to make with or without the documentation from Manning. I certainly couldn't be compelled to give him an award for being an outstanding player if I didn't believe he was. Even if I believe he IS an outstanding player, I am not compelled to give him any recognition for it. The Constitution does not require me to give Peyton an award for being an outstanding player. It doesn't require me to give any player any awards... whether they deserve them or don't deserve them... whether it's fair or not fair... doesn't matter. Now... SCOTUS may have a 5-4 insane and lawless ruling that if I am going to hand out awards to outstanding players, I must recognize Peyton Manning equally. And I may decide that I don't want to hand out awards anymore.  And that's where we are now.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Strawman. For the *7th time*...its not SB377 that I object to.
> ...





Boss said:


> But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up



Hypocrite much?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



LMAO... when did I say the bill had no purpose? That has been YOUR argument, Skylar's argument, Syriusly's argument, PatriotQueer's argument... not MY argument. 

But now it seems you are coming around... you are right... it remedies the Kim Davis problem. People in Alabama don't want to sanction same-sex marriages and they're not gunna! We are going to ultimately adopt what I have advocated all along, civil unions by contract. "Marriage" will be retained by the people and their clergy as it should be, and everyone is happy, happy, happy! 

Except you retards... who just seem to want to be in perpetual fight mode.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> LMAO... when did I say the bill had no purpose? That has been YOUR argument, Skylar's argument, Syriusly's argument, PatriotQueer's argument... not MY argument.
> 
> But now it seems you are coming around... you are right... it remedies the Kim Davis problem. People in Alabama don't want to sanction same-sex marriages and they're not gunna! We are going to ultimately adopt what I have advocated all along, civil unions by contract. "Marriage" will be retained by the people and their clergy as it should be, and everyone is happy, happy, happy!
> 
> Except you retards... who just seem to want to be in perpetual fight mode.



No, nitwit.  No one has made that argument, you have decided that argument was made on your own.  You say it was my argument, but the post you just quoted where I give you the likely reason for the bill is not the first time I've explained that, nor am I the only one to have said it.  You can feel free to show where someone has claimed the bill was created for the sake of nothingness or because legislators were bored, have at it!  I'll happily admit I am wrong.  However, the only person I can remember making such statements is you.

Maybe one day the phrase civil unions will replace marriage.....I very seriously doubt it will be any time soon.  Heterosexual, homosexual, or other, I don't see anything vaguely like strong support for the notion anywhere.


----------



## Faun (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.

My license to drive has nothing to do with my car.

I have to register my car for the state to recognize my legal authority for that car to be driven on public roads.

As far as your Manning analogy, your acceptance of such a letter is you recognizing the content. If you don't accept the content, you don't accept the letter. That is akin to someone submitting a marriage contract to the state. If the state accepts it, they recognize the couple is legally married. If for some reason the couple does not qualify to be married, the state does not accept the contract and does not recognize their marriage.

So simple, even a simp like you should be able to grasp that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Again... I am  not obligated to "prove" something to you.  If you want to believe the Alabama law doesn't change or effect anything at all... that's fine by me! I don't care what you believe. It's not up to me to convince you that you're wrong.... it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



No one here is obligated to do anything for any other poster.  So what?  Should I not ask for evidence because you don't *have* to give it?

If you don't care what I believe, it doesn't make a bit of difference, why on Earth do you continue to respond?  Why not just be happy with your delusions and ignore this?


----------



## Boss (Oct 7, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You can feel free to show where someone has claimed the bill was created for the sake of nothingness or because legislators were bored, have at it! I'll happily admit I am wrong. However, the only person I can remember making such statements is you.



Well that's all any of you pro-gay tards have been saying through over 900 posts now... suddenly it's NOT what you've been saying and what you are now saying is exactly what I said from Post #1.

You just posted: _*Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage.
*_
Either the bill removes the state from officially sanctioning marriages or it doesn't. It can't do both.

You keep trying to interject all kinds of inflammatory claims that I have never made. I never said a damn thing about "divorcing the state from the institution of marriage" and I don't know where you derived such a thing. The State still has statutory requirements to uphold... I've given you that point... wayyyyy back, about 20 pages ago. I've explained the very clear difference between licensing an act and administering a contract to two individual parties. You don't seem to comprehend there is a difference. You went merrily skipping off into la-la-land on a serendipitous obsession with the word "recognize" like you're retarded and don't understand the context.

So this really comes down to you, with your infantile comprehension of context, trying to debate something intelligently and failing all over the place.. then, resorting to your usual myopic focus on some minutia that you think you've got nailed down. When that doesn't work out, you try to twist my  argument around and pretend that your making MY argument to ME. That's the real gut buster!


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 7, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You can feel free to show where someone has claimed the bill was created for the sake of nothingness or because legislators were bored, have at it! I'll happily admit I am wrong. However, the only person I can remember making such statements is you.
> ...



No one but you has said the bill does nothing.  You don't provide a quote to anyone saying such a thing because you cannot.  It's just something else you've made up.  You seem to think that the only possibilities here are that someone agrees with your interpretation of the proposed Alabama bill or they think it does nothing at all.

You have said that the bill ends state sanctioning of marriage.  You have said the bill ends state recognition of marriage.  You have said the bill ends association of the state with marriage.  You have said the bill ends affiliation of the state with marriage.  That is, quite obviously, where I get that you think the bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage.  You've been talking over and over about getting the government out of marriage, did my phrasing somehow upset you?

The state has statutory requirements to uphold, somehow accomplished without sanction, recognition, association or affiliation.  I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.  I've explained that while I understand there is a difference in the way marriage would be obtained under the bill, that does not mean the state no longer sanctions or recognizes or is affiliated with or associated with marriage.  I have provided examples of unlicensed marriages recognized by the state of Alabama as well as forms of government authorization and recognition other than license.  You have had various portions of the bill in question quoted to you, by multiple posters on multiple occasions, to show you where you are in error in your interpretation.  You, on the other hand, have refused to quote anything but yourself in trying to show why your claims are true.  You provide zero evidence and in fact complain when asked for such.  You claim not to care at all about my opinion yet respond to my posts again and again.  You complain about me twisting your argument in the very post you claim that others have been making an argument they have never made.

Yes, I am the one with comprehension issues.....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Still no one has explained how we can kill fag marriage.

The answer is apparent. Let nature run its course and it will solve itself


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> No one but you has said the bill does nothing.



Huh? Why in the hell would I say such a thing? You have a quote of me saying the bill does nothing?  I doubt that, since I have been arguing with you since page 1 about how the bill ends state sanctioning of marriages. 

But I went back and looked to see how many times someone tried to argue that the bill essentially does nothing. Here is a fairly comprehensive list through page 13: 



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *It was a stupid idea that would solve nothing and result in a myriad of problems and unintended consequences.*





Montrovant said:


> What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?





Skylar said:


> Its a moot point.





Skylar said:


> It doesn't matter.





Skylar said:


> And it doesn't matter if Alabama calls marriage a 'contract' or an 'agreement' or a 'license', 'compact' or a turkey sandwich. Whatever they call it gays are afforded the same terms.





Skylar said:


> Making Alabama's entire little tantrum gloriously irrelevant.





Syriusly said:


> All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same... Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same..





Skylar said:


> It doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage or how they record it.





Montrovant said:


> This has already been answered by Syriusly and skylar, but I'll reply as well.
> 
> Civil marriage is already a type of contract.  Getting a license does not change that.  Filling out forms for a government office rather than obtaining a license does not change the state's recognition of marriage.  The bill states, over and over, that marriage will continue to exist in and be recognized by the state of Alabama.
> 
> Again.....nothing would change with the proposed bill other than the method by which state sanctioned civil marriages are obtained.  Nothing.





Skylar said:


> The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.
> 
> Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage





Faun said:


> What you call eliminating state-issued marriage licenses for all ... unless you get it done in all 50 states, it's pointless...





Faun said:


> And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.





Syriusly said:


> Neither sanctions marriage or doesn't sanction marriage- they both recognize marriage.





Syriusly said:


> Exactly as Alabama recognizes marriage now. Just with a fill in the form rather than a license.



So we see by this, the main "argument" has been that the Alabama proposal would have basically changed nothing but a minor administrative thing that didn't matter. By the way, as of page 13, I did not find a quote from me that nothing is changed. Could be, I made a sarcastic reply to someone and your Forrest Gump mind interpreted it that way.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.



Yep... and a gun  is still a form of weapon even if it's not registered to a licensed user.

It is the license which associates the State with the action being licensed.

*li·cense*
_noun _
1. a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages).
"a gun license"
synonyms: *permit*, certificate, document, documentation, *authorization*, warrant

So we are clear on this... The State of Alabama issuing a LICENSE to marry, is officially sanctioning, endorsing, condoning, permitting, authorizing the act of marriage.  There is no ambiguity, this is clearly state sanctioning of marriage, plain and simple.

*con·tract*
_noun_
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

The State of Alabama administering a contract between two parties is not sanctioning anything. The State is not a party to the contract. They are not permitting, authorizing, sanctioning, endorsing, condoning or even recognizing the nature or reason for the contract. The only reason they are required by statutory law to record the contract is to prevent multiple contracts from the same parties and for vital statistics.

They still have to administer statutory law regarding the contract, they still have to uphold contract law with regard to the contract. The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license. If those benefits should ever cease for married couples, they would also cease for those with contracts. In other words, from a legal standpoint, there is no difference. But there CAN'T be a difference or it would violate the SCOTUS ruling and the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional rule of law. That's important to note, as you all  parade through and lament how this law changes virtually nothing... it's not supposed to change much... that's the point.

The thing it changes fundamentally is the state's complicity or association with the act of marriage.

This is what I mean by "sanctioning."

*sanc·tion*
_verb_
1. give official permission or approval for (an action).

*AKA: WHAT ALABAMA WILL NO LONGER BE DOING WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE! *


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2015)

You have a right to what you thin, Boss.

You are wrong is the point, and why has been clearly pointed out and why.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.
> ...





> The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license


.

And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > No one but you has said the bill does nothing.
> ...



Would have changed nothing *but a minor administrative thing.*  That minor administrative thing is the whole point.  As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state.  What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does *not* do what you claim it does.

When I said you are the only one who said the bill is going to do nothing, I did not mean you made the claim it would do nothing.  I meant you are the only one who has said that such a claim was made.  I should have been clearer, apparently.  You are the only one who has posted the statements that the bill does nothing or that legislators created it because they were bored.  You were attributing those things to others who had not said those things.

You are correct, the bill would change nothing but a minor administrative matter.  That means it is changing something, not nothing.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.
> ...



That state of Alabama must give permission or approval for persons to be married.  Marriage contracts will not be whatever the parties desire them to be, they must still follow the same rules as before the bill.  The state will still provide the same benefits to married couples as before the bill.  The state absolutely recognizes the reason for the marriage, as every aspect of marriage law would remain the same other than the method of entering into marriage.  The nature of marriage does not change under the bill.  

The state of Alabama already recognizes unlicensed marriages with civil marriages.  How is that possible if, as you claim, marriages without the issuance of a license are unrecognised by the state?

Look, how's this : you can have the word sanction.  It's yours.  The state doesn't sanction marriages under the bill if you say so.  However, the state does continue to recognize marriage under the bill.  Would that make you happy?


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.



It's not over 'til the fat tranny sings. Alabama will pass a bill next session and it will probably not be the first state to do so. Our financial situation requires that we cut benefits at some point soon, that is inevitably going to happen regardless of gay marriage. And I think, as people begin to realize what a problem gay marriage has caused in terms of affording equal rights to other sexually-oriented groups who will challenge the law the same as homosexuals, we will see more and more support for this approach. 

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. Most pro-gay marriage supporters, when asked why they support gay marriage, reply instantly... it's because they think gay couples deserve the same rights and benefits as straight couples. Well, the matter of equal rights has been settled by SCOTUS. Remove "benefits" for all marriage and the support for gay marriage evaporates. 

We also have to remember, societal and cultural views don't exist in a never-changing vacuum. We can look at our own history and see the "progressive" movement actually ratify an amendment to the constitution to ban alcohol. This  resulted in a decade of promiscuity we call "the roaring 20s" where people basically "broke wild" and it's probably a wonder we didn't adopt gay marriage then. However, the next generation was more reserved and refined, society became more conservative. Through WWII and the 50s, we remained conservative until the 60s counterculture. So for a decade, again we're a liberal society. Then what happened? Through the mid 70's to the 80s, we became conservative again.  We're currently in a liberal phase but this is bound to change as it always does.  

You see, kids grow up. They look at what their parents did, the things that were important to their parents, the things their parents were into or supported... and they do as kids always have, they rebel. They seek to be the total opposite of who their parents were because that's no longer 'cool' anymore. As liberal as the current generation is, the next generation will be just as conservative. It's like an ever-moving pendulum that swings back and forth. 

So this is not over by a long shot. Eventually, government will be removed from all aspects of marriage and the motivations for gays to marry will vanish as fast as they came. Will there still be married gays? Of course! We'll never kill this entirely. But it will be such a rare and obscure thing we'll hardly notice it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Would have changed nothing *but a minor administrative thing.* That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does *not* do what you claim it does.



Well sure it does, you're just trying to interject a bunch of things I never claimed it would do and form an argument around that. As I said, this is not a "stand in the schoolhouse door" moment. Alabama is not going to try and pass some law that defies the SCOTUS or the ruling in this case. This is why it changes nothing with regard to legality and makes very little difference in terms of what "still can" be done. What it changes is the nature of the relationship between government and marriage. It removes government from whatever society has defined as marriage and makes that an individual choice not associated with the government. Yes, it does remedy the Kim Davis problem but it does far more. 

It's the first step in "cutting off the head of the snake" so to speak. Once government is out of the marrying business, legislators will methodically begin to remove state and government "benefits" whenever they can. The tax deduction for married couples will likely be the first thing to go. Some GOP candidates are already proposing Flat tax and Fair tax plans... others, even on the left, are screaming and hollering about "loopholes" being closed... well, the tax break for married couples IS a loophole. And it's when all of this transpires that we begin to see less and less reason for gays to go through the formalities. Some will-- most won't bother. Now you are down to a fraction of a fraction. Gay marriage eventually becomes so obscure it's almost unheard of. I estimate 15-20 years for all of this to transpire.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Not if the state of Alabama decides to not license marriages any more, dude.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Would have changed nothing *but a minor administrative thing.* That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does *not* do what you claim it does.
> ...



Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Clearly you did not read the proposed bill which has been linked and quoted over and over again.  Based on that bill, yes, the state would still have to approve marriages.  Even without a licensing requirement the rules surrounding marriage would remain in place.  Further, Alabama already recognizes and permits common law marriages which are entered into without license.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Not only am I not a liberal, you have already shown yourself unwilling or unable to follow the conversation you've decided to interject yourself into.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Not surprised that Boss doesn't want to answer the question

You just ignored everything in my post.

Let me repeat.

*Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*

*Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*

*IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?*


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You object- but you can't think of any compelling reason why a son should not marry his infertile mother?

*Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son should marry his infertile mother?*

*Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son should marry his infertile mother?*

*IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?*


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?



The real problem here is the dishonesty. If you go back and read the replies from the start of this thread, you see a pattern of dishonesty in discourse from page 1. Over and over, I have to correct someone who is either misquoting me or taking me out of context, or even interjecting totally crazy shit that I never said but implying I said it. They try to morph your arguments into something crazy they can attack and a lot of people don't know how to deal with it, so they get away with this and feel emboldened. 

The other thing that is prevalent is their bigotry and hypocrisy. They assume because I am a conservative, I must fit this 'stereotype' they've concocted for all things conservative. They don't judge me by what I say, it doesn't matter what I say, it's all about their perception based on a bigoted stereotype and I guarantee that attribute transfers to their personal relationships.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Would have changed nothing *but a minor administrative thing.* That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does *not* do what you claim it does.
> ...



But government would not be out of the marrying business.  It would only be out of the marriage license business.  It would still approve, regulate, and adjudicate marriage.  Marriages would be treated the same by the state as they were previous to the bill.  

Political calls for changes to the tax code have next to nothing to do with marriage.  I have never heard a politician mention tax breaks for marriage when discussing problems with the tax code.  In fact, I would guess that any tax breaks for marriage would be about the last thing any politician would want to bring up when pushing changes to tax law.

You still have not answered whether you think someone can create a new immediate family relationship where none existed before in a non-marital contract.  If marriage would become just another contract, why would government require marriage (or adoption, but that isn't relevant to this discussion) to create a new family relationship?  If government does require marriage, would that mean that this new, non-government associated joining would no longer be recognized by government as a new family?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What is it the we don't understand Bubba? let's talk about what you guys don't understand or don't want to understand

Same sex marriage is LEGAL nationwide and is here to stay

Every American who is married gets all of the government benefits and rights that go with marriage and that is not changing

Alabama is not the first state  to try to squirm out of it and may not be the last, but all have been pathetic and comical failures and will continue to be.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?
> ...



It's true, their is a pattern of dishonesty and hypocrisy.  Unfortunately it's mostly from you.  You've had your lies and hypocrisy shown to you through quotes of your own words on multiple occasions.  That you choose to ignore them doesn't make them not exist.  You've 'interjected totally crazy shit that someone never said' when you claimed people were arguing that the proposed bill did nothing.  You have shown your hypocrisy when telling others to 'shut the fuck up' after complaining that you cannot be made to 'sit down and shut up'.  Have you forgotten these and the various other instances in this and your 'better to have condemned homosexuality' thread?  

As far as bigotry and assumption, wow!  You are the person who's said you expect gays to push legislation allowing them to rape you on the streets.  You've claimed gays know that what they do is wrong and they can never accept themselves.  You've made statements that many people arguing with you are in homosexual relationships because you seem to assume anyone who disagrees with you must themselves be gay.....odd, considering your statements that heterosexuals are the real force behind the gay rights movement.

I won't speak for anyone else, by my perception of you is not based on some bigoted stereotype.  It's based entirely on interacting with you on this board.  I don't need stereotypes, I can just read the things you post.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.
> ...



You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong. 

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
_On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]_

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple. 

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'? 

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The only idiot who perpetually is coming to the boards to fight is you.

Look at your threads- this one- about your 'plan' to 'kill homosexual marriage' and then your previous thread with your cry for America to reject homosexuals.

No one is forcing you to come here and post your opinions- no one is forcing you to reply when you try to support your bigoted views.

Stop posting crap attacking Americans who happen to be homosexuals- and no one will be 'fighting' with you.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > No one but you has said the bill does nothing.
> ...


You're fucking deranged. 

I never said the bill does nothing and my quotes you included don't say that either. 

I said.the bill doesn't do what you claim it does. That is not me saying the bill does nothing.

I also said Alabama would still recognize marriages if they passed that bill. That too is not me saying the bill does nothing.

There is something seriously deformed with your brain. It doesn't function like a normal brain. You can't understand what people say and you often deny what you yourself said earlier.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Eventually, government will be removed from all aspects of marriage and the motivations for gays to marry will vanish as fast as they came. Will there still be married gays? Of course! We'll never kill this entirely. But it will be such a rare and obscure thing we'll hardly notice it.



In the very unlikely event that government is ever removed from all aspects of marriage- and married couples are screwed over, then the motivation for couples to marry will vanish. 

Will there still be married couples? Of course- you will never kill marriage entirely. But it will become a rare, quaint religious ceremony. Already more and more couples are deciding not to marry- your proposal to kill marriage will just encourage more couples not to marry.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.
> ...


By that definition, Alabama would still sanction marriages. Just like my state sanctions my car to be on public roads by me registering it with my state.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?
> ...



You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty. 

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: _"I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children" _

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?
> ...



Oh I do judge you by what you say- here is one of your OP's:

_One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot!_

_When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU...

start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal._

I call you a homophobe based upon the remarks you have made about- and regarding homosexuals


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Let me repeat.
> 
> *Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?*
> 
> ...



When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it. 

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will. 

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship.  It's none of your business.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Because someone must, or family marriage could become reality. 

Has anyone been keeping this a secret Sally?


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Let me repeat.
> ...



So- the only reason why you can think of objecting to it is based upon 'morality'

As Pop's has pointed out repeatedly- why do you assume that there would be sex in the marriage?

Secondly- the courts have always rejected 'morality' as a reason for a law- look to Loving v. Virginia- in which the State claimed that among the reasons the State had a ban on mixed race marriages was 'morality' or 'evils'

_The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, *then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages*_

*And of course the courts rejected the 'morality' claims in cases against same gender marriage:*

_*(“The issue before the Court . . . does not turn on the religious or moral debate over intimate
same-sex relationships, but rather on the statutory and constitutional basis for the exclusion
of same-sex couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married couples.”).*
_

*Unlike yourself- I can think of other reasons- other than 'morality' - which is of course nothing more than a subjective feeling that varies from individual to individual- to oppose a mother marrying her son.*

*And so do the courts*

Wisconsin:
_For example, polygamy and incest_
_raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_

I don't have to convince you that there is a valid legal reason to oppose incestuous marriages. The courts already recognize that there are.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh I just love to point out- when you bring up 'dishonesty' one of your more blatant lies- glad to do so again- since you want to speak about dishonest pricks- here is you being a dishonest prick

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: _"I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children" _

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss

The marketing aspect of gay marriage is the most interesting part of this whole equation.

I give credit where credit is due, it was the greatest marketing campaign in history.

Pepsi and McDonalds would be well served by hiring these folks.

First, the issue is not gay marriage.

What the courts ordered was the abolishing of marriage being between one man and one woman as the only legal pairing.

Marriage is now open to any two people regardless of gender. That is not gay marriage, 

Prior to Obergfell, the assumption that sex was a part of marriage was clear as it excluded those that could procreate and whose procreation could cause great societal damage through incest, by making those relationship banned from a licence.

If this could have been civilly discussed the obvious would have come to light, and the result would have come to a disgusting conclussion........

Removing the qualification of the contract that one participant be male and the other be female, the next qualification that they be not too closely related a non starter. Remember, Sex is not a requirement to enter into marriage. Marriage became no different than any other partnership agreement, a simple financial tool.

This is where the marketing really kicked in.

Just like the pick pocket that requires a distraction to get into your wallet, their side created that distraction whenever pressed on what would happen after a Obergfell type decision was made.

The distraction?

Homophobia.

Disagree with them and they attact you like fire ants on a goat that wandered into their path with that made up phobia.

Homophobes became the enemy they desperately required.

Interesting how, using their basic arguments, they look like the homophobes now.

Willing to deny groups of people the right to marry, even though sex nor procreation are requirements to enter a marriage contract. And the reason they would deny?

Procreation.

Ironic, isn't it.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Out of context?  What is the context needed to understand that when you said, "I have not brought up pedophiles marrying children" it was untrue?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Let me repeat.
> ...



And here we go again with the 'God = morality' argument.  Of course only believers can be moral.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



At least to some extent I agree with Boss on this.

Homosexuals make up a small enough portion of the population that it's almost certain no legislation or referendum would pass if only homosexuals agreed with it.  If enough heterosexuals agree, there is almost sure to be a decent portion of those who will feel the desire to push for what they consider equality for homosexuals.  Just from a numbers perspective, considering the growth of acceptance of homosexuals, there are likely many heterosexuals involved in various gay rights movements.

I disagree with the idea that the push for equality for homosexuals is based on some desire to destroy Christianity or American society, that is conspiracy theory silliness.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



'Normal' homosexuals are not trying to attack Christianity, but the militant leadership is. The mouth-breathing Gay Mafioso types that demand everything for them and fuck you are giving the entire gay community a bad name and losing a great deal of sympathy ac ross the board.

And of course you will predictably deny all this, which is fine by me as you guys are making the case for me with little effort on my part.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And the marketing continues:

If you disagree with any of this nonsense, you're homophobic. And who wants to be accused of a phobia in this time?

See how this works.

Homophobia implies an irrational fear of homosexuals. You can't rationally think that, by doing away with the qualification that marriage be between a man and a woman could lead to the requirement that married couples be not be too closely related be the fear, you're simply a homophobe, a hater.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


He is simply exposing your bullshit before you have enough Madison Avenue advertising campaigns ready for it.

Too bad for you as he speaks Truth.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.



Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?



Boss said:


> I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.





Boss said:


> I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?
> ...



Yeah, I see it every fricking day. These militant fags cant speak unless it is  a lie.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Christianity is also part of the marketing ploy. 

If they can get you into a christian moral discussion, you lose by default. 

An easy distraction 

Marriage is a State license. 

It's a trap far to many who opposed fell into.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.
> ...



homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that  our nation is sick and ailing.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Unfortunately, with any group you'll find some vocal assholes that give others a bad name.  Look at the backlash toward police of late.  Yes, there have been police abuses and they need to be addressed....but deciding that all police are corrupt, abusive bastards?  That's ridiculous.  

I'm sure there are homosexuals who attack Christianity.  I don't think it's a very large number who do so.  I also would guess that there are things you would consider an attack on Christianity that I would not.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You're welcome to that opinion.  I don't see what it has to do with the very clear lie Boss told which I quoted, though.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Unfortunately, with any group you'll find some vocal assholes that give others a bad name.  Look at the backlash toward police of late.  Yes, there have been police abuses and they need to be addressed....but deciding that all police are corrupt, abusive bastards?  That's ridiculous.
> 
> I'm sure there are homosexuals who attack Christianity.  I don't think it's a very large number who do so.  I also would guess that there are things you would consider an attack on Christianity that I would not.



The problem is that the militant homos that hate Christianity are the ones in the 'chattering class' and they set the tone for the publics perception of what it means to be a homosexual.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You are taking Bosses hypothetical statements and posing them as assertions. That is basically dishonest.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You seem to be equating homosexuality with male on male anal sex, something I see many people opposed to homosexuality do.  Unless, of course, you have a different meaning for unsanitary.  Plenty of heterosexuals engage in 'unsanitary' sex as well.  
I'm also curious about just how many civilizations ban homosexuality.  I think 'almost every' is a strong mischaracterization of the facts.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



*Unlike yourself- I can think of other reasons- other than 'morality' - which is of course nothing more than a subjective feeling that varies from individual to individual- to oppose a mother marrying her son.*

This "feeling" you are talking about is morality. I am sorry you don't recognize it but that's all it is. You are absolutely correct on most court rulings because laws are often established on the basis of morality and struck down by the court on the basis of liberty. 

So you've not presented a valid compelling reason, just your moral viewpoint which (by  the criteria given) can't be the basis of argument for legal standing. Telling me you don't have to convince me of a valid legal reason because the courts have decided is a bit of a cop out as well. You're not giving a reason, you are pointing to the court and law and saying... hey, it's illegal, that's why it's illegal! Why is it illegal? because the court said it was illegal. Why did the court say it was illegal? Because they felt like it should be illegal. Why do they feel  it should be illegal? Because people just know it should be illegal. 

Wisconsin:
_For example, polygamy and incest_
_raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_

And this is purely a moral-based determination. In fact, the very same arguments have been presented against gay marriage. Why do these arguments fail for gay marriage but are valid for incestophile marriage or polygamy?  MORALITY... that's the only reason.  You have nothing else.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



What part of his claim that he said 'would have been' when he actually said 'would be' is dishonest on *my* part?  He made a claim and I quoted him saying the exact opposite of that claim.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It was a shift from present tense to past tense and that is supposed to be a seismic indicator of the dude's character?

That is a load of horse shit.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Who said anything about 'seismic indicator'?  It is an example of a clear lie.  There are others, such as the one Syriusly posted.  He complained about his opponents in this argument being dishonest and hypocritical.  You don't think pointing out examples of his own dishonesty is appropriate in that situation?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Anything that is not basic penis-to-vagina sex is sodomy. Seriously, some woman giving a dude oral sex is heterosexual but it is still nasty. That is why in my generation that was something one did not demand from ones wife but maybe a hand job, oral sex was for whores.

Young Millenials think it is sanitary because they learned it from some perv in sex miseducation class who told them it was sanitary and it is NOT. All kinds of nasty bacteria develop in the genital area during the day while the moist area is in darkness from clothing.

But the clear impression I have had is that sodomy is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals for the basic fact that homosexuals have more sex than heterosexuals and have more variations with partners than heterosexuals.

This makes the homosexual community the superhighway of disease in any nation, the ancient curse of the Gods.

As to an example of a ethnic group that banned fags, Ancient Greece did for a long time, but eventually they lost those old traditional inhibitions and began to actually prefer sex with young boys prior to Alexander the Greats assuming power. The Greek demographics began to collapse almost immediately. After making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and Justinian's reforms the Greek birthrate took off once again.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It was not  a lie. It was at best an editing disagreement, sheesh.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.
> ...



Well yeah, asswipe...  when there are 5,000 accusations made per thread of things I supposedly said but didn't say... I am bound to make an error now and then. 

Of course, in CONTEXT (which you are oblivious to) the fact that I prefaced my comment with "I am starting to think" should imply (to most rational people) that I wasn't thinking that previously and haven't thought it before. Nor have I indicated I fully think that now. There is also a huge gaping difference between condemning homosexual activity and "rejecting gays" which was the accusation. 

So again... thank you very much for illustrating the level of dishonesty in discourse goes on around here daily, but I don't think Jim needed an example.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



An editing disagreement?  

Boss claims he said 'would have been' and not 'would be'.  I showed his own words saying 'would be'.  Then there is his statement that he did not bring up pedophile marriage and the various quotes of him doing exactly that.  There are at least a couple of other instances of the same sort of thing in this and the 'we should have condemned homosexuality' thread.

You appear to be defending him not based on the facts of the situation but because you tend to agree with him on the issue.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Thank you for the example of your dishonesty.  

Care to make any more claims that someone said the Alabama bill 'does nothing'?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Let me repeat.
> ...




First of all, where do you get this crap about the “secular left” not having the same moral constraints? That “they don't subscribe to moral decency”.? This is just more of your ignorant and hateful horseshit. Does your moral compass emanate only from what you are told is moral by God or your Church? Do you not have the capacity to think for yourself, to make a rational assessment of what is right and wrong, good and bad, moral an immoral? I am a proud atheist. I live a moral life. I help people. I do not rob or assault people, nor do I molest children or engage in bestiality. I am that person because I believe those things are wrong. Don’t dare suggest that I am not a moral person or that anyone needs God to be moral.

Second of all, morals aside, are you going to tell us that you can’t think of a single, practical or rational reason why a son and his mother should not marry? Why it may not be a good idea for siblings to marry?  Common, use your brains dude. Isn’t it the people who are opposed to same sex marriage that are whining and blathering about preserving the traditional family? Why the hell would they even want to? Do you know of any who does?

What about sex with children and bestiality? Is the only reason why you do not engage in those practices because you have been “taught “that they are immoral? There is nothing inside of you that is revolted by the thought of such practices? Again, morals aside, is it possible that you cannot think of a single compelling reason why we can’t let people go around screwing children and animals? Can it be that you don’t see the difference between these practices and that what happens between consenting adults?

I feel very sorry for you. You have somehow been severely damaged and there is probably no hope. The scariest part is that you presume to take on the role of the great moral arbiter while having not actual moral grounding that you can call your own.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And AGAIN... another shitstain posts his long-winded explanation: _"Well if you don't know man, I sure can't tell you... Most of us just know it's wrong... guess YOU must not! -uh huh uh huhh"_ 

We're not talking about ME personally, asswipe. I am a moral person who understands it's immoral and wrong the same way I understand that men fucking each other in the ass is wrong. I am perfectly FINE with having laws which constrain what we can do according to social acceptance and morality. YOU are the one who wants  to carve out an exception to that and exclude others. And you have NO BASIS! 

You've used the 14th Amendment and obtained the right to legitimize your sexual behavior but now you want to make the exact same arguments that were made against you as a basis to discriminate against others who are no different than you... they just prefer a different kind of deviant sex. I'm asking how you can justify being a two-faced hypocrite on this and you're trying to spin that into my supporting immoral acts for some bizarre reason. 

Actually, I know why you do it... you are a dishonest miserable little piece of shit who gets his rocks off venting his frustrations by bashing conservatives because he had a shitty relationship with his father.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Go fuck yourself, Montronaut.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And as someone who likes to complain about being insulted, thank you for the example of your hypocrisy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



There's the marketing move again. 

There is no sex requirement in order to get a marriage licence

The is no sex requirement in order to become an LLC. 

You would exclude family members from one and not the other? 

Why?

Tradition?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Common fucking sense should tell you why they fail for gay marriage but not for these other things.  However, for the record, I have not taken a stand on those matters. They are just a diversion, a red herring, logical fallacies and have nothing to do with the marriage issue.

The morality of the “secular left” that those on the right deride as lacking a moral compass is actually the superior morality. It is a morality that emanates from within. I represents the very core of what makes us thinking, feeling and rational human beings. It reflects universal human values apart from religious teachings. The theocrats have deluded themselves into thinking that they are the only ones who are moral and that they can decide what is moral for everyone else. They believe that if it were not for the mythical magical sky daddy telling  us all what was more, right and decent, we would all be seething savages, preying on children and our neighbors, committing horrendous acts of violence and exploitation, if how we live and behave were left to our own judgment alone. I suspect that they believe that because it may well be true of them. It is not true of me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are becoming desperate and disorganized in your thinking.  You have nothing left but logical fallacies. Learn this word:


_tu quoque_ (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that *attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position;* it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. *This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. *Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You are one of those fine moral persons who believes it is the governments job to regulate our 'morality- you know- like whether blacks and white can marry each other. 

And what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms- or the length of the skirt they wear- or the length of their hair- or the books that they are allowed to read.........


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I think you are confusing your own lies for everyone else lying.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Judge in Wisconsin:

_For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I think your attitude  is disgusting, unsanitary, and evil- but hardly corrupting since it is the the rantings of a bigot.

But yes- we should condemn bigotry likes yours- from every place of public discourse.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, with any group you'll find some vocal assholes that give others a bad name.  Look at the backlash toward police of late.  Yes, there have been police abuses and they need to be addressed....but deciding that all police are corrupt, abusive bastards?  That's ridiculous.
> ...



Actually the problem is that Christians attack homosexuals- for the last 200 years and more- Christians in America have acted just like you- mindlessly attacking homosexuals.

And when homosexuals actually object to being attacked- and actually obtain legal equality- then you claim that Christians are being attacked. 

We don't see homosexuals trying to outlaw Christianity- but we see assholes like you trying outlaw homosexuality.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I am presenting what one Judge spelled out as valid, compelling reasons.

You reject them because you have your own anti-homosexual agenda- but the States- and other judges will be glad to use these exact same 'compelling reasons'

Here is the difference between you and me- you give your opinion and declare you are right.

I provide the opinion of actual legal authorities- and you declare those are invalid.

You have nothing to base anything upon other than your desire to discriminate against homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Delightfully nasty.

Show me a man who does not enjoy receiving a blow job, and I will show you a man who just doesn't can't enjoy pleasure- and likely doesn't want anyone else to have fun either.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yeah- Boss complains about everyone who disagrees with him being 'dishonest' and then lies through his teach.

And then he complains when someone offends his delicate senses.........and tells people to go fuck themselves.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



He is merely lying. 
Seriously how can you say he is 'speaks the Truth' when he lies about what he has said? I guess he is your kind of 'honest' person- the one that lies about what he says

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty. 

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: _"I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children" _

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

_Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111_
_What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?_
_Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children._

Post #197
_Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles_

_#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters *or underage kids *or animals... all of that has to be accommodated._

_Post #204_
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
_In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh certainly the majority of heterosexuals now support equal rights for homosexuals.

But that is not what Boss claims (not that he will allow himself to be pinned down as to what he says)

Boss: 
_Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity._

Based upon the actual evidence- the 'initiative'- i.e. the court cases and initiatives put on the ballots- are pushed by homosexual individuals, couples and organizations- who find support with sympathetic heterosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Procreation.
> 
> Ironic, isn't it.



Ironic indeed

Wisconsin

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You've quoted that before.  

I always give credit where credit is due. You are the best redundant cut and paster on the board. 

In the movie 50 shades of grey, the couples entire relationship was based on abuse, exploitation and threat.  

Yet they would have been eligible to marry, which, as been noted, does not have sex as a requirement. 

You and that judge sound a bit perverted.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Is your mind constantly in the gutter? Do you really think the framers of the line "not too closely related" had hummers in mind when they wrote that?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Takes a bigot to know one. 

What is the compelling state interest in denying same sex hetro brothers from marrying?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh you have me beat with how you drag out your straw man in every thread- regardless of what the thread is about.

And as far as 'perverted' goes- I will point out- that you are always the one who insists on bringing up incest in every thread.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Have you forgotten so soon? 


Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Incest is an act

Incest is a crime

Marraige does not require sex (the act)

Contracts can not be entered into with criminal intent. 

What else you got Sally?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




Are you offended by the idea of getting a blow job also? Or just any kind of personal enjoyment?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Like I said- you are the one who brings up incest in every thread. 

You have incest on the brain.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The judge is as entitled to be as wrong as you are. Which you are. 

Email judge Crabb and have her email you the statute that makes sex a requirement of marriage. 

Get back to me with her reply

K Sally?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You're cute when you run. 

(Not really cute)


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh you and I can have different opinions- but the opinion of a Federal judge stating that there are compelling reasons to prevent incestuous and polygamous marriages has actual weight. Of course you just object because Judge Crabb isn't dancing with your straw man either. 

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



No, but I bet anyone you pay to give you one is not only offended, but wonders how small that thing actually is!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then she can easily come up with that statute you seem to think exists, requiring sex be performed in a marriage. 

Which brings up an interesting question actually......

Do you beleive sex IS a requirement of marriage?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I don't like or desire BJs or HJs.

Dude you have no idea of what you are missing, none and it would be wasted on a retard like you anyway. Pointing that out makes me feel this warm little fuzzy feeling inside to know that I am superior to you.


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Judge in Wisconsin:
> 
> _For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_



_*For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].*_

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly?  And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Judge in Wisconsin:
> ...



What is a law *not* based on morality?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Considering the vast majority of men probably enjoy a blowjob, you get to feel superior to almost everyone, huh?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



A secular law? Not a typical question, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



With the mass media we have these days, it is not surprising.

To have deep respect for someone that is the mother of your children and your best friend such that you want more to give her pleasure and a feeling of warmth and deep abiding love is so much better than sexual 'entertainment'. I respect my wife far to much to ever demand a BJ from her. More likely I am trying to empathize and anticipate what she needs and wants and her for me as well.

Its like a love singularity, dude. There is nothing like it and it beats 'sexual entertainment' all to hell. I don't even want that kind of shit any more, so yeah. But it isn't me that is superior really, though I know I am superior to Syriusly, lol, it is the nature of what my wife and I have that is just miles above what our pop culture tells us is 'good sex'. It isn't. It is horse shit.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Enjoying an act as foreplay is far different then the act that creates children. 

When a child is born orally, let's talk


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Gay Marriage.... Abortion... how many you want?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 8, 2015)

Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.



Some think of it, when done right, as the REJOINING of a single soul that was divided just before the two were conceived, and finding each other is a restoration of the single soul that was incomplete without the other half of itself.

You just don't shove your cock down the throat of your soul mate, folks.


----------



## Faun (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Mother Teresa,  is that you??


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Wait, who said anything about sexual entertainment?  So are you saying that oral sex is somehow not profound enough for you?  Did anyone say they were demanding oral sex from their spouse?  You seem to be having an discussion with someone not actually posting here.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 8, 2015)

> Like Davis, Williams said he would go to jail before he would approve a marriage license for a gay or lesbian.
> 
> Judges in three adjoining counties stopped issuing licenses for similar reasons, creating a region in southwestern Alabama where marriage licenses aren't available for 78,000 people. As a result, Bo Keahey and fiance Hannah Detlefsen will have to spend nearly two hours on the road traveling to and from Monroe County before their November wedding because their native Clarke County has quit issuing licenses. Alabama judges stop issuing marriage licenses altogether to avoid gay marriage


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Gay Marriage.....based on equal protection.  That equal protection is a necessary protection is a moral judgement.  Abortion.....based on a right to privacy.  That citizens deserve a right to privacy is a moral judgement.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage... is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.
> ...



You don't.  Others feel differently.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



At what point did I say or imply or even hint that a blowjob creates children?  Does oral sex somehow prevent a couple from having other sorts of sex?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The same equal protection due same sex siblings?

How is it possible that anyone can argue that something is a civil right........


Except for that dude over there!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Interesting isn't it, I guess it does. Intercourse for same sex couples


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Rights are not absolute nor immune to restriction.  Were you unaware of that?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 8, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What does that even mean?  

Would you argue that most men don't enjoy a blowjob?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Yes, with due process

Were you unaware of that?

They tried pulling that as a defense against interracial marriage as well. 

Oh, and you are a bigoted, racist homophobe, so no one should listen to you anyway


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is. 

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?


----------



## Boss (Oct 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Wrong and wronger.

Same-sex marriage was equally not allowed for everyone... no equal protection claim until you redefined marriage to include immoral homosexual relationships. Rights to have homo marriage trumps rights to morally deny it. 

Abortion is taking of human life, an immoral act. Right to kill your baby trumps moral right to prohibit it. 

But thanks for demonstrating how infanticide and sexual perversion can be dressed up as "morality" and be codified into law by the secular liberal left. Oh... you just destroyed your entire argument against polygamy, incestophile, hebephile and zoophile marriage. Nice job!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 8, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



If libtards don't have someone that they can steam roll with their money and networking, they just are unable to find happiness in this life....sad.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

*LGBT People of Faith Are Coming Out and Coming Home*

As we celebrate National Coming Out Day, more and more LGBT people of faith are coming out as the religious landscape becomes more welcoming and inclusive.

Look at the progress made this year alone: In July, the Episcopal Church permitted clergy to perform religious marriage for same-sex couples. In May, megachurch pastor Andy Stanley lamented the spillover of politics into spirituality, boldly calling for the church to be “the safest place on the planet” for LGBT teens. In March, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the rabbinical arm of the Reform movement, installed its first openly lesbian president, Rabbi Denise Eger, who is also a member of HRC’s Religion Council.  LGBT People of Faith Are Coming Out and Coming Home


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



If right wing bigots don't have someone to hate they just are unable to find happiness in this life


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



If homophobic bigots like yourself cannot put Americans in jail for being homosexuals, you are just unable to find happinness in this life.

Such is the tragic life of a bigot like you.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh, I see.  I foolishly thought that you were saying some laws are based on morality and some not.  No, you were saying some laws are moral and some immoral.  My mistake.

That's fine.  You have every right to consider whatever laws you like immoral.  I'm not going to argue that a law isn't immoral in your eyes.

My point was that any law can be said to be based on a form of morality.

However, whatever you think of the morality of the rulings regarding same sex marriage or abortion, I believe that in reading them you will see they are at least ostensibly based on equal protection and privacy, respectively.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Americans of the same gender can now marry- exactly as Americans of opposite gender have always been able to marry. Exact same rules, married exactly the same way.

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I wonder, do you tell all of your friends and family who are homosexual that they are immoral and sexually perverse?

I didn't destroy any argument against other marriage relationships.  I have no idea where you get that from my post.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You think that abortion is taking of human life. Others do not. You think your view of morality should force a woman to do with her body what you believe is moral- and ignore what she thinks is moral.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event. 

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The point was that JimBowie seemed to be saying that blowjobs are bad and because of that opinion he felt superior to those who received them.  Since I believe most men enjoy blowjobs, it allows him an excuse to feel superior to every man.  Nothing to do with procreation, nothing to indicate blowjobs replace intercourse, nothing about same sex vs opposite sex couples.  

What was the point to you responding to this little side conversation if you don't see a point to it?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That depends on how you are defining productive.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.



And you don't either but it damn sure sounds like you believe you do... you're making the exact same arguments against incestophile marriage that was made against homosexual marriage. What you want is a double standard. You want to be able to decide what society has to accept as moral based on your views without regard to any other view. 

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties  meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Semantics. 

And you knew that. 

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person. 

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner. 

True Story.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yet- that is exactly what you do.

For example- I argue that a same gender couple should be treated exactly the same regarding legal marriage as my wife and I were treated.

You argue that a same gender couple should not be treated exactly the same regarding legal marriage.

You know- you want to exclude those dudes of there.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.
> ...



Boss- when have I made an argument 'against incestophile marriage'?

I have pointed out that States- and one judge in particular has presented what they consider to be compelling arguments against 'incestophile' marriage. 

And no- those arguments were not the same arguments made against homosexual marriage. Are you lying again- or just ignorant again? Who knows.

Once again from the Wisconsin case:

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net._

Abuse, exploitation and 'threats to the social safety net' were not arguments made by the State of Wisconsin against gay marriage.

You and Pops can pretend whatever you want to pretend- but in reality- States have made separate and distinctly different reasons in defense of bans of incestuous and polygamous marriage. 

And meanwhile- couples in love- gay and straight- are getting legally married- here and in Alabama- and that is wonderful.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wow- thanks for telling us how heterosexuals can have children when they have a penis inserted into a vagina.

So if those heterosexuals who have children by accident, when they don't actually want them, instead enjoyed a good blow job- they wouldn't be birthing so many unwanted children.

Children born to homosexuals are always intended- never accidents.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.
> ...



Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you. 

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, *then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages*, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

_It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

_*
Mr. McIlwaine:* That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, *a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally*_

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument. 

*a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally*


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No- unlike yourself, I don't have to pay for my sex.

My wife and I have been happy with each over for 20 years- no need for either of us to pay anyone for sex.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



What am I missing? 

I have been married for over 20 years to a delightfully sex woman- and we enjoy having sex together. 

I just don't have the hang ups about sex and pleasure that you do. 

Frankly you have deviant sexual desires- since the majority of heterosexual men do enjoy blowjobs.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I find this incredibly interesting

The argument raged for years that hetro sex was no different than homosexual sex, and now you get it!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Judge in Wisconsin:
> ...



Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue.  Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'? 

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

_
On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself_- _citing your opinion_. _


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Is there a question you would actually like to ask?


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Okay, but... 

_*...polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. 
*_
Is not ANY different than the argument made against  striking down sodomy laws making homosexuality legal. These are ALL moral-based judgments. For some reason, you believe (and this judge) that we can apply morality to certain things but not other things. 

For years, those opposed to legalizing homosexuality have argued that this raises concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to society. Not to mention the assorted health risks involved with anal sex. ALL of those arguments were struck down, found not to constitute a "compelling state interest" but now all of a sudden, those are somehow valid and legitimate arguments to deny something that is essentially the same thing. 

*And meanwhile- couples in love- gay and straight- are getting legally married- here and in Alabama- and that is wonderful.*

If any rational person needs proof of what this is all about, they need look no further than this kind of a retort. It is clearly obvious that you are thrilled with the thought of doing something that you think bothers me personally. You get some sick satisfaction of trying to rub my nose in it. I'm already on record saying that I don't give a shit what you call marriage, I want every American to have the right to define marriage for themselves without government mandating it. You want to do things to piss off the right and then rub their noses in it. That's what this is about for you.... you hide behind this "moral righteousness" that is as phony as you are when it comes to gay couples.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage. 

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Good god you need to buy, rent or lease a sense of humor Sally


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Who made that argument?

Based upon general groupings and ignoring hands and toys
Hetero couple:
Penis to vagina
Penis to mouth
Penis to ass
Vagina to mouth

Gay male couple
Penis to mouth
Penis to ass

Gay female couple
Vagina to mouth

All variations bring pleasure- most humans engage in some or all of these acts for pleasure- Hetero couples can also produce children directly through- sometimes accidentally- sometimes on purpose. 

Hope that helps you understand the sex. 



Gay femae couple


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Judge Crabb doesn't mention sex- again that is you with your sex on the brains.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

_
On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself_- _citing your opinion


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yes, Judge Crabb interjected her moral opinion on society and you are fine with that. You don't mind judicial moral fascism as long as it's a liberal dishing it out. And that's the problem I have with you... you're a two-faced hypocritical piece of shit. You have the unmitigated nerve to sit here and present the exact same moral arguments made years ago against legalization of sodomy and not bat an eye. 

Why?  Because the truth is, the liberal secular left fancy themselves as little fascist dictators who can tell everyone else how to act and behave but don't have to do anything they don't want to do.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Prove it.

Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again. 

I have made a citation from a Judge regarding what she considers to be compelling reasons against incestuous and polygamous marriage.

You have nothing to counter this but your insistence that she is wrong.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Are you as seriously deranged as you're logic suggests. 

The "Loving" ruling came prior to Obergfell. Prior to Obergfell marriage was between a man and a woman with the protection that the two not be closely related. Obergfell changed that. 

Don't you even read the papers?

Of course not, you're a bigoted, racist.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> If any rational person needs proof of what this is all about, they need look no further than this kind of a retort. It is clearly obvious that you are thrilled with the thought of doing something that you think bothers me personally. You get some sick satisfaction of trying to rub my nose in it. I'm already on record saying that I don't give a shit what you call marriage, I want every American to have the right to define marriage for themselves without government mandating it. You want to do things to piss off the right and then rub their noses in it. That's what this is about for you.... you hide behind this "moral righteousness" that is as phony as you are when it comes to gay couples.



I am happy that my friends can get legally married.

I take as much pleasure in your discomfort as I would have for the discomfort of the bigots who were just as dismayed when the bans of mixed race couples was overturned by the Supreme Court.

You were the one who started a thread about how you want to 'kill homosexual' marriage. Don't want your bigotry rubbed in your face then stop starting bigoted threads.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


And you sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

_ *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The judge can make whatever statement of opinion she wants. 

Yet to back this opinion up, you and Crabby Patty, need to provide the evidence that the opinion has merit. 

Provide a link to the statute that requires sex as a requirement to marry or admit you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Without this supporting documentation........

You fail.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Here is the thing.

I have already shown that you are a lying piece of shit. 

Your two OP's show you are a hateful, homophobic bigoted piece of shit, who wants to impose your personal 'morality' on all Americans- so you can use the law to tell us all what we can- and cannot do- you are indeed a fascist- who would impose your will on everyone. 

You keep pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact.

When I produce actual quotes from court decisions, you want to argue that everyone is wrong but you. 

Here is what you have claimed twice now:
*present the exact same moral arguments made years ago against legalization of sodomy and not bat an eye.*

*For once in your posting history on USMB- stand behind one of your claims- see if you can prove it with anything more than what you pull out of your saggy ass. *


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

_
On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself_- _citing your opinion


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Just as Virginia denied Loving his due process, you would deny an entire class of people a "right" based on you're bigoted OPINION, without any probable cause and without a written document to prove your case. 

You are not only a bigot, but it appears you are a Nazi. Denying people a right based on one judges opinion and no supporting legal document. 

Amazing how progressive I am, and what a wing-nut you've become.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And the supporting document that sex is a requirement of marriage is?

You obviously forgot the link, Right?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

I thought that this was interesting. These whacko conservatives will try anything! This is just as stupid as the contention that Obergefell opened the door to  bestiality and pedophilia




> *Conservative Media Argue Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Creates Constitutional Right To Carry A Gun In Public Conservative Media Argue Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Creates Constitutional Right To Carry A Gun In Public*
> 
> Conservative media used the Supreme Court decision affirming that marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans to argue that the Constitution also requires states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states. But the Supreme Court has never held that carrying a gun in public is a fundamental right.





> Conservative media and the National Rifle Association (NRA) quickly seized on the decision to draw a parallel with concealed carry reciprocity, a top federal legislative priority of the NRA. Reciprocity legislation, also known as federally mandated concealed carry, would force states to recognize permits to carry concealed guns issued by other states, regardless of what the issuing state's standards are for issuing permits.
> 
> Reciprocity legislation has been introduced in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, but conservative media and the NRA view _Obergefell_ as an opportunity to argue that the Constitution extends at least some right to reciprocal permit recognition regardless of whether Congress acts. The problem with that argument, however, is that the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case _District of Columbia v. Heller_ limited the scope of the Second Amendment right to gun possession to people's homes.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You are the one who felt the need to get in on this discussion which began with someone saying that blowjobs are bad, I don't know where you're going with it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I'll get back to once she's done with the hummer.....


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
_

On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself_- _citing your opinion


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Who would I deny? 

You- as you always do- drag your straw man into another thread- and then accuse everyone else of being denying rights.

But the only one demanding that rights be denied are you and Boss.

 You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

_ *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then you must support the rights of same sex siblings to marry?


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.
> 
> I have made a citation from a Judge regarding what she considers to be compelling reasons against incestuous and polygamous marriage.
> 
> You have nothing to counter this but your insistence that she is wrong.



I didn't say she was wrong. I said she made a moral determination in  her consideration. That's the problem here.. you keep misinterpreting what is being said. It's because you are a closed-minded bigot who's made up your mind that you need to be a belligerent little prick to anyone who is "conservative" because you are intolerant of conservative values.... except when you can exploit conservative values to justify your immorality. 

You didn't "make a citation" you posted an opinion of a judge, you self-aggrandizing little fascist punk. An opinion that is a moral determination... but since it fits your agenda, that's fine... morality is okay as long as you're the one who gets to decide the parameters and cram it down my throat. If I want to impose MY morality, that's a different story... then I am denying your fucking rights! 

You're a two-faced little fascist hypocrite who doesn't see your own double standards.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.
> ...



Yes- and once again- you have you- citing your own opinion.

The difference between her opinion and yours- is that hers represents the authority that would determine whether a State's law is constitutional or not, while yours just is your opinion, representing your opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly i am tired of you pulling crap out of your ass and pretending it is a fact. I could look up Lawrence v. Texas- but hell you would just ignore the actual facts- again.
> ...



You are a blatant liar and I have enjoyed pointing out your blatant lies.

And you are a fascist hypocrite who wants to impose your morality on everyone else- in true fascist fashion.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why must I?

Once again- why do you believe I have to dance with your straw man?


You- as you always do- drag your straw man into another thread- and then accuse everyone else of being denying rights.

But the only one demanding that rights be denied are you and Boss.

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

_ *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

This horseshit has been going on for way to long-since same sex marriage come to Mass. and probably a lot long. Same bigoted rhetoric, different day. When are those people going to realize that it's not working and admit that we still have traditional marriage. These people are a joke!:

[paste:font size="4"]* Salon.com, May 18, 2004: Homophobia

Gay-marriage licenses are "death certificates" 
With a new wave of same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts this week, conservatives once again launched the expected attack. Monday's 50th anniversary of the landmark civil rights case Brown vs. Board of Education provided a poignant backdrop, with some of the rhetoric in heartland states like Colorado and Pennsylvania -- the latter considered key in this year's election -- turning rather ugly: 

"I think this is going to awaken people," said Rev. Louis Sheldon,  chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition,  according to an AP report published in the Denver Post. "It [gay marriage] is not a civil right. It is a behavior. [Gay-marriage advocates] never had to drink at different water fountains or ride in the back of the bus." 

James Dobson,  chairman of the Colorado Springs-based Christian group Focus on the Family,  offered a grave assessment of the jubilant same-sex couples flocking to court houses in New England. 

"We will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this as the day marriage ceased to have any real meaning in our country. The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years." 
*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.

It NEVER gets old, promise.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



There is no difference in my opinion and hers, they are both morality-based opinions, except that she found a way to hypocritically allow gay marriage while applying her moral judgment to something else. And yes, she is a judge with authority... that doesn't make her right about gay marriage, it doesn't give her the license to be a hypocrite and not be called on it and it damn well doesn't give YOU that right.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> his horseshit has been going on for way to long---



Got some news for ya, queerbait... it is going to continue going on for a whole lot longer so suck it up buttercup.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 9, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.
> 
> It NEVER gets old, promise.


Loving for All 

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007, The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement 

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. 

We didn't get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn't allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom. 

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? 

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the "crime" of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed. 

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: ""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile. 

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love. 

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn't have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men," a "basic civil right."

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. 

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. 

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf


>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Check out the Maryland statute. 

Incest is vaginal penetration with person you aren't allowed to marry

Get back with me bro.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, yeah you know blacks love hearing you libtards comparing their race to your fagotry.
> ...



Well there's one. 

What's her feeling about heterosexual same sibling marriage?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > his horseshit has been going on for way to long---
> ...



And you wonder why people question your supposed tolerance of homosexuals......


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

_ *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Remember- 'some of his best friends are homosexuals'....aka queerbait.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > his horseshit has been going on for way to long---
> ...



We will keep hearing from you because:

_Bigots got to hate, hate, hate.

Shake it off, Shake it off. _


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Oh but there is.

Her opinion is the opinion of someone who would be deciding whether you wanting to marry your sibling was constitutional or not- and she has already pointed out that States have valid compelling reasons to prevent you from marrying your sibling.

Your opinion is just yours- citing yourself.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It never gets old hearing bitter old white guys like yourself telling us what African Americans think.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > his horseshit has been going on for way to long---
> ...



If you did not constantly find it necessary to be so damned nasty and belligerent, you might actually get some respect.  Stop yelling and cursing at people! The fact is that since Lawrence v. Texas, a claim to “morality” in and of itself, no longer constitutes a compelling government inters in restricting behavior.




> The “End of All Morals Legislation”: The Legacy of the Lawrence Dissent in Obergefell The “End of All Morals Legislation”: The Legacy of the Lawrence Dissent in Obergefell | LGBTQ Policy Journal
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision is a case that defines a generation. Marriage equality and LGBTQ rights are poised for a victory untenable for generations past. *Just twelve years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned *_*Lawrence v. Texas*_* and, as Justice Scalia argued in the dissent, doomed the “end of all morals legislation.”*_Lawrence _created a legacy evident in tribute during the _Obergefell _oral arguments, and will serve as a historical bookend, a pioneering case that demonstrates the Court’s transformation and progress. The legacy of the _Lawrence _decision, and the importance of the dissent, is best appreciated through a wider lens. *The *_*Lawrence *_*dissent should be closely examined as a majority of the Justices who decided *_*Obergefell*_* also presided over *_*Lawrence*_*.*
> 
> A dissent is valuable in that it records a counter majority narrative for history; it demonstrates an alternative thinking the Court should have adopted, and provokes perspective of another view. *The dissent for *_*Lawrence*_*, delivered by Justice Scalia, decreed the end of morals legislation by uprooting moral justification for laws supported by the majority in a state that prohibit a practice as immoral—*namely sodomy. _Lawrence_ separated homosexual conduct from other morality legislation and banned the linkage to criminal activity for conduct and status, eradicating “morality legislation” created to oppress and criminalize homosexual conduct and identity. *The case held that adults have a protected liberty interest in deciding to conduct their private lives “in matters pertaining to sex”, and the laws and traditions of the past half century have indicated an emerging awareness of that liberty.*



*Now, is that the final word? No it's not. It is an opinion. I’m going to help you out here and show you how you can gain some credibility. You do that by doing the research instead of just pontificating and dumbing it down to an “I’m right and you’re wrong” argument “because I said so” That is just an appeal to ignorance! You have to develop some tolerance and understand for nuances and ambiguity. That is the hallmark of actual intelligence which you have displayed little of. And while what is to follow acknowledges the controversy about the role of morality in legislation,  it in no way suggest that questions of morality takes precedence over the need to consider the role of the concept of equal protection under the law. Additionally, it does not negate the need to consider the rational basis, if not the compelling government interest, in curtailing certain behaviors and practice while protecting others. You see Boss, things are just a little more complex that you want to acknowledge or are able to understand. *




> *MORALS LEGISLATION SINCE LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: THE ARGUMENT FOR BONOS MORES "MORALS LEGISLATION SINCE LAWRENCE V. TEXAS: THE ARGUMENT FOR BONOS MOR" by Carman A. Leone*
> 
> *Carman A. Leone*, _Villanova University School of Law_
> 
> ...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 9, 2015)

It seems like this is what we are dealing with here. Any of you anti gay folks here willing to renounce this? If not , I'll have to assume that you endorse it. Pop...you there? :




> *Theodore Shoebat: Satan Is Taking Over America With Sharia-Like 'Sodomism'* Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Wednesday, 7/8/2015 11:28 am
> 
> Theodore Shoebat is an anti-gay Religious Right activist who is so militant that he openly calls for gays and people who accept gays to be put to death, but that hasn't prohibited him from appearing in an anti-gay documentary along with *leading Republican lawmakers and presidential hopefuls* or being interviewed on right-wing Christian programs. - See more at: Theodore Shoebat: Satan Is Taking Over America With Sharia-Like 'Sodomism'





> *Theodore Shoebat: Homosexuality Leads To Cannibalism, Kill Those Who Won’t Submit To Christianity*
> Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Friday, 10/9/2015 12:54 pm
> Theodore Shoebat posted a video yesterday calling for the institution of a "Christian collectivist society" in America in which collective punishment is imposed and where those who refuse to submit to Christianity are put to death.
> 
> ...





> Theodore Shoebat Calls For A Global 'Inquisition' To Put Gays To Death Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 9/29/2015 11:32 am Theodore Shoebat, who was among the dozens of anti-gay activists, Republican members of Congress and GOP presidential hopefuls to be featured in Janet Porter's recent anti-gay "Light Wins" documentary, posted a new video over the weekend calling for a global "Inquisition" to eradicate homosexuality once and for all. - See more at: Theodore Shoebat Calls For A Global 'Inquisition' To Put Gays To Death


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 9, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It seems like this is what we are dealing with here. A any of you anti gay folks here willing to renounce this? If not , I'll have to assume that you endorse it. Pop...you there? :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are those who think it is 'moral' to kill homosexuals.

This is the problem with Boss's 'morality' argument- people have argued that things from slavery to apartheid were 'morally justified'.

There will always be someone who believes that government should impose his or her morality on everyone else. And Boss doesn't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You realize that had nothing to do with the Maryland law, right?

OCD acting up again Sally?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



It never gets old hearing gays think anyone thinks there opinion matter.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> And Boss doesn't see anything wrong with that.



No, Boss sees everything wrong with that and Syriusly doesn't see anything wrong with it. 

*Boss is for government not legislating morality from the bench. *

Boss is for leaving that to society. 

Boss is not trying to force anything on anyone. 

Boss is not redefining words to mean new things so he can make his immorality moral (and just). 

Boss believes that freedom should be left to the individual and not the court or government. 

YOU are the one who seeks to legislate your version of morality on society by judicial activism or whatever means it takes, even if you have to be complete hypocrites to do so.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well you certainly aren't one of my gay best friends. Neither is queerbaitriot. 

You two  are the kind who WOULD advocate for a law to stick your gay little pecker in my mouth without reprisal... that's just the sort of thing that would turn you two perverts on.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Sure thing Mr. Tolerant.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 9, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Now, now Boss. 

For some folks legislation is like foreplay and the law is the only way they can get laid.


----------



## Boss (Oct 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Sure thing Mr. Tolerant.



Tolerate on this!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well that is the same thing you have been claiming since your last OP.

You are just convinced that gay men all want to rape you. 

You have been saying that since your last OP attacking homosexuals.

A homophobe terrified that the big bad homosexuals will come try to rape you......

Which is why you start a whole thread trying to rally America to discriminate against homosexuals.

Pure fear.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > And Boss doesn't see anything wrong with that.
> ...



Boss is for government telling Americans what they can do- for imposing his morality on Americans. 

And Boss is still pissed off that the courts tell him he can't.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

_ *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 10, 2015)

Boss said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > And Boss doesn't see anything wrong with that.
> ...



Is that what Boss believes today?

Because yesterday you believed government should decide what 'freedom'-  should be allowed- that government should constrain the liberties of the individual based upon 'morality'

_I am perfectly FINE with having laws which constrain what we can do according to social acceptance and morality._


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 10, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Well we know what his fantasies are. I tried to  engage him in a rational and reasonable conversation about legislation of morality and you see what we get. Just nasty trolling. I'm out of here.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 10, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then simply provide the statue requiring sex be a qualifier to a marriage licence. 

In Maryland it appears incest is simply vaginal penetration which is directly in conflict with your and judge Crabby Patties opinions. 

Explanation?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You using Maryland to deflect how you sound just like Virginia's racist defenders of bans in mixed race marriages doesn't work with me

I don't dance with your straw man Pops.

Tell it to Virginia- they are the ones who called your 'sibling marriage' incestuous marriage'

Again- here is Virginia- sounding eerily like you

You sound just as bigoted as the State of Virginia when they argued that bans on mixed race marriages were necessary- here let me quote them sounding just like you:

_ *that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage *_

You are as bigoted as the State of Virginia was when it argued in support of bans on mixed race marriages


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yet I posted at least one state in which makes your argument, and the opinion of Justice Crabby look like the speach of fools.

You are under some very basic wrong assumptions.

First, that sex is a requirement of marriage, yet you can't find a single statute requiring same, and, two.....

Second, that Obergfell  legalized gay marriage only. it did not. At its root is the legalization of same sex marriage, and in at least one State, Maryland, incest can only be that of vaginal penetration.

If so, marriages performed in Maryland must be recognized in all 50 States.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And you seem to still be operating under the assumption that the bans on close family members marrying is solely about sex.  Does Maryland ban close relation marriages based on incestuous sex?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I operate under no such assumptions. 

So, point out what those other reasons that preclude same sex siblings from Maryland marriage with the clear understanding that no contract is legitimate if entered into under duress or coercion.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



On at least 3 occasions I've given you possible reasons for preventing close relation marriages, including the disclaimer that the arguments are not as strong for siblings as for parents/grandparents and children.

Still, every argument regarding close relations marrying from you I see seems to be based on the idea that such bans must be invalid because same sex relations cannot have children.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Pops trots out his straw man and doesn't like it when people won't dance with his 'incestuous marriage' meme.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And I've pointed out on a number of occasions that contracts are not legal if entered to under duress or coercion. 

Since Maryland statue is that incest is vaginal penetration, and Maryland law does not allow for contracts forced upon the individual (duress or coercion), what is the states compelling interest in denying marriage to family members speaking the financial benefit, right of inheritance and a dignified upbringing of their children?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Incest is an act and a crime. Only the pervert known as Syriously makes such assumptions. 

Most likely the pervert posting as Syriously need to do this to deflect from his perversion, bigotry and racism.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between a men and women. Obergfell removed that as a qualification.

No statute exists that requires sex in marriage.

Incest is a sexual act, yet sex is not a requirement in marriage. Same as entering into a Limited Liabilty corporation.

Your argument as to why, while neither requires sex to be legal state entities, you assume it in one yet not the other?

I know!

You're obviouly a pervert


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Prior to Obergfell, marriage was between two people of any gender in about 30 states, and has been that way in Massachusetts for 11 years.

Like I said- Pop will just ignore anything but his own straw man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Not sure why Pops wants to call the State of Virginia all perverts

After all the State of Virginia is the one referencing 'incestuous marriage' in support of its ban on mixed race marriage.

Just like Pop references 'sibling marriage' in his support on gay marriage.

Bigots tend to agree with each other- Pops with the bigots of Virginia.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pops ignores any arguments that derail his attempts to equate sibling marriage to marriage by same gender couples.

For example- he wants to pretend that the only 'known' reason for laws banning marriage of too closely related persons is sex.

BUT as I have pointed out:

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin does not allow siblilngs to marry, or mothers to marry sons- even if they prove that they cannot procreate.

Clearly the ban on siblings marriage in Wisconsin is not solely based upon sex and procreation- since Wisconsin treats First cousins differently from siblings when it comes to marriage.

But Pop will ignore that along with everything else

As he keeps proving with each post.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'm not sure I get what you're trying to argue.  If there is a danger of duress or coercion and that is why a state bans close relatives from marrying, are you saying that doesn't make sense because contracts cannot be entered into under duress or coercion?  Other than marriage being somewhat different from other contracts, there's no reason that there can't be overlap or redundancy in the law.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Do you honestly not see a reason to assume a greater likelihood of sex between parties in a marriage than between members of a LLC?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Every rational person doesn't understand what Pops is trying to argue.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Apparently at least some states allow for divorce on the grounds of 'constructive abandonment' or 'constructive desertion'.  In these cases the withholding of sex to a spouse can be considered grounds to dissolve the marriage.  Here's a couple of links on the subject :
Divorce & Abandonment Laws in Georgia
Divorce Support - What is constructive desertion?

There are obviously rules and guidelines about what constitutes one of these phrases, including time period (a year of withholding sex seems to be the norm), physical ability to perform, etc..  Still, there seem to be at least some laws and precedents in which sex is considered an integral part of marriage.

I am guessing that at least some of these laws are, if not mutually contradictory, then at least in need of an overhaul.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It was much different than other contracts prior to Obergfell as there was the requirement that this contract, like no other that I know of be one that included one of each gender. 

Now that exclussion is gone, and not replaced with a safeguard against incest. These justices, being knowledgable jurists removed that exclussion knowing full well that sex was not a requirement of marriage. 

So it becomes a partnership of two (debatable) in which the state allows the participants to define what that contract is to them. 

Since sex is not a requirement, and

1. A contract cannot be entered into for criminal purposes

2. A contract cannot be entered into while under duress or coercion 

Tell me what compelling state interest there is for the state to allow any two people, not entering into an illegal contract, to marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Pop just wants everyone to dance with his straw man. 

*Incestuous marriage*
*Definition*
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Tell me- why does Wisconsin allow First cousins to marry but only if they prove that they cannot procreate- but does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of their ability to procreate?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



So, let me get this straight, you want the state to have the ability to define what satisfactory sex is?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I don't know, but I'll hazard a guess

Procreation?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Since he didn't say anything like that in his post- what did he say that made you imagine that?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ah yes, the bigot responds with a cut and paste and no reasoning. 

So, couples could not possibly coexist without sex


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Procreation?

Wisconsin doesn't care whether siblings can procreate or not- always illegal.

But they care if First cousins can procreate- they can only marry if they cannot procreate.

So what makes you think 'procreation' is the reason Wisconsin forbids infertile siblings from marrying- but not infertile First cousins?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What 'sex'? I- and the definition- do not mention sex- that would be you- quoting you. 

*Incestuous marriage*
*Definition*
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

Incestuous marriage legal definition - Quimbee


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then no compelling reason to deny. 

Thanks space commando whack!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



There would be no reason since sex is not a requirement to marry. 

Only a Perv like you would think two adults would enter into a contract to have sex.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.  That has nothing to do with my post.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Suggestion: File a  lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.



Polygamists are already doing this and as we've seen from several of you pro-gay tards, you are ready to support that as well. And you will all end up aligning yourself with whatever perversion of marriage comes along because it's essentially the same argument. The only reason you're not taking that position now is because it's not popular yet among liberals. It was just 4 years ago, the most liberal candidate to ever run for president and win, didn't support same-sex marriage... wasn't popular enough. All it takes is a little time and a perception of inequity.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL- Pops gets cranky when I don't dance with his straw man.

Wisconsin makes his straw man burst into flames- since procreaton- and sex- clearly have nothing to do with Wisconsin's ban on the marriage of siblings.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.
> ...



Boss- firmly in the camp of Virginia, arguing the same argument Virginia argued in support of the ban on mixed race marraige.

Poor bitter homophobe- still terrified that the big bad homosexuals will be trying to force him to have sex with them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Or hoping for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Suggestion: File a lawsuit in any state claiming that your right to marry your mother, or your daughter, or your dog is being denied and that there is no rational basis or compelling government interest in doing so. Reference Obergefell as your evidence and claim that there is no difference in the implications or impact on society. Let us know how it goes. Meanwhile, give it a fucking rest.
> ...


Polygamists are doing what Boss man? Is there a case pending that we have not heard of? If so, how is it related to the same sex marriage issue. You wouldn't just be making shit up again would you?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



At least two polygamous 'groups' have sued claiming their rights were violated since Obergefel.

And yes they claim to be using the same logic as Obergefel, and I support their right to sue.

But the case will hinge on whether or not the State's in question can defend the law. 

Remember- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.

But if the States can't defend bans on polygamous marriage- then they shouldn't have the bans anyway.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



OK, Thanks. Interesting. I'm not taking a position for or against polygamy. Just that it poses different issue and that it can't be dumbed down to a "if same sex marriage is legal, then this or that must also be"


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I agree.

I have seen this done by others- basically they get pissed off about gays being allowed to marry each other and then of course tell us that MEANS sisters can marry brothers and a guy can have 40 wives.

And want us to explain why they can't.

All I do is point out that they are different- and the courts have recognized that they are different.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Like I said- anyone can sue- doesn't mean that they will win.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.




I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.


>>>>


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Oct 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.
> ...


Nonsense


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Correct. 

Such an 'argument' fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Unlike three or more persons seeking to 'marry,' same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as marriage law is currently written.

Three or more persons aren't being 'denied' access to marriage law; it's simply a matter where there are no laws in existence that can accommodate such a configuration; one cannot be 'discriminated against' by being 'denied access' to a law that doesn't exist.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


They may 'claim' whatever they want, but no rights have been 'violated.'

Bigamy is in essence fraud, and the states are at liberty to enact measures to prevent fraud and punish those convicted of committing fraud against the state by marrying someone while being married to another.

But bigamy and polygamy aren't the same thing, where the latter is nothing more then 'living together,' where to seek to criminalize such a union is un-Constitutional:

“U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups said in the decision handed down Friday that a provision in Utah law forbidding cohabitation with another person violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees basic rights, including freedom of religion.
[...]
Utah's bigamy law is stricter than the laws in 49 other states - most of the other states prohibit people from having multiple marriage licenses. Utah makes it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together.

Under Waddoups' ruling, bigamy remains illegal in Utah only in the literal sense, such as when someone fraudulently acquires more than one marriage license.”

Sister Wives: Federal judge rules anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional

Consequently, laws prohibiting polygamy are un-Constitutional, while laws prohibiting bigamy (fraud) pass Constitutional muster.


----------



## Boss (Oct 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Well I don't know who "we" is.. I just know that I read about a case out west, I think it was Idaho... a man had brought the case and won but the state had appealed and it was heading up the ladder. So I don't know what happened and haven't been following it but they sounded like it was going to be interesting because of the recent SCOTUS ruling. If not his case there will be one.. it will make it to SCOTUS and again.. you will have come to support it because you have to now.


----------



## rdean (Oct 11, 2015)

Boss said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.
> ...


What Republicans really want to do is kill gays.  Literally kill them so they are dead.

Republicans kill gays - Google Search


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.





WorldWatcher said:


> I believe that law applied to US Territories, not that it applied to States.
> 
> 
> >>>>





saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Nonsense



A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

July 1, 1862
Bigamy in the territories of the United States, how punished
Congressional Record, 37th Congress, Session II, Ch. 125 page 501

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry another person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso to this section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years..."​

>>>>


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Oct 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.
> ...


Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.



Quoting the law you said and showing that it applies only to the territories is proving myself wrong?

Don't think so.


>>>>


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Oct 11, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, you just disproved your claim, dumbass.
> ...


Read it again, dumbass. States are US territory and where the US has exclusive jurisdiction. You really are dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



1.  It doesn't say "are", it says "in a US Territory", at the time Utah was a US Territory and not a State.

2.  The Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction in US Territories, it does not have exclusive jurisdiction in States.

You have heard of these things call "States" right?  They are another level of government so jurisdiction is shared.



Here is a link to the United States Code -->> http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

Please share with us the number of times the word "bigamy" appears in the current United States Code.

>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then you can clearly state the States compelling interest?

I see, you're  just a parrot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Did you not point out that there is some justification to the claim that sex is an integral part of marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Suggestion, back up your arguments instead of this type of deflection.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 11, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Note the word "currently"


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



More accurately, sex can be an integral part of marriage.  It doesn't have to be, but a refusal to engage in sex with a spouse for an extended period when both parties are physically capable can be considered grounds for divorce in some states.  If neither party wants sex, there is no legal necessity.  

Whether sex is satisfactory or unsatisfactory for the parties played no part that I saw, nor did I indicate I believe the state should be able to define what that means.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL- Pops gets cranky when I don't dance with his straw man.

Wisconsin makes his straw man burst into flames- since procreaton- and sex- clearly have nothing to do with Wisconsin's ban on the marriage of siblings.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



States are part of the United States- but a state is not a Territory. 

States have their own jurisdiction.

Don't believe me?

Read the ruling which overturned DOMA.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 11, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...


Watching Saintie boy calling everyone 'dumbass' is as amusing as watching Newt Gingrich talk about the sanctity of marriage.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Oct 12, 2015)

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

rdean said:


> What Republicans really want to do is kill gays. Literally kill them so they are dead.



Nahh.. Now, it would be good if medical science finds a way to genetically eliminate homosexuality. I wonder if we'd have to fight the left for a woman's right to choose whether to have a gay or straight child?


----------



## EverCurious (Oct 12, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"
> 
> I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.
> 
> ...



I don't see why they have to specify.  For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy.  Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question?  No.  Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to.  More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand.  When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired.  But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases. 

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.)  As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it.  That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all.  Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme.  Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization.  Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family.  I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.)  I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e.  I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships.  Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him.  Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry?  I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes.  It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.
> ...


Doesn't matter. Federal laws can be overturned by Federal courts


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Don't presume to tell me what I have to support. Unlike you, I can  evaluate each issues on it's own merits, apply critical thinking, and come to a conclusion about it, rather than just dumb it down to a false equivalency.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

"they sounded like it was going to be interesting because of the recent SCOTUS ruling. If not his case there will be one.. it will make it to SCOTUS and again.. you will have come to support it because you have to now

The above is a fallacy of false equivalence and a fallacy of false logic, that they are alike and that one causes the other.

They are not alike, and there is no causation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

"I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me?" is a religious argument.

Marriage is governed in the US by secular law.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met  

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"
> ...



Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex. 

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage.  If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage. 

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership. 

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law.  Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage. 

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none. 

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then there is no compelling state interest in the denial of the individuals rights. 

Thanks again


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 12, 2015)

There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children.  Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Bigamy would only be fraud if those in the relationships don't agree to them. You assume they would not. 

Now I agree they would be few and far between, but I fail to see the Compelling State interest to deny these relationship. Like any other legal partnership that I know of, the participation in one does not prohibit the members in other partnerships. 

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice:

If Sue loves Tedd and Ted loves Bill, why is it that Sue can Marry Tedd, and Tedd can't marry Bill?

So, why can't Sue Marry Bill & Tedd (polygamy), or Sue Marry Bill and Bill Marry Tedd? (bigomy).


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children.  Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..



It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership. 

It seems to create a legal contract that is simply a financial tool not much different than an S-Corp or LLC 

Ignoring this before making this paradox a part of the discussion was exactly why this was framed as "gay marriage" and not Same Gender Marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


It only took you a year or  more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage.  But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage.  When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

I love watching Sil and Pop contradict each other.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



For an idiot you are pretty stoopid. 

The State must produce a compelling reason to deny an individual his rights. 

So, since sex is not a requirement, it is your bigotted traditionalist view, and nothing else that would deny a same sex sibling couple the rights, dignity and benefits of marriage. 

Geez, it appears I am actually the Progressive in this discussion and your side is stuck in the 50's.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> I love watching Sil and Pop contradict each other.



Only a mutually exclussive thinker would see it that way though. 

Me, I'm a progressive arguing with a bunch of wing-nuts.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 12, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children.  Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..


 


Pop23 said:


> It is the paradox that the USSC created when they removed the opposite gender qualification from a law that does not require sex as a requirement to enter into these partnership.
> 
> It seems to create a legal contract that is simply a financial tool not much different than an S-Corp or LLC
> 
> Ignoring this before making this paradox a part of the discussion was exactly why this was framed as "gay marriage" and not Same Gender Marriage.


 
I think you missed my main point.  That is, that if states can still regulate marriage with respect to incest and polygamy based on "what the state finds best for a child's interest" then the state can regulate ALL marriage that it finds it needs to regulate "for a child's best interest".  And that would include anyone applying who boldly declares "we will provide any children in our home either no mother or no father for life".

So, either incest, polygamy and gay marriage are all legal at once, because of equality, or all three of them are subject to state regulation "for the good of children".


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children.  Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..
> ...



The courts have found that denying same sex marriage hurts children:



			
				Windsor v. U.S. said:
			
		

> And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
> and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....
> 
> .....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses.  And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.



A point reiterated in Obergefell:



			
				Obergefell V. Hodges said:
			
		

> A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser.
> 
> They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.



So the court would have to ignore their own findings and instead believe you. Which is unlikely. Rendering your perspective legally irrelevant. 

And as the children of same sex couples are fine, practically irrelevant.

And as denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents, logically irrelevant.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...


Well that's not true. The U.S. has concurrent jurisdiction with each of the states. Where do you come up with this idiocy?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Exactly. Even Madison described it as 'concurrent sovereigns'.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...


This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > It's a violation of federal law, the 1862 Morill Anti Bigamy Act signed into law by Herr Lincoln Über Alles.
> ...



Yeah, that would apply only to those territories or regions where the Feds have exclusive jurisdiction. This would include DC, federal holdings, federal territories and the like. For the States, the feds hold concurrent jurisdiction....sharing it with the individual state governments respectively.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible. 

But you knew that, so you deflect. 

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process. 

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.
> 
> But you knew that, so you deflect.
> 
> You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.



Then make your case for incest marriage. Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?

If so, present your argument.

(psst....speaking of deflection, this is where your abandon your entire argument).


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.
> ...



Incest is a crime. 

The deflection is that Obergfell legalized gay marriage (the marketing of gay marriage), it legalized same sex marriage. 

Can you supply one Statute that requires married couples have sex? 

If you can't, then please state the compelling state interest in denying siblings the right to enter into a partnership. 

I'll help Ya out lil fool, it doesn't exist.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



According to you it doesn't.  According to the law, at this point, it does.  If the law is challenged we will see what the states argue is the interest in preventing immediate family from marrying.

I have given you multiple possible reasons other than procreation that could be argued, but you have dismissed them.  I doubt you would accept any possible reason as it would go against your narrative.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And exactly as I predicted you would.....you deflected. Blathering obessively about incest marriage....until you're asked to make your case. And then predictably deflecting and abandoning your entire argument.

If you're going to treat your argument like garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you can understand why we treat your argument the same way.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You're under the misconception that Pop cares about any of the reasons. Or even discussing the topic. The purpose of his incest marriage obsession is to shut these threads down. He's trolling.

So troll the troll. I call it 'ubertrolling'.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And exactly as I predicted, you can't back up you're silly traditionalist wingnut assertion by supplying a statute that requires sex within a marriage. 

Typical wingnut nuttery


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Typical deflection away from producing a compelling state interest to deny same sex siblings their constitutional rights. 

Go ahead you bigot hater wingnut, use the same arguments that kept the Lovings from marriage and claim you're not a racist. 

Nobody's buying it!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Strawman. When have I ever claimed that marriage requires sex?

Instead, I've asked you to make your case for the topic you are absolutely obsessed with: incest marriage. You discuss virtually nothing else in any thread. No matter the thread you join....its all about incest marriage.

Yet when I ask you to offer your argument for incest marriage, for polygamy......you abandon both.

Exactly as I told you you would.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Strawman

Incest is illegal. Contracts cannot be entered into for illegal purposes.

Do you never tire of receiving a good ass kicking you hater dupe.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I'm not the one bringing up polygamy and incest marriage. You are. Obsessively. In every thread you post in.

I'm merely asking you to make your case for each, as you will discuss nothing else. And predictably.....you deflect. Babbing about arguments I've never made. Anything but presenting your argument. 

Shrugs....you keep running. I'll keep laughing. Deal?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



For the second time....when did I ever say that marriage requires sex? 

Just quote me. Or....you can continue to run, desperately trying to change the topic. Either works for me.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Just as your dishonest side marketed same gender marriage as "gay marriage", you hater dupes are trying to market same sex sibling marriage as incest! 

Incest is a crime involving sexual contact, you have yet to provide a statute requiring sex in a marriage. 

That says a lot about you're warped mind. 

You probably think siblings should be separated at birth because they might have sex. 

Come out of the dark ages and step into my enlightened progressive world.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



When you imply that same sex sibling marriage would be incestuous we can easily see the warped, hater dupe world you live in.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


Strawman. I'm not arguing against the law, as you already know.

For the 8th time,* I've argued that your claims about SB377 have been wildly inaccurate. *As the State of Alabama still legally authorizes marriage, still recognizes it, still records it, with none of the laws pertaining to marriage changed save a license being a contract.

Even you can't explain how this is 'killing homosexual marriage'. Or anything else.

And of course your own citation decimates your own argument:



			
				SB377 Section 1 paragraph BS said:
			
		

> (2) A statement that the parties are* legally authorized* to be married.



You've insisted under SB377 that the State no longer authorizes marriage. *Yet SB377 requires that those getting married are authorized by the State to do so.* The exact opposite of what you claim. 

And 'poof'. Your argument collapses yet again. Do you ever tire of being wrong?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



That's not a quote. That's you making up a narrative for me that I've never uttered as a hapless deflection of a cartoon simple request:
*
Make your case for incest marriage and polygamy.*

You speak of nothing else. In any thread. You're simply obsessed. But when asked to present your argument....you flee. Even you treat your claims like garbage.

Why would you expect me to treat you claims any differently?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?



It is not up to the individual to disprove your claim of state compelling interest. If this were the case, the state could just deem whatever to be in 'compelling interest' and that would be that. A free society such as ours is not shackled to such tyranny, we are a self-governing society. We can challenge what you claim to be "compelling interest" the same as it was challenged for gays or any number of other individuals who had an issue with their rights through the years. We can also establish what IS or ISN'T a "compelling interest" and forge that into law because we retain that power as the people. 

The onus is on YOU to provide a "compelling interest" and if you cannot provide one we all agree on and accept, then it can be brought into question... which it has been. None of you has provided a sufficient "compelling interest" in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling. You sound exactly like the people who opposed gay marriage. It's as if those justifications are all legitimate again!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
> ...



If you have a case to make for incest marriage and polygamy....make it. 

What are the odds you'll give us the same snivelling excuses that Pop always does?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You keep claiming I promote illegal activities, which I never have, then have the utter audacity to ask for a quote from me?

Par for the course for someone who argues that his fellow citizens be denied the very rights he enjoys. And why does he argue that, because these nice, law abiding citizens were born the way they were.

Next you will want to turn back the clock to when sodamy was illegal and we threw gays and blacks into prison for simply exsersizing their God given rights!

Go back to your clan of knuckle draggers and let us progressive Americans take care of things.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show me those lawmakers who disagreed with me. 

You managed to quote yourself as those lawmakers. But so far...not the lawmakers themselves. Odd that. Its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Strawman. I'm not arguing against the law, as you already know.



No... What YOU want is to argue something nonsensical. You want to pretend that I am arguing the SCOTUS ruling isn't the law of the land and states don't have to adhere to it. That I can just defiantly wave my rebel flag and stand in the schoolhouse door to deny gay people their rights the same as I once did against the blacks... THAT is the argument you think we're having. That is what you are here typing so fervently to protest! You've stereotyped me, judged me based on your stereotype, and now you're being the typical bigot you are in reality. No one can talk to you or reason with you... your mind is totally made up about me and anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with your bigoted views.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I say that you speak of nothing but incest marriage and polygamy. On any thread. They are your sole topic of conversation, your personal obsession.

Make your case for polygamy and incest marriage. As you certainly couldn't quote me ever saying that sex is a requirement of marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying there is no compelling state interest in refusing to sanction it?
> ...




I have been hanging back and watching this shit fly for a while now and I just can’t stand it anymore. To say that close relative marriage is the same as same sex marriage is that same and if the latter is allowed , so must the former is just as stupid as stupid gets. I wrote this well prior to Obergefell and it still has relevance now. If anyone thinks that they will kill gay marriage with this sort of nonsensical fear mongering, you are sadly mistaken. The burden of proof to provide a compelling reason-or at least a rational basis- for not allowing related people to marry. Without taking a position on it here, this is one way they are likely to be able to do just that. Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with unrelated same sex couples.



*On Marriage Between Close Relatives: By Progressive Patriot  1.2.14*


So the argument is that if gay marriage is to be allowed, there is no reason to not allow marriage between brothers and sisters; parents and siblings and in short, any two consenting adults. Furthermore, anyone who opposes that idea is being accused of hypocrisy and of being opposed to true equality……marriage for all.


Before I proceed, I want to be perfectly clear about the fact that I know exactly why people raise this and other similar issues*. It’s a blatant and intellectually dishonest attempt to derail the conversation regarding marriage equality- *marriage that is equal to what Heterosexuals enjoy-nothing more- and to thwart the progress being made by the gay community in combating bigotry


They are using a logical fallacy in the form of weak analogy because there are important and distinct difference between marriages involving unrelated people, as opposed to closely related people. As we will see below, there are many pitfalls related to inbreeding, beyond the obvious biological/ genetic issues. *The relationship between close relatives, married or not will never be comparable to that of two unrelated people.*


*Moreover it is an appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem in which the opponent is attacked for being inconsistent rather than making an argument directly related to the issue, because they are unable to do so.* It matters little if there is in fact any inconsistency, or hypocrisy because the issue has no bearing on the merits of the main argument-in this case for gay marriage.


So, while I will-to a point- indulge those making this argument, I am not fooled by it for a nanosecond. They’re making a simple matter complicated and attempting to stoke the fears of others who may be prone to think, oh my god!


*Now to get to the point. I am well aware of the fact that while there is no universal prohibition against consanguineous marriage, however “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”. http://www.infolanka.com/org/genetics/essays/essayrj3.htm*

Aside from siblings and parent-child marriage, and such, *kin groupings may be extremely nepotistic and distrusting of non-family members in the larger society. In this context, non-democratic regimes emerge as a consequence of individuals turning to reliable kinship groupings for support rather than to the state or the free market.* It has been found, for example, that societies having high levels of familism tend to have *low levels of generalized trust and civic engagement* (Realo, Allik, & Greenfield, 2008), two important correlates of democracy. *Moreover, to people in closely related kin groups, individualism and the recognition of individual rights, which are part of the cultural idiom of democracy, are perceived as strange and counterintuitive ideological abstractions* (Sailer, 2004 - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/cousin-marriage-and-thdemocracy.html#sthash.YYRm9Or4.dpuf


*In addition, while over time marriage has taken on many forms and meaning, and the relationships between that participants have evolved, one point that there seems to be a wide consensus on is that a central part of marriage is to form a new family out of two existing families, in order to pool resources and create alliances. *To propose marriage between close relatives, regardless of whether or not they are sexual relationships *is going beyond redefining marriage and family to destroying the concept of the family unit as we know it.* *Family lines and relationships would be blurred and distorted beyond recognition, and rendered meaningless.*  A daughter might also be a wife, a brother might also be a husband. Would he be a father or an uncle to any children that she might bear?  Consider the legal and social ramifications.


*Some societies are endogamous in nature- meaning  societies that are stratified—that is, divided into unequal classes—often prescribe different degrees of endogamy where marriage opportunities are narrowly defined within a group.* *We on the other hand are an exogamous society. Through exogamy, otherwise unrelated households or lineages will form relationships through marriage, thus strengthening social solidarity.* Opportunities for marriage are generally open and cross class, religious and ethnic lines resulting in a more diverse and thus healthier society. *Yes, I should say, there is indeed a compelling government and societal interest in not allowing close relative marriage.  It should be understood by the traditionalists, that close relative marriage would be the real departure from tradition.*


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Polygamists are already making it.  Incestophiles will eventually make it. It will all work it's way through the system and the liberal SCOTUS will probably ordain it into law.  By that time, you will have had some "come to jesus" moment when you realize you can't be a hypocrite and you have to support it.  This isn't some fucking cartoon or sit-com...things don't happen in 22 minutes or a day... it takes some time to go through the bowels of the legal system. Ogeberfell is relatively new law. The ramifications have not been realized yet, but they WILL be! That's the argument here. 


Your retort is... Well it hasn't happened yet! Nananaa boo boo!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Strawman. I'm not arguing against the law, as you already know.
> ...



My argument is remarkably simple: *Your characterization of SB377 was complete nonsense. *As Alabama still recognizes marriage under SB377, those entering into marriage must still be legally authorized by the State, Alabama still records marriages, and still recognizes them from other States.

And most importantly, nothing in SB377 is 'killing homosexual marriage'. None of the gibbering nonsense of your OP is being enacted or even proposed.

I know you've got you dead to rights.....as you're desperately trying to change the topic. To the SCOTUS ruling, to the rebel flag, to babble about stereotypes.

*Anything* but SB377. I've literally run you off your argument. See how that works?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I have NEVER promoted illegal activity you knuckle dragging racist bigot. 

We get it, you are the only one that deserves equal protection and due process. Those born different than you?  Sucks to be them I guess. 

Now, do you have a compelling state Intetest to deny same sex siblings the right to enter into a contract or not?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Then quote the court rulings supporting it. Or will these be like your 'lawmakers who disagree' with me? More  meaningless gibberish of you citing yourself?



> Incestophiles will eventually make it.



Says who? Same sex marriage has been legal in parts of this country for 10 years. Yet incest marriage is legal nowhere.

If same sex marriage leads to incest marriage......why didn't it?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I get it, same sex sibling marriage is different than same sex marriage so it shouldn't be legal, but same sex marriage is different then opposite sex marriage so it should......

(Scratches head)


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You speak of nothing else but incest marriage and polygamy. In any thread, on any topic. Incest marriage and polygamy are your personal obsessions. You will discuss nothing else.
*
But when I ask you to simply make your case*, to present your arguments regarding equal protection, due process, to cite the cases that you believe support your argument for incest marriage and polygamy....
_
.......you flee.
_
Shrugs....keep running.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You've simple ignored every citation, every argument, every reason you've asked for. As I've long said.....you have no interest in discussing the topic, or getting any answers for any of your questions. As whenever they are presented, you ignore them all.

You merely try and shut these threads down with babble about incest and polygamy. You're trolling.

And I troll the trolls. I call it 'ubertrolling'. See how that works? Or shall I snicker while you keep scratching your head?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Incest is a crime, since you are acussing me of the promotion of a crime, why don't you just back that assertion up lil guy.

You won't though, cuz u b a knuckle dragger hater dupe.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Like when you accused me of claiming that sex is a requirement of marriage?

Laughing....show me. Quote me making the claim.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You claim my argument for same sex sibling marriage is somehow the same as incestuous marriage. 

Now, move along child, let us progressive adults handle things. I'm sure mommy had some ice cream an cookies for Ya!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You claimed that that I said sex is a requirement for marriage.

*Quote me saying that.* So far you're only quoting yourself. Which isn't the same thing, is it Troll?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I find your source to be hilarious. It's like... Let me present the clear and unquestionable legal reasoning that sibling marriage will not be legalized because of gay marriage.... 1) Those who say it will are lying homophobic bigots.  2) In my opinion, it won't happen. 3) It's a form of Latin argument, absoluticus absurdium! 4) My pinhead paleontology friends tell me that no society ever had incest relationships. 5) Gay marriages are good for society. 

How is "same sibling marriage" automatically assumed "incest marriage" but "same gender marriage" is not "homosexual marriage"?  Wasn't the argument that marriage was not about sexual behavior? But now... it is? How can that be? It seems you have made the presumption that siblings desire doing some "icky" kind of sex act that you don't approve of?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Obviously you missed the entire point, that being-since I have to spell it out -is NOT about them simply being different-but about the implications for society and thus the reasons why government may legitimately deny sibling marriage. Is it possible that you really don't get that  or are you just playing stupid


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Given that your entire OP and all your babble about 'incestophiles' is just you citing you....surely you can see why no one takes your claims very seriously.

Especially when you refuse to even discuss your *own* claims about SB377.....the Alabama bill you insist is doing what you propose in your OP. 

Except it isn't....is it?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Your another one who does not understand much or is playing stupid. The post clearly had little or nothing to do with sex or incest as reasons why it may not be in the best interest of society to allow it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"\.



Why would they care? 

Jesus never says a word about gay marriage. Jesus condemn's remarriage after divorce- you know like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump- but not one word about condemning gay marriage. 

But maybe they did care about Jesus's First and Second Commandments- and that would explain their acceptance of marriage by gay Americans. 

I guess a more interesting question is why you think your parents were 'supposedly Christians'- why do you doubt your own parents were Christians?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.
> .



When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now. Just now marriage is more inclusive- rather than less inclusive. 

My wife and I married over 20 years ago- our marriage is exactly the same now legally- as it was 20 years ago. Obergefel doesn't change my marriage at all. Or anyone's other than those prevented from marrying before. 

IF you want to walk away from you marriage because 2 gay dudes can marry- well then the problem is not that 2 gay dudes are marrying- the problem is with your marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > What Republicans really want to do is kill gays. Literally kill them so they are dead.
> ...



LOL- IF science does find a way to identify 'gay' fetuses, Conservative Christians will be lining up for abortions.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Ohhhhh, implications for society which would be so much worse with same sex siblings marrying for purely financial reasons then any other same sex couples marrying for financial reasons. 

Got it. 

Same argument made by Virginia to deny the Lovings the right to marry. 

And just exactly how do you claim to be a progressive?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Time after time you accused me of promoting criminal activity, and many times I've requested a quote you have failed to do so.

Back it up bigot, or go away and practice your knitting nit wit.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Go ahead, keep playing your bizarre mind fuck games. If marriage is purely financial for you, you must be very sad and lonely.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why bother answering you when you will continue to ignore any answer that doesn't include sex?

The State's interest for denying marriage all siblings is the same- regardless of sex.

Which is demonstrated by Wisconsin's marriage law.

But you know- and ignore that.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  ..



Really?

Then why are women in their 40's allowed to marry?

Why are women not asked about alcohol consumption before being allowed to marry?

Once again Silhouette- you are just making crap up.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children.  Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..
> ...



No paradox- other than the one invented in your own mind.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?


 YES!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

It was all debunked 40 pages ago.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Yep- Pop just wants another thread to drag his straw man into.

Just another bitter homophobe hating that gay couples can marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



'and nothing else'

Says Pops

Quoting himself.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > There is a compelling interest: providing children with a mother and father who won't bear retarded children.  And that's a topic gays don't want to talk about because it means a state CAN regulate marriage when it comes to the wellbeing of children.  Just not when it comes to systematically depriving them of either a mother or father for life..then "gay marriage is immune from state interference even if children will come to harm"..
> ...



That's what passes for logic in your tiny bigoted mind.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> My argument is remarkably simple



Much like you!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > My argument is remarkably simple
> ...



Smiling......and as frosting on your fail cake, you've been reduced to personal insults. Albeit cheerful ones!

No wonder you abandoned SB377.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?



The OP was debunked homophobic nonsense from the beginning.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Your another one who does not understand much or is playing stupid. *The post clearly had little or nothing to do with sex or incest as reasons why it may not be in the best interest of society to allow it.*



* “all human societies however primitive or geographically isolated, prohibit the mating of first degree relatives, namely the mating between parents and children and brothers and sisters (incest)”.*

Not only that, but this is really the only substantive reason presented. The rest is conjecture and smear of the opposition.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> No wonder you abandoned SB377



LMFAOooo... Why in the hell would I want to spend ANY time on a failed bill in the last session of the Alabama state legislature?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble, and Pop is obsessively trapped by his compulsions regarding polygamy and incest........can we declare the OP debunked nonsense?
> ...



It was factually baseless to be sure. But its actively been disproven by SB377.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble..



Boss hasn't abandoned anything, the OP still stands.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



My argument is that the State of Virginia made those same predictions when defending bans on mixed race marriage. 

And 50 years later- the predictions of the racist of Virginia have not come to pass, and 50 years from now, your homophobic arguments won't have either.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble..
> ...



Still the same piece of crap it was from the beginning. 

Where Boss argues to kill all marriage so he can deny marriage to homosexuals.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Your another one who does not understand much or is playing stupid. *The post clearly had little or nothing to do with sex or incest as reasons why it may not be in the best interest of society to allow it.*
> ...



So then you agree that there is a compelling reason to prohibit sibling marriage but none to prohibit unrelated same sex marriage?  Good!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > No wonder you abandoned SB377
> ...


Didn't you say the bill was *already *happening and *passed*? But now its a 'failed bill'?

What a difference a couple of days makes...eh buddy?

Keep backpedalling. It makes me giggle.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > So since Boss has abandoned even a semblance of his 'killing homosexual marriage' babble..
> ...



Save that none of what you claimed about SB377 does anything you claimed it does. Nor is it 'killing homosexual marriage' in the slightest. 

So beyond being utterly wrong on every point.....your argument stands?


----------



## bertramhall (Oct 12, 2015)

TheOldSchool said:


> Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.


so you shouldn`t celebrate Thanksgiving day


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So then you agree that there is a compelling reason to prohibit sibling marriage but none to prohibit unrelated same sex marriage? Good!



Not what I said or implied. I said that was the only "substantive" reason presented, I did not state that I agreed with it. My position on marriage remains unchanged... I think it should not be something defined by government or the courts but rather the individual. Parameters regarding a legal domestic partnership should be allowed at the state level through ballot initiatives if some distinction need be made between couples and individuals. Personal matters of property rights, estates, survivors, pensions, insurance, etc. can all be handled through probate of contract, as has been customary throughout our history... there is no need to redefine marriage. These are merely legal parameters we can change to accommodate any two people who want such a contract... but it would also be open to a brother and sister or mother and son, if they chose to have such a contract of partnership.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > So then you agree that there is a compelling reason to prohibit sibling marriage but none to prohibit unrelated same sex marriage? Good!
> ...



You realize that SB377 requires that participants be legally authorized by the State of Alabama in order to enter into marriage.....right?

How is the state not 'authorizing' marriage when the State sets the rules by which marriage is legally authorized?

And of course, how does any of it 'kill homosexual marriage'? You've abandoned the very premise of your thread, its very name. Along with your every claim regarding SB377. 

Do you ever wonder why I so easily run you off of your every argument?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ...same sex marriage?



Marriage _is_: the Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> homosexual marriage'



Marriage _is: _The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 12, 2015)

bertramhall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.
> ...


You make no sense.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You wrote one helluva long post, but it was pure nonsense since you fail to understand what the marriage contract is. 

The couple defines what the marriage is, NOT THE STATE DUMMY. 

 The licence does not require:

Love

Faithfulness 

Dignity

Sex

Or anything else except:

1. Consenting adults

2. A signed document

3. Payment of a fee

Your snide comment simply shows what a traditionalist, right wing moralist you are. 

Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES. 

We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > homosexual marriage'
> ...



And one man and one man. And one woman and one woman.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Then name the reasons. 

You made the statement, now back it up. 

Remember those reasons must meet simple legal standards. 

1. Do not deny the affected - their due process. 

2. There is a stated Compelling State interest in denial of a constitutional right to the individual. 

3. The reason does not violate equal protection. 

Ok........

Go


----------



## TheOldSchool (Oct 12, 2015)

bertramhall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief conservatives get over it.  Welcome to the 21st century.
> ...


Maybe you should:


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.
> 
> We are the ones who never tire of fighting for equality and justice for all.



Progressivism... OKA: Left-think, rests entirely in Relativism.  Which rejects the objectivity that is essential to justice, and the truth intrinsic to that and justice.  Which is why no Leftist, and no Leftist policy, has ever served justice, or equality.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> LOL- IF science does find a way to identify 'gay' fetuses, Conservative Christians will be lining up for abortions.



There's no such thing as a 'sexually deviant fetus'.

Sexual deviancy is learned behavior.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Leave this to us TRUE PROGRESSIVES.
> ...



But you don't use objectivity. You merely assume that any subjective opinion you possess must be objective truth.

Subjective is not objective. Simply obliterating your entire basis of argument. 

Next fallacy please.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > LOL- IF science does find a way to identify 'gay' fetuses, Conservative Christians will be lining up for abortions.
> ...



Says who? Let me guess.....you pretending your personal opinion defines all sexuality objectively?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.



5 years ago... 5000 years ago...  _*Marriage*_ was, as it is today, _*The Joining of One Man and One Woman.*_


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.
> ...



Obvious nonsense. Marriage has varied wildly across time and society. With the number of participants changing, the duration, the relationship, the status of the participants, etc.

Marriage is what we say it is. As we define it. And we define marriage as a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago- marriage meant exactly the same thing as it does now.
> ...



OT:  I once tried to hook up a wagon to a tractor with both having the ball half of the ball hitch........

It didn't work so well.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And of course same sex heterosexual siblings.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



If people were tractors or wagons....that might have some relevance to the discussion.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Show me the law saying as much.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



You didn't notice the "OT" did Ya. 

That OCD acting up again?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



More accurately I've said that you citing your subjective opinion doesn't define objectivity. As subjective isn't objective. 

See how that works?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Did you notice how people still aren't wagons or tractors? 

Do try and keep up, Troll.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Show me a compelling state interest to deny same you fascist. 

Oh, did you check the Maryland incest law yet?

Vaginal penetration is it?

Hmmmmmmm


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



Wow. I broke you in one post, reducing you to spamming the same debunked nonsense over and over. 

That was easy. 

And your subjective opinion still doesn't define objective truth. Simply killing your silly argument.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you admit our law doesn't recognize incest marriage.

That was easy.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You do know what OT means, Right?

Maybe I give you too much credit.......

Damn, OF COURSE I DO!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You do realize that without people being tractors or wagons......your analogy doesn't make the slightest sense.

Right, Troll?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Of course, why did you think I would not agree?

You off your meds again?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And once again, you abandon your entire argument. 

You're nothing if not predictable.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



OT= Off Topic

Do you also need an explanation of both "off" and "topic"?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And how does that differ from your normally irrelevant drivel about incest and polygamy? 

As neither have a thing to do with 'killing homosexual marriage'.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Indeed, I've never promoted criminal activities. 

You have serious and deep problems. Maybe the worst one is your obsession with sibling sex closely followed by your obsession with me.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Incest is a crime, and I never promote criminal activity.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




And you've abandoned all your 'incest marriage' babble once again. Admitting that no, the law doesn't recognize incest marriage. 

You're easy, Troll.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




And how does your personal obsession with incest marriage and polygamy have any relevance to 'killing homosexual marriage'? 

Or is there an implied "OT" before everything you post, Troll?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.


The OP did not state or imply anything that said "undoing gay marriage"...
Once again, a liberal attempts to create a narrative with a lie, fabrication or distortion of the facts.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.
> ...



The narrative was 'killing homosexual marriage'. Which is actually a tad more violent in its terminology.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage," there is only one marriage law that can accommodate same- or opposite-sex couples.


Umm....If you think there is no distinction between the two, you have a problem.
The fact is no matter what the SCOTUS says, no one may change the definition of marriage. 
And you'll never be able to compel everyone to accept it.
On this one there is no "you will comply"....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.
> ...



Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the Triumvirate of Evil at the hollow core of socialism.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Oh please.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And I broke you already. With your entire argument reduced to spam.

It doesn't take much to break you, does it? I merely point out that your subjective opinion doesn't define objective truth....and you collapse into mindless spam.

Alas, subjective still isn't objective.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



So the narrative *wasn't* killing homosexual marriage? Because you may want to check the title of the thread again.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country.  Good luck with that.
> ...


Oh Please!!  ( AS you would -and did say)


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And broken Keys spams time number 4. 

It takes very little to shatter little Keyes. Just point out that his subjective opinion doesn't define objective truth...

.......and he flees into mindless spam.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And time number 5 for spammin' broken Keyes.

So much for 'objectivity'. All you have to do is point out that his subjective opinion doesn't define objective truth.....and its too much for him. He breaks.

And you get the same stuttering spam.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



I'm still trying to figure out if Spoon has read the title of the thread.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

pwjohn said:


> Chicken littles long winded comment might hold water, if large numbers of people over wide areas balked at the Supreme Court ruling. But as we all know, that didn't happen. As a matter of fact, the transition couldn't have gone better.
> 
> I was taught something very important back when I was younger and thinking of going into in the car business.
> 
> ...


I don't know to whom you are referring. In public most people will avoid the mess and just say they accept it or whatever. When discussed among family friends and neighbors, not happening. 
I think the militant gay movement that pushed this agenda is realizing they may have made a huge mistake.
Months ago after the SCOTUS ruling, there were several stories published that had a common theme. That theme is that now that gay marriage is at least in the eyes of the law "normal", that gays no longer felt "special". That they no longer had a battle to fight. That they had to feel like everyone else. Just ordinary citizens. People that go through their days without fanfare, celebrity or the feeling that they have 'special' rights. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-gay-culture.html?_r=0
Perhaps the militant gay community can find a new purpose. Perhaps representatives of the gay community can travel abroad to nations where gays are severely oppressed and attempt to change THOSE societies.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Yiou have a problem?.....
See the guy down the hall. Third door on the left.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> pwjohn said:
> 
> 
> > Chicken littles long winded comment might hold water, if large numbers of people over wide areas balked at the Supreme Court ruling. But as we all know, that didn't happen. As a matter of fact, the transition couldn't have gone better.
> ...



So let me see if I have you speaking for gay people down correctly.

Gay people think that they made a *mistake* by convincing the USSC to protect them from discrimination in marriage?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



And I'm still not sure you've read the thread title. You do realize that its 'Killing Homosexual Marriage', right?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And poor broken keyes spams for time number 6!

The poor, fragile soul doesn't handle contradiction well. Merely pointing out that his subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality breaks him utterly. And reduces him to stuttering rote, mindlessly repeating the same debunked nonsense over and over again.

So much for 'objectivity'.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> '...Homosexual Marriage'...



Marriage _is: _ The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > '...Homosexual Marriage'...
> ...



Or a man and a man. Or a woman and a woman.

Remember, marriage is whatever we say it is.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> ...
> 
> Remember, marriage is ...



The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## mdk (Oct 12, 2015)

Keys is the very soul of impotent rage. Too funny!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

mdk said:


> Keys is the very soul of impotent rage. Too funny!



HEY!  An unsolicited Concession... .  How sweet.

_Your Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 12, 2015)

didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
far worse than letting two people in love to take an oath to each other before some authority or notary.


----------



## mdk (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Keys is the very soul of impotent rage. Too funny!
> ...



Ball up your fists and stomp your feet in anger until cows come home. You are a powerless little spammer and nothing more.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



.....one man and one man. Or one woman and one woman. Or one man and one woman. 

Exactly!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

mdk said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



What else can he do? He can't reason his way out of a paper bag. He chokes on his own first mover argument. And no one accepts his personal opinion as defining objective reality.

That's his entire wad. He's got no other tool.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...



And Keyes the spammy spammer offers of spam number 8 and 9!

All it took to shatter him utterly.....was to point out that his subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. 

And 'poof'. He becomes a rote, stuttering wreck.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I did. 

I have a couple of problems with the title as well as the OP's premis, and I think Boss is aware of that:

1. Homosexual marriage or Gay Marriage does not exist. What the USSC did not do is create either, they created Same Sex marriage, far different than Gay Marriage. Gay marriage was mere deflection and a brilliant Marketing scheme. 

2. It will not be killed, marriage itself (civil) will die under its own weight


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
> far worse than letting two people in love to take an oath to each other before some authority or notary.



Homosexuals have always had other means of publicly declaring their deviant affections for one another... but they were not interested in taking those other avenues, because the goal here is not to declare their deviant affections... it is to further undermine Marriage.  This as a function of evil, wherein the further undermining of marriage, further erodes the bearing of marital responsibility, which pushes children further into the grips of the deviants who are interested in the legalization of using children for sexual gratification.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Then what relevance does your personal obsession with incest and polygamy have to do with 'killing homosexual marriage'?

Or should I just add OT to everything you post?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



ROFL!  

Reader, note that I said that Relativism rejects objectivity.... and immediately a Relativist comes to 'inform' you, that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OBJECTIVITY".


I say it here and _it COMES OUT *THERE!*

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_
(Reader, recall that the key to defeating Leftists in debate rests in two fundamental elements: 

1 - Find a Leftist.

2 - _Get them to speak.)_


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Incest is a crime. Please provide the post in which I promoted this criminal act. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> ... homosexual marriage'... .



Marriage _is:  _The Joining of One Man and One Woman.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
> ...



If your marriage is based on denying marriage to someone else, then it was fucked to begin with. 

Otherwise, how does a gay couple marriage impact you in the slightest?



> This as a function of evil, wherein the further undermining of marriage, further erodes the bearing of marital responsibility, which pushes children further into the grips of the deviants who are interested in the legalization of using children for sexual gratification.



Your subjective opinion don't define evil anymore than it does 'objective truth'. 

Do you ever have an argument that isn't you confusing subjective with objective, my little relativist?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Laughing....like when you said that I claimed that sex is a requirement of marriage?

Quote me saying  that, Troll.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No, forum rules do not allow you to add to a fellow members quotes. 

You seem very untrustworthy, first acussing me of promoting criminal behavior, then suggesting you can modify my quotes.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > ... homosexual marriage'... .
> ...




....the joining of one woman and one woman. Or one man and one man. Or one man and one woman.

Now you're getting it!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'm merely correcting them. As even you can't establish what possible relevance your obsession with incest or polygamy has 'killing homosexual marriage'.

Making them, by definition, off topic.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Why are you simply copying my requests?

Did your daycare provider Teach you Monkey see, Monkey Do during your play break today?

Curiouser and Curiouser


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I've insisted that you claimed that sex is a requirement of marriage?

Um.....can you quote me doing that? Because I'm pretty sure you're mixing us up, Troll. You've claimed I've said sex is a requirement of marriage.

I'm merely challenging you to quote me saying it. Try again, Troll.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Dear, Dear, this pervert thinks that he can not only redefine legal relationships, but also forum rules  

Tell me Skylar, after admitting as much, why do you think anyone would trust anything you say?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Then what possible relevance does your bizarre fixation on incest and polygamy have with 'killing homosexual marriage'? 

So far, even you have no idea. So....OT for your entire post?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Nothing "violent" whatsoever in the thread title terminology, you're just an illiterate retard. The word "killing" can only denote violence if it's being applied to a living organism. Homosexual marriage is not a living organism.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I won't play your daycare game, go find one of your lil playmates to do that with.

Have you come up with the post that you claim exists that I promote criminal activities yet?

Of course you haven't because it only exists in your juvenile mind.

Now run and get a cookie little boy.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Its a matter of comparison. 'Killing' is certainly more violent terminology than 'undoing'. Which are the two in question.

For your posts....I prefer 'abandoned' over 'ran terrified from'. As in 'you've abandoned your every claim on SB377, had your nonsense about 'recognition' and 'authorization' debunked by citations of the very bill itself".

See how that works? 

I suppose I could use 'fled with your tail tucked between your legs'. But that evokes all sorts of canine comparisons. Not all of them flattering.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So you can't cite me claiming that sex is a requirement of marriage?

Its a remarkably simple question. Yet it confounds you utterly.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> You realize that SB377 requires that participants be...



Shut up, retard... SB377 doesn't require a goddamn thing because it didn't pass. It's irrelevant to the conversation. It doesn't mean anything and it won't ever mean anything because it is a failed bill. It doesn't require anything, it doesn't say anything, it doesn't do anything... it is dead. 

It's quite pathetic that you are so desperate for something to win a point on that you are dragging up dead bills to argue against. You can't answer the questions flying at you from every direction, you don't have the capacity to comprehend anything about this issue other than what you've learned to bleat like the good little stupid sheep you are. 

All you want to do is try to antagonize me and drag the discussion off into some meaningless opinion you have about a failed bill that doesn't matter anymore. Go fuck yourself, retard.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Likely because there is no such thing as 'homosexual marriage.' 

Each state has only one marriage law, contract law written by the states and administered by state courts. Marriage in each of the 50 states is a union of two equal consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Its a matter of comparison.



No, it's a matter of what I said, retard. "Killing" is only implying violence if you are talking about taking life. Even then, it's not necessarily implying "violence" because you don't consider abortion a violent act, do you?  No... but then again, you are a complete and total hypocrite so it doesn't matter. Words just fucking take on the meaning you need them to at the moment. RETARD!


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Likely because there is no such thing as 'homosexual marriage.'



Then there is no such thing as incest marriage and it's just a contract between two siblings.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > You realize that SB377 requires that participants be...
> ...



So when you said this, you were lying through your teeth? (bold added for emphasis)



			
				Boss said:
			
		

> *It already happened in Alabama and it passed.* Due to a really stupid Wallace-era law, the bill required a super majority because it wasn't on conservative governor Bentley's agenda. Rest assured, it will be on the governor's agenda next session and it will again pass and become state law.
> 
> Post 155
> Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



So did it pass, or not? And if you're so sure its_ going to_ pass.....why are you suddenly abandoning any discussion of it? This after you made all sorts of pseudo-legal claims about SB377.

What a difference a couple of days makes, eh buddy?



> It's irrelevant to the conversation. It doesn't mean anything and it won't ever mean anything because it is a failed bill. It doesn't require anything, it doesn't say anything, it doesn't do anything... it is dead.



Then all your claims about how it will pass and become state law, how other state legislatures will pass similar laws, how under SB377 that there will be no marriage, gay or straight....

*....that was just ignorant bullshit? *

Say it ain't so, B!



> It's quite pathetic that you are so desperate for something to win a point on that you are dragging up dead bills to argue against.



And by 'dragging up dead bills' you mean the bills *that you cited*, *insisted would pass*, and made up all sorts of pseudo-legal gibberish about....

*....and have now abandoned?*

Just because you lost every debate on your every ignorant talking point about them doesn't mean they magically become 'irrelevant'. It merely means you don't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

See how that works?


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Perhaps Pop could quote Obergefell saying that incest marriage is now legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > pwjohn said:
> ...


It's even worse than that -- he thinks they think they made a mistake because now they feel like ordinary people.



Rightards say the dumbest shit. Honestly.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
> ...


Day 108 of the Great Conservative Butthurt™






It's been 15,603 days (and counting) of conservative butthurt since Roe v. Wade. You better get to work, you've got some serious catching up to do!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Don't hold your breath, that's what children do when they don't get what they want,  

Oh, wait.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Quote to where is said I was wiling. 

Even if I were, all those lovely ladies would probably hound me for it. They love them some hunky Pop. 

Get in line Faun, but it's a very long line.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yeah, that's not a quote from Obergefell saying that incest marriage is legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

That's just you babbling. Try again, this time quoting Obergefell. I'll even help:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show me.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Quote where I said that sex is a requirement of marriage, Troll.

If I said it, it will be remarkably easy for you to cite. If I didn't.....then its gonna be slightly more difficult for you.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And how is your obsession with incest and polygamy relevant to 'killing gay marriage'?

Or was that just another OT post?


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can't stop talking about how sex is not a requirement for marriage.

I can tell you unquestionably, it's a requirement in mine, no matter how much you don't care of its required. The remainder of your delusions ... are well ... your delusions.


----------



## Faun (Oct 12, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> See how that works?



You've now been added to my ignore list. See how that works?


----------



## Boss (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....



Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Thanks, I'm sure you'd like a show. But your request is not really relevant to Maryland, now is it?

And, incest remains a criminal act, now doesn't it. 

And you've yet to quote a post by me that promotes that act

So asking me to dig out a reference to something I never promoted is, well

Your own little fantisy world, now isn't it. 

Tsk tsk.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I think I have before, but for you I will do it once again. 

Marriage was between a man and woman, not too closely related ( for a reason). This is not at all ambiguous to folks with a brain. Sisters couldn't marry brothers and brothers couldn't marry. Not even in Maryland. 

Now rest your little traditional, right wing nut job head. 

Let it sink in.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 12, 2015)

Marriage is still a male and female.  Bruce Jenner is still a male.  Too bad, so sad.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > See how that works?
> ...



Not to worry, he has lots of other voices I'm his head to keep him company Boss.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 12, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wonderful, you were actually allowed to create your own qualification for marriage. 

The question is however, why you feel compelled to project yours onto others?

It's actually a bit sick when you think about it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....
> ...


What the fuck is wrong with you? How do you not understand a brother and sister are not the same gender? I take you can't answer the question because you really do have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Who knows what you think I've projected onto others?  Given your obsession with incest though, who know what you're even thinking?


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You make no sense no matter how many times you try. A brother and a sister couldn't marry when marriage was limited to being between a man and a woman; but you're so fucked in the head, you've convinced yourself that two brothers can soon marry because marriage now allows two men to marry.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
> ...



Same sex marriage has been around since the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians
Gays taking vows to each other does not undermine anyone or anything.  Why do straights fear homosexuals will somehow minimize their own vows?  It I two people pledging their love and commitment to each other.  Petty, small minded, bitter people don't seem to understand that marriage is a legal binding, not one exclusive to the "church".  Fortunately we frown on children being sold in marriage.  Some things in the bible deserve to end.  Why do monotheists ignore the fact that all people are supposed to be the children of and blessed by god.  Love is something freely given, not conditional.  Even if our children move away, disobey or disappoint us, we never stop loving them.  The more you love, the more capacity you have for loving others.  It grows, not diminishes.
Marriage in modern terms allows them to speak for the other, have access to make medical decision, share in property, access insurance, share the tax burden, work with each other to raise children.  For them it is a promise to love and care for each other, to make each other whole, a completing of the circle so to speak.
Marriage is not about god, it about the law.  People do not have to get permission from the church or god.  Many people choose a civil marriage.  Sometimes it might be a mix of faiths and customs or even no faith at all.
God did not create marriage, man did.  God did not make only straight men or animals.  Homosexual attraction began long before mankind as we know us now.  Why do you reject those that god also created?
If there is no god then there can be no religious objection.  If there is a god, gays have a right to love and be loved just like everyone else.

Gay marriage is harming no one.  Religion has not say in our legal system (thank you forefathers)

People waving the bible as part of their argument don't understand their own book.  In the bible, several gays are bless and beloved by god.

If you are going to misused the book, you might as well wipe your arse with it.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 13, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Marriage is still a male and female.  Bruce Jenner is still a male.  Too bad, so sad.



"legally" jenner is recognized as a woman

We are governed by laws not religion.  Religion has not place dictating the law.  No one faith, belief or book tells us what is and is not legal.
Marriage is not about faith, it is contract of law.


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 13, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > ... homosexual marriage'... .
> ...



marriage has nothing to do with god.
You god created homosexuality, so why do you deny them the legal right to pledge their love and commitment to each other?  Some churches will wed gays.  There are civil ceremonies for people of all beliefs, including the right to not believe.

If your church does not want to perform marriages, they don't have to, but you or your church has not right to deny gays the right to a civil marriage.  They do not have the right to translate the country's law or speak for god(s).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

boss and pop have been roughly handed.  When they are on the wrong side of the law and logic, that's what happens.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yup

And you have no Compelling State Interest to deny

See, that wasn't so gosh darned hard, was it


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> boss and pop have been roughly handed.  When they are on the wrong side of the law and logic, that's what happens.



Funny, they are the same arguments your side argued, yet you have no valid arguments of your own now. 

Sweet


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.

That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.
> 
> That is their affirmation, so they have to make the case, and they have failed titanically so far.



You fought the war YET still need to battle? How bizarre is that?

Can you supply a single Statute that makes sexual contact a requirement of a valid marriage? No?  

Then your argument is without merit. 

Can you name a single other legal partnership that only allows two as the maximum number of participants? No?

Then your argument is without merit. 

You fail twice in one post. 

Next?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.
> ...


You fail in your argument because the status quo does not have to justify itself, because it is legal.

You have to show  that the government has no compelling argument to ban polygamy and sib marriage.

You have not done that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Sure was easy, you still can't explain why a gay brother and his lesbian sister couldn't marry but now two brothers will when the compelling interest is the same for both


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Of course he hasn't. He can't. So he keeps running in circles hoping no one will notice.


----------



## saintmichaeldefendthem (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


You're seriously trying to make the claim Congress only passed the law for territories, but not the states?

Are you really this stupid?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...


Reynolds and Tucker are binding on the entire country unless Congress or SCOTUS say no.  To get me and saintmike on the same side is not easy, but WW just won a bi-fecta.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because marriage was only between a man and a woman. Don't you read the papers Faun? That changed with Obergfell. 

Please try to keep up.

Oh, that qualification that the USSC got rid of, met equal protection and was not arbitrary. 

Glad I could put your mind at rest.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



No, You have to supply a Compelling State Interest to deny its citizens their individual rights. 

You can't? Dear lord, Ya mean that there are none. 

Yikes


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you understood what you were talking about it might help. 

Jake is applying the Rational Basis Test to the compelling state interest. 

But since marriage is claimed to be a Constitutional right, the Courts must apply the Strict Scrutiny Test, putting a VERY heavy burden on the State to prove there is a compelling interest to deny individual its Constitutional Right. 

So Jakes deflection on an Internet forum might look good, but in the reality of Constitutionally protective rights.......

Sucks to be you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


That's already been done.  Now you have to show the state is wrong.  You have got nowhere near that, but keep trying because you are failing in terms of constitutional rights.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



If marriage had not been declared a constitutional right, then you might be correct, then the rational basis test would be the basis of the decision. since it is a Constitutionally protected right, you must use the Strict Scrutiny test.

That's how it works.

Using the rational basis test is what Virginia used againt "Loving". And the same reasoning you are using, which according to many same sex advocates, makes you a racist, a bigot and a homophobe.

Odd, ain't it?


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



A brother and sister aren't the same gender but a brother and brother are. Why can't they have same-gender marriage? Why do you advocate discrimination and denial of their rights? Pop has been asking you this for weeks. I've seen it in several threads over the course of the past month. As of yet, I have not seen a sufficient answer. 

The absolute best any of you can come up with is, _"Duh, because it's not legalz!"_ That positively brilliant answer is followed closely by the ever-logical, _"If you don't know then don't ask me to explain it to you!"_ Any attempt to TRY and explain the state's "compelling interests" sounds pretty much identical to the moral arguments made against gay marriage. 

Since you can't really give a sufficient answer to Pop's question, the solution is simple... Pop has to be marginalized and his argument summarily dismissed.  Which, I personally think, reveals a much more dangerous and insidious threat to free society than gay marriage. You people are one step removed from lining folks up in front of an open ditch and putting bullets in their head as "political dissidents."


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Jesus never says a word about gay marriage. Jesus condemn's remarriage after divorce- you know like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump- but not one word about condemning gay marriage.



The bible states homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. They didn't have gay marriage back then so there was nothing to say about it.

When will people realize that a 2000 year old book is not going to make references to things that have popped up in the last 5 years?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.



Using your logic, and the rational basis test of the States Compelling interest rule, then Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right and the States have a right to limit who may marry. 

Jake, why are you scared of homosexuals?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Because they appear to be stuck on tradition?

It's the only rational way to look at these homophobes arguments.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Boss and Pop simply cannot build a compelling interest constitutionally to set aside marriage for couples.
> ...


Loaded question fallacy.  You are, though.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Jesus never says a word about gay marriage. Jesus condemn's remarriage after divorce- you know like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump- but not one word about condemning gay marriage.
> ...



The 'bible' says that women wearing pants is an abomination to the lord. 

_5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God._

And like I said before- Jesus himself(according to the New Testament) specifically condemns divorce and remarriage. Conservatives like Reagan, Gingrich and Trump all specifically violated Jesus's instructions- and according to Jesus are all adulterers

And in _the house_, the[y] _disciples_ began to _question_ him about this again And he said tothem. “_Whoever divorces_ his _wife_, and _marries another woman commits adultery against_ her, and if she herself _divorces_ her _husband_ and _marries another_ man, she is _committing adultery_.”

As you point out- the Bible doesn't say a thing forbidding two men or two women from marrying. 

But the Bible does very clearly forbid adultery- and Jesus very clearly condemns divorce- and remarriage as adultery.

Why then do some Christians spend their time attacking 'gay marriage' and not attacking remarriage after divorce?

Indeed- Kim Davis- she who said it was against her Christian values to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple- has been 4 times- according to Jesus- she is an adultress- why would any 'Christian' who condemns homosexuals marrying- not also condemn her for her second, third and fourth marriages?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > See how that works?
> ...



Boss's philosophy when it comes to people providing him with challenging Questions:


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop- still trying to get someone to dance with his straw man

Still all butt hurt that gay couples can now legally marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You putting your fingers in your ears and going nnaaaaaa nnaaaaaa can't hear you' is not the same thing as no compelling state interest existing.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

saintmichaeldefendthem said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > saintmichaeldefendthem said:
> ...



Congress passed lots of laws that apply or applied only to Territories.

Are you really this ignorant?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Boss and Pop have to make an argument that the state does not have a compelling argument to ban polygamy or sib marriage.
> ...



Poor Pop- still trying to get anyone to dance with his straw man.

Meanwhile- American couples are getting legally married- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

And meanwhile, incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages remain illegal in every state.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Incest is illegal

Have you come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex sibling marriage?

You can't?

Then you realize you are a bigotted homophobe.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jake can't answer the question so instead he hides 

That's what bigoted cowards do I guess


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



He sounds hideous!  (there is a hidden joke there... get it?)


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Sure is what Boss does.

And what you do.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:

1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage

2. "Homosexual " Marriage is now legal in every state and territory of the nation.

3. Efforts to thwart  gay marriages on a state by state basis have been a dismal and even comical failure.

4. Efforts to stop gay marriage nationally, such as with a constitutional amendment are doomed to fail as well

5. Efforts to abolish government recognition of all marriage-either on a state or national level is likewise doomed.

6. The Obergefell ruling extended the right of marriage to same sex couples WHITHIN THE SAME PERAMETERS as enjoyed by opposite sex couples. Nothing more and nothing less no matter how one tries to twist it.

7. Siblings-either same sex or opposite sex were prohibited from marrying before Obergefell  and  that has not changed. Same for plural marriages.

8.  With respect to #7, anyone who wants to have legal sibling or plural marriage is free to pursue it through legislation or a lawsuit.  If it goes into litigation, the state who would oppose it  will be required  articulate a rational basis, or perhaps a compelling government interest-  depending on the level of scrutiny afforded by the court-  in maintaining bans on those practices.

9. With respect to #8, whether or  not anyone here has been able to articulate a compelling government interest-that is acceptable to those who want to make it into a slippery slope fallacy- for maintaining those bans by states........they are still banned. It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case.  In addition,  it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)

You see,...... simple.  You can all go home now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

The straw men like Boss and Pop continue to dance.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yet, an incestuous marriage in Maryland is one that is vaginal penetration between two people closely related. 

Interesting that those that do not have a vagina, or marrying someone with a vagina should be able to legally marry in Virginia, then move to another state where they could be arrested. 

Hmmmm

Houston, it appears we have a problem. 

And still there is no explanation of the compelling state interest?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The straw men like Boss and Pop continue to dance.



And Jakes a homophobe


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

The only problem is in your head, Pop.  I support LGBT marriage, you don't, you are the homophobe.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:
> 
> 1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage
> 
> ...



^^^* right wing dupe dumbfuckery


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

^^^* right wing dupe dumbfuckery  That is exactly what you support, Pop.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)
> 
> You see,...... simple. You can all go home now.



There is no "grandfathered in" argument that I have seen. The only relevant argument is whether the 14th Amendment applies equally or not. Speculation IS useless, that's why we have to look at the Constitution and standing law to objectively rationalize. 

What will be incumbent upon the state when the cases arise is a valid argument for "compelling interest" which no longer has to be rooted in "traditional values" because we've decided this through a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling and it's the law of the land now.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> The only problem is in your head, Pop.  I support LGBT marriage, you don't, you are the homophobe.



Then why do you argue as though you oppose both Loving and Obergfell?

You do understand that the Strict Scrutiny rule of constitutional rights apply to this discussion, not yours that is the rational basis. 

It was the rational basis that was used to argue against both Loving and Obergfell. 

You are arguing support for the States use of the rational basis, and against Marriage being a constitutional right. 

So admit it, you hate blacks as well as homosexuals.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop, we all know that you and Boss are talking out your asses because you have nothing to stand on.

Keep dancing your straw men.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Pop, we all know that you and Boss are talking out your asses because you have nothing to stand on.
> 
> Keep dancing your straw men.



And you continue to simply dance. 

And you provide all the evidence required to claim you are a bigot, a racist and a homophobe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

And the puppets Boss and Pop dance for our amusement.

Even the puppets below are amused at Boss and Pop.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> And you continue to simply dance.



Careful Pop, he's broken out the puppets!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And you continue to simply dance.
> ...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)
> ...



Oh I think that if you go back over this thread you will find numerous entries where someone said that if same sex marriage is legal, these other things have to be also.

Anyone who wants to make the argument that they have the right under the 14th  to marry a sibling, or their child, or two other people is free to go for it,

Numerous courts have ruled that "traditional values" alone are insufficient to justify maintain the status quo when doing so bumps up against equal protection under the law.

Like I said...simple. Now I told you......you can  go now!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:
> 
> 1.The title of this thread is Killing "Homosexual " Marriage
> 
> ...



But but but....what about Pop's poor Straw man!

Think of him!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:
> ...



I was.....and Boss. They don't stop. Sounds like desperation to me. I'm out of here again. I'll drop in again but there is only so much that I can take of them.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > And you continue to simply dance.
> ...



I don't think that's a hand in the puppet though.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all! I just thought that I would drop in with a little reality check-bomb. I have to laugh at the way some people take a simple matter and turn it into a tangled web of inane logical fallacies and outright idiocy. There facts are these:
> ...



Which isn't a strawman. 

You defend by declaring strawman. 

I post for equal protection of the law. 

You? Bigotted, racist, homophobic hatred. 

Deflect to the strawman defense in 3....2.....1


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Which I showed you had different meanings in different jurisdictions


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You post in angst because you are pissed off that Americans who are gay can get married.

You neither believe in equal protection of the law- nor do you want it.

You want the groups you do not approve of discriminated against.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



*Incestuous marriage*
*Definition*
An unlawful marriage between two persons who are closely related either by blood, known as consanguinity, or by marriage, known as affinity.

I didn't mention incest.

I mentioned 'incestuous marriage'- which I have provided the definition before- and of which you of course ignore.

Dance on with your straw man


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yet I post that using the equal application of the law as the basis of my argument, that a relationship I oppose (same sex siblings) should have a right to marry. 

And I ask again, what is the compelling state interest in denial of these rights?

Come up with answer, using the same legal rule that MUST be applied to all citizens that have this declared constitutional right. 

Because you don't like it has already failed judicial muster

Because it goes against nature or tradition failed as well 

What is it then?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



The dictionary does not rule state legislatures and a dictionary definition is not a compelling state interest to deny individual rights. 

A few years ago marriage had a distinctive different dictionary definition as (prior to same sex), and 100 years ago it would have stated it was the Union of opposite genders of the same race.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


That doesn't explain why a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister. One is a man and the other a woman, which as you point out, we're allowed to marry.

This is why you have no argument.  You're just too stupid to know it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Of course there are compelling interests. Same ones which prevented gay men from marrying their lesbian sisters.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Asked and answered.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because one was male and the second female, prohibited to marry because that prohibition was across the board, equally applied

The question is why? So that the state did not licence incestuous relationships that could have a short term impact on an innocent child or a long term negative impact on society. 

When responding you must remember that the government has the duty to protect the innocent child and long term impacts on society. 

We equally applied the law to all that were allowed to marry because ALL ELIGIBLE to marry could cause both short term and long term harm. 

Now that the qualification that the partners be if opposite gender, and a large segment of the eligible couplings could not cause this harm:

What is the States Compelling Interest in denial of these CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, from them?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you ought to be able to name them and how they apply to:

1. Opposite sex siblings

2. Two male siblings

3. Two female siblings.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It is useless to speculate on what states argument might be or what a court might do with such a case. In addition, it is NOT incumbent upon those who maintain that those practices were not "grandfathered in" by Obergefell to come up with said compelling reason(s)
> ...


You'll be happy to know the 14th Amendment is alive and well.

No siblings can marry no matter what their gender is. All siblings are treated equal under the laws of marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



But you're to stupid to know what they are?

Is that it?

We've already discovered that most arguing here didn't even know there were differing levels and rules governing compelling state interest. 

Good lord, without that, how can you possibly participate.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Let me ask this : what was the legal reason for denying marriages to immediate family members prior to Obergefell?  Was it just tradition?  Potential genetic abnormalities?  Are those the only two compelling state interests for preventing consanguineous marriage?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



What a looney. 

You realize that's the same argument used to keep blacks from marrying whites, right?

Racist.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why ask, list em if you think there are others.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What prohibition? According to your idiocy, there was none. That's why your argument collapses under the weight of its own stupidity. Do you understand now?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



What, specifically, are the short term and long term impacts you are talking about?  That is important in determining whether either of those impacts applies to same sex consanguineous couples (assuming those two things are the only reasons for states preventing such marriages in the first place).


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Why ask?  For the same reason you keep bringing it up, I suspect : to see how the reasons for preventing consanguineous marriage apply with same sex consanguineous couples.

List them?  I've done that on at least 5 separate occasions.  Why would I do it again?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No idiot, no siblings could marry. That's a prohibition.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


They've been given to you many times already. At this point, you have no one to blame but yourself for not knowing what they are.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test. 

Go on then, run them through again if it makes you feel better


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You can give them a thousand times, but each time you must present a compelling state interest to deny the individual

Because I say so ain't very compelling


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not according to the nonsense you've been posting here. According to you, there was no compelling interest to deny them from marrying each other.

I know that sounds rightarded; but then, that is your argument.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Not according to the nonsense you've been posting here. According to you, there was no compelling interest to deny them from marrying each other.

I know that sounds rightarded; but then, that is your argument.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



_And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test. _

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest_
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest. 
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?

Other than to dance with your straw man.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same-    
sex marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest     
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. _


BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
88


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because some people are blind, we can't deny everyone the right to drive. 

Your way of thinking:

Because some people are blind(opposite sex siblings) we must deny everyone the right to drive. 

1. What is the compelling state interest in denying the blind?

2. What about those that are not blind?

Get it?


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And yet, that was not one of the reasons. Who knows why you need to be told again what they are? You've been told so many times that it's clear you just don't understand. There is no point in telling you again as you will only not understand again and that will only make you even more frustrated.  Why would I want to torture you like that?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Good Lord! You REALLY ARE A MORON!

In your quote , where is the legal reasoning?

Could you be any more idiotic?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You can post as often as you want that there are reasons, but refuse to post them, but in the end, the reason you don't is obvious........

They won't meet the requirements, you just like to deflect.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



_And other than inbreeding, all other failed the compelling state interest, strict scrutiny test. _

According to you- quoting you.

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest_
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



According to a judge they do.

According to you they don't.

Go test it out in court if you think you are right.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yet the State expresses no such concern for exploitation or abuse when the same two enter into an LLC or an S-Corp?

The bar for denial of a citizens right to marry is so low that a judge can justify the taking of their rights because something possibly could happen without due process???

So, because accidents might happen, causing societal harm, no one can drive? 

Is that this strict scrutiny test?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This is not a court, if your only argument is a quote of an opinion of a judge, why even participate?

What? Your strawman defense start failing?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Says you- citing you. 

As you ignore even a Judge saying otherwise in her ruling.

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest_
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net


You just won't accept any reason than the one you have decided is the only compelling state interest.
Since you won't accept what a Judge says- why do you keep asking us?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You ignore every opinion other than your own.

I just enjoy showing how your opinion is so out of touch with reality that you ignore what a Judge says.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Ok Syriously:

I've pointed this out before. 

A major motion picture and a huge best seller called 50 Shades of Gray featured a couple who's relationship was exploitive and abussive. 

NOTHING PROHIBITED THEM FROM LEGAL MARRIAGE. 

Get it. 

You can't deny CONSTITUTIONAL rights from one group because something might happen, when you allow the very same thing for the other group without disqualifying both.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I respect her opinion, but it is simply an opinion.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I'm unaware of any challenges to consanguineous marriage being tested, at least not recently.  Can you cite a case where anything I've listed as a possible compelling state interest has been denied?

Or is it that they failed your opinion of what constitutes a compelling state interest?

More, if inbreeding is the only compelling state interest preventing consanguineous marriage, why have infertile consanguineous couples not been permitted to marry?


----------



## IronFist (Oct 13, 2015)

Well we need stay tolerant to each other but all those progressives need to respect our traditions and way of life. So I say no to gay marriages.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Thanks:

I know of no such challenge currently, but any past challenge would have been before the Obergfell ruling. 

That is important as the overall prohibition, which met the rules on equal protection, on all too closely relatives, was simply inclusive of male plus female. That is no longer the case. 

Looking deeper into it, tradition aside, sex is not a requirement, nor is love, faithfulness or anything but a signature on a document, consent and payment of a fee. 

The ramifications are huge.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your brain does not work very well does it? Must be those paint chips that you are off the doublewide trailer as a kid.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Asked and answered.



Well... You are HALF right.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because of the potential risk of birth defect in close relation offspring. Believe it or not, this has been challenged in state law through the years. Sibling marriage is not permitted because of this potential risk... but "marriage" has now changed and is no longer defined as a male-female union, so the entire issue of procreation becomes moot. 

Also, "traditional values" are no longer applicable. Your "fears it may lead to" arguments are invalidated by an established constitutional right of the individual now. Obergefell did not happen in a vacuum.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Mine works fine. 

You come up with a compelling state interest to deny good tax paying citizens the same constitutional rights and benefits to marriage (a contract that does not require sex to enter into), or take your Bigotted ass back home and shine up your dildo collection.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The opinion of a legal expert.

Judging on the issue of what is a compelling state interest.

And saying you are wrong.

You are the one who is proclaiming that now there is no legal barrier to sibling marriage- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

I cite an actual legal authority- someone who would actually be in a position to make that legal decision.

Do you believe that Judge Crabb would suddenly change her mind if you sued to marry your sister and suddenly decide the reasons she cited as compelling state interests weren't?

Why not sue and find out.

Like you said- marriage doesn't have to be about sex- go ahead and sue to prove that your opinion is correct.

No one is stopping you- certainly not me- I encourage you to sue to marry your brother or sister.

You ignore every opinion other than your own.

I just enjoy showing how your opinion is so out of touch with reality that you ignore what a Judge says. I respect her opinion, but it is simply an opinion.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And why do you think that their relationship was exploitive and abusive?

But if you want to argue that there should be laws preventing say the Donald Trumps of the world importing brides from foreign countries because they are inherently exploitive- you can of course try to pass that legislation.

Meanwhile- I can continue to point out that specifically one judge has provided specific reasons that she accepts state ban's on incestuous marriage to be justified.

S_econd, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me? 

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ramifications so huge- you can't find a single legal expert who agrees with you?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Bullshit;

Wisconsin marriage law permits First cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they cannot procreate.
Wisconsin marriage law does not permit siblings to marry- or mothers to marry sons- even if they can prove that they cannot procreate.

Therefore there is some other reason besides 'procreation' why Wisconsin prohibits incestuous marriage'

Plain as day to any rational person- but we are dealing with Pops and Boss. 

Boss and Pops again- quote only their own opinion- citing themselves- supported by nothing.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The entire issue of procreation was out the window long before Obergefell. So were traditional values as an argument. As I have point out, sibling marriage- same sex or not - entails different issue and consequences for society than SSM. and therefore-states may in fact have valid  reasons to deny it. Take it to court bubba.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




The reason why I think that you are mentally defective is because you repeatedly and inappropriately berate people about being hypocrites and bigots for not supporting sibling marriage and whatever  and keep demanding that they come up with some “compelling government interest for not allowing it. You ignore the fact that some people here have in fact stated example of how it may it fact have a detrimental impact on society. They have also tried to school your diseased brain on the ways that it is different than same sex marriage, to no avail.

For my part, I have not taken a position on it and have consistently said that it is a separate issue that should be considered on its own merits. Yet you call be a bigot also. You persist on attacking people for being inconsistent and not coming up with an argument against sibling marriage in order to deflect attention away from the fact that you do not have a valid argument against same sex marriage between unrelated people, as well as the fact that there are many difference between SSM and sibling marriage. It is all a logical fallacy and you are too much of an idiot to even see what you’re doing.

In fact it is my favorite logical fallacy and there is even a special name for it:


Poll Reveals Surprising Fact About Gay Marriage In America quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/


_tu quoque_ (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that *attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position;* it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. *This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. *Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League

Pop is just parroting the opinion of the Catholic League- 12 years ago- almost exactly. I am surprised he is not openly quoting them- except of course it would show how stupid he is- since 12 years later- still no 'incestuous marriages' in Massachusetts.


*MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES*
November 18, 2003 by Bill 
Filed under Latest News Releases
2003 - November Releases

_By a vote of 4-3, the Massachusetts Supreme Court voted today to strike down the state’s ban on homosexual marriage.  Though the court said homosexuals were entitled to marry, it stopped short of allowing them to obtain a license to do so.  Instead, it gave the state legislature 180 days to find a solution.


Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:


“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’  In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers.  Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic.  What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify.  *But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.*


“Polygamists have every right to sue.  After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people?  Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying.  In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry?  But why not be inclusive?  This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.

 “If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them._


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League
> 
> Pop is just parroting the opinion of the Catholic League- 12 years ago- almost exactly. I am surprised he is not openly quoting them- except of course it would show how stupid he is- since 12 years later- still no 'incestuous marriages' in Massachusetts.
> 
> ...



Yup...sounds like the same moronic equine excrement being bandied about here. Shameless fear mongering. This ruling did no such thing, anymore than Obergefell and all the others in between.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Ok, so in your pathetic mind that is compelling state interest. 

"raise concerns"

Nuff said, we shall all bow to the bigots. 

Virginia "raised concern" because if mixing the races. 

Not really compelling is it?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_

And of course your kind have been making these claims since 2003 in Massachusetts_._

12 years and still your predictions haven't come to pass. *Just like the predictions of your fellow travellers in Virginia that mixed race marriage would lead to incestuous marriages never came to pass either.*


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > MASSACHUSETTS HIGH COURT OPENS DOOR TO GAY AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES - Catholic League
> ...



Lol, time will tell. 

And when I'm proven correct?

I'm sure you're going to say. Shit, that guy nailed it!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



^^^^ bigot still wants the races separate because of "raised concerns"


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You are still waiting to be proven right that lifting the ban on mixed race marriages would lead to incestuous marriages.

You are still waiting to be proven right that lifting the ban on gay marriages in Massachusetts will lead to incestuous marriages.

On your death bed you will still be waiting to be proven right- and still predicting nonsense.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



^^^^ says the racist that claimes simply raising a concern that mixing races would cause damage is a compelling state interest b


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



When did I say that- feel free to quote me.

Meanwhile- as with everything you post

You keep saying that- quoting yourself- citing yourself.

Me?

I provide citations that refute your claims- like this citation from a legal expert:

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on same sex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Those were manufactured and bogus concerns. Bigots also still want to prevent same sex marriage because of bogus and manufactured concerns. They are no better than the racial bigots.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Pop wants to call me a bigot for telling him how a judge- who was ruling on gay marriage- pointed out that gay marriage is nothing like incestuous marriage- and the reasons why.

Poor Pop- no one wants to dance with his Straw Man.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Sure "they" were, and "yours" aren't.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Strawman, the question was not what a judge thought, but what the compelling state interest that judge would have to deny a Constitutional Right, applying the strict scrutiny rule, to a good, law abiding, tax paying citizen. 

She expressed a very low bar, that being that a possibility exists. Not very strictly scrutinized now is it, and it is exactly the same argument that segregationists used to deny blacks their civil rights.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It seems that if birth defects were the only reason, infertile consanguineous couples might have already been given leave to marry.    If cases have been ruled on in the past and defects are the only reason ever given, the state wouldn't have a precedent to use to prevent same sex consanguineous couples, at least.

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a constitutional right.  That was done through multiple previous USSC rulings.

That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others.  The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



It isn't a question of whether individual relationships are exploitive and abusive, it's about the danger inherent in a type of relationship being exploitive and abusive.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



*entails different issue and consequences for society *

...And yet, he mentions *nothing*.  

Allow me to channel my inner you.... There are no consequences other than people are given the right to marry the one they love! It will have no effect on your homo marriage! This is about equal protection under the law and if you need it explained, go read Obergefell v. Hodges!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Again- that is your opinion- again- citing you. 

You asked what compelling argument a State could make- Judge Crabb indicated exactly not only how same gender marriage is not the same as incestuous marriage- Judge Crabb told the State what she would consider to be compelling arguments against incestuous marriage.

You don't have to convince me you have the right to marry your sibling- you need to convince a court. 
Go for it- so far I have provided a judge that says your argument doesn't cut it- but you can file your test case tomorrow if you want. 

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

Judge Crabb.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- if they prove that they are not fertile.
Wisconsin does not allow siblings to marry- regardless of infertility.

Clearly to any rational person- State laws banning incestuous marriage are not based solely on the potential for procreation- otherwise Wisconsin would allow siblings to marry just like First Cousins.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


My homosexual marriage??!! You fucking moron! Yes it is about equal protection under the law but I do not have to explain squat. You are to fucking obtuse to understand that I am not taking a stand against it. Just saying that it's different. It's not the same issue. You don't give a shit about sibling marriage and probably don't want it to happen any more than you want gay marriage. You are just using it as an excuse to call me a hypocrite and to undermine my position on gay marriage. You have no shame or integrity.  
.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The problem is the law itself. 

The law prohibited all couples that are too closely related to marry because all couples that could - were male/female. 

The prohibition qualified under equal protection and met the high standard of the states compelling interest of the innocent child and the innocent children of future generation. 

Obergfell created new groups of potential partners. These partners cannot produce such harm either in the short or long term. 

You now have the question, and because the requirement of sex is nowhere in the law, how this prohibition can be now meet the equal protection aspect, when only a minority of those newly eligible could produce offspring. 

I might agree with opposite sex siblings being prohibited, but I'm not sure how that's accomplished with all the legal issues surrounding prohibiting groups from a law that doesn't first require sex?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Not at all. 

Examine your argument. Same sex cousins will be allowed to marry without proving fertility (undue burdon).  

The problem will then be, proof will be required of one group, and not of the other. 

Why?


----------



## EriktheRed (Oct 13, 2015)

Fag-bashers lost.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 13, 2015)

EriktheRed said:


> Fag-bashers lost.



If you're a fag, you're a loser.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage doesn't require sex, but I believe there is an assumption of sex being part of marriage.

As Syriusly has posted a number of times, if a state allowed infertile first cousins to marry, why would it deny infertile siblings unless there is a reason beyond potential genetic defects?

If children coming from the marriages is the only reason to ban consanguineous marriages, both same sex and infertile consanguineous couples would have a good chance of getting the law changed.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And yet there is now proof of that any more than with same sex adoption. The sample sizes in both are far to small. 

Innocent until proven guilty still rules. 

As I've said before. The law itself is the problem.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well. if you go research this, you will find that laws vary from state to state and country to country. There is currently no state that allows sibling marriage. Each state has it's own statutes to address incest relationships of which "marriage" is defined as a prohibited act associated with the behavior. However, it is difficult to ascertain the specific "justifications" for these statutes, they simply state that it is illegal. And as I said, they do this in different ways... for instance, in North Carolina, the issue of incest, and subsequently, sibling marriage, is covered in the Public Indecency Act along with a host of other behaviors such as adultery and "lewdness", some of which have already become legally acceptable under other laws and are no longer subject to the act. We're dealing with a lot of antiquated and outdated legislation passed sometimes over 100 years ago in a different era. I think the act from NC was originally passed in 1868.

Now, I have always assumed, and I am pretty sure most people have as well, that the main reasoning and justification for bans on sibling marriage is the concerns associated with birth defects of offspring. You want to shoot that down and demand that I present something else and I don't honestly know of any other reason... do you? Aside from the fact that it's frowned upon as taboo in society... but the same could be said for homosexuality just a short time ago. In fact, I believe homosexual acts are covered in the aforementioned North Carolina Public Indecency Act.

*That something is not considered a strong enough argument in one instance does not mean the same will be true in others.*

That's exactly what it means when the argument is the same. The 14th doesn't say it applies only when you want it to apply and not whenever you don't.

*The potential harm from consanguineous marriages, particularly regarding parents and children, will almost certainly be seen as stronger than any potential harm from same sex marriages, especially considering the reason for the potential harm is different.*

I've not seen you or anyone else explain what this "potential harm" is... other than some moralistic viewpoint which is fundamentally no different than the same moral arguments against gay marriage. You need to come up with something substantial and compelling here and you simply haven't. You keep talking in grandiose platitudes about morality and decency like a Baptist evangelist but you're really presenting a piss poor legal argument that will not withstand a court challenge in 2015.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If the couples involved were being charged with a crime, they would be innocent until proven guilty.

The sample sizes are too small for what?

There are often problems with laws.  When laws are struck down as unconstitutional it probably always causes some problems.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



No, that's wrong. The law is clear that those that are "too closely blood related" are prohibited. First cousins could, in some veiw fall outside the direct bloodline, but siblings could never be considered not closely related. The only ones closer are the parents themselves.

And, it's not just Wisconsin, many states allow infertile, or cousins that are past the age of procreation to marry.

Then the new paradox, do you require same sex cousins to prove infertility? To what gain?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



The sample sizes are to small to make reasoned judgements. 

Your last sentence is the question at hand isn't it. To pretend none exist is far more dangerous than discussing it and it's implications.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Now you're just lying. I didn't refuse to post them. I pointed out they've been posted many times.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



When it comes to parents and children you have a person in a position of authority over the other.  That creates a greater danger of abuse and exploitation than other relationships.  I have compared this to teacher/student relationships in the past.  Teachers are not allowed to have romantic relations with students even if they are of legal age.  While not necessarily a criminal act, I think some of the reasoning behind preventing such relationships and preventing parent/child romantic relationships is the same; again, one person in a position of power over another.  

I've said before it becomes more of a muddied argument with adult siblings.  There can still be that danger of one sibling having been an authority figure over the other, but does that rise to a level of danger strong enough to constitute a compelling state interest?  I don't know.

There is also the fact that marriage involves the creation of a new immediate family unit, legally speaking.  If the participants are already immediate family members, the state might argue that creating a new family unit is part of the requirements for marriage and that is reason to prevent consanguineous marriage.  That might well depend on how various marriage laws are written or perhaps previous court rulings setting some sort of precedent.

I agree that a good deal of the reason for preventing such marriages is fear of possible genetic issues and social taboos.  There are other possible reasons as well.  Whether any of them would stand up in court is not something anyone can say for sure.  One big difference is that I don't believe there are very many consanguineous relationships existing and so the likelihood of cases being brought to court are less; along with that, while homosexuality in general and same sex marriage in particular have seen a gradual increase in acceptance over the past decades, there has been no such growth in acceptance of consanguineous relationships that I'm aware of.  Part of what pushed same sex marriage through the courts, and potentially influenced the decision, is that society was ready to accept the Obergefell decision.

What 'grandiose platitudes' have I used?  Talking like a Baptist evangelist?  

What potential harm from same sex marriage was argued prior to Obergefell?  How were those arguments 'fundamentally no different' from those presented regarding consanguineous marriage?  If your answer is that they are based on moral judgements, as I've said before, all law can be broken down to moral judgements.  Unless you want to say that all law should be invalidated, I fail to see the point.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not that met the standard required to deny an individual their constitutional rights. Strict scrutiny rule is in play with those rights, and since sex is not a requirement in this, or any other mutual benefit partnership, you must explain why only one of these require a prohibition  

The courts have ruled that tradition does not trump a constitutional right b


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't have any real idea the numbers for either same sex couples adopting nor exploitation in consanguineous relationships.  In the latter case I think it is less a matter of statistics and more perceived danger based on the unusual dynamic between immediate family members when compared to not closely related people.


----------



## Boss (Oct 13, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well at least you are now admitting that you just don't know how a court might rule... that's progress. 

The "potential harm" argument regarding gay marriage was that it would undermine the traditional institution of marriage which, in turn, undermines societal foundations of family.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Prove what? You said sex isn't a requirement of marriage. According to you, anyone can marry and always could.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Your opinion is noted. Also noted is it is baseless.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Are you deaf?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



As is my baseless?

Drunk? That's my line, get your own


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You didn't say sex is not a requirement of marriage??


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


When you post a baseless opinion, you should expect to be called on it.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Oct 13, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> As you point out- the Bible doesn't say a thing forbidding two men or two women from marrying.



The bible states homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Gay marriage would be under "homosexuality."

Are you really this stupid or do you just troll?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Go ahead faun, ignore the rest of my points, just take anything, from anyone you want out of context


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



When I do, i will


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > As you point out- the Bible doesn't say a thing forbidding two men or two women from marrying.
> ...


So is eating shellfish, owls, swans. So what? So are graven images or desiring the gold and silver on graven images. So is sacrificing a blemished sheep. So is a woman dressing like a man or a man dressing like a woman. As is paying a whore to fuck in a temple or church. So what? Going back to a first husband after leaving a second husband, like Kim Davis did, is also an abomination. So what?


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


I'm taking nothing out of context. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to that, any brother can marry his sister. Always could have since Obergefell has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You did and you were.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 13, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I suppose someone might argue the same potential harm for consanguineous marriages, but I certainly have not.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Marriage was between one man and one woman. You keep forgetting that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, and nope. 

You love mind games. Get one


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You're hopeless. *I'm focused on that* as I highlight your idiocy. You said sex is not a requirement of marriage. According to you, there was no reason a gay man couldn't marry his lesbian sister, even before Obergefell.

Sibling marriage has no bigger cheerleader than you, huh?


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Did and done. You're too late.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Find my quote that said that. 

Did you know that all citizens must follow the same speed limit, even nascar drivers?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 13, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Not drunk then, but definitely high.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?

See that? It's your argument laying dead on the floor. Hell, there's even a chalk mark around it.


----------



## Faun (Oct 13, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Then put the bong down.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 13, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > As you point out- the Bible doesn't say a thing forbidding two men or two women from marrying.
> ...



Well unlike you- I have actually read the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say two women having sex is an abomination at all. Nowhere. Not in one place. 

The Bible says in the old Testament that two men having sex is an abomination- along with women wearing pants and eating shellfish.  

More specifically- as I pointed out - and as you ignore- Jesus himself(according to the New Testament) condemns divorce and remarriage.

Where is your outrage about Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or Newt Gingrich getting married? Jesus doesn't say a word against two men or two women getting married- but Jesus did say that it is adultery for each of those men to marry.

Read the Bible sometime- you might learn something other than what your evangelical overlords teach you.


----------



## DixieJohn (Oct 14, 2015)

God is against homosexuality! I'm against homosexuality!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 14, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Fag-bashers lost.
> ...


Care to elaborate on that old sport?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 14, 2015)

DixieJohn said:


> God is against homosexuality! I'm against homosexuality!


Good for you Johnny Rebb......Thank you for that eloquent and important contribution to the subject.

I suggest then that you DO NOT, under ANY circumstances engage in ANY acts of homosexuality!!  Pray real hard if tempted!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Wake up. 

Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell. 

That safeguard now discrimiinates because a safegaurd against to males breeding is not a reasonable reason for exclussion. 

Once again. 

Glad I could help


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 14, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Self explanatory.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You can't even help yourself, no less anyone else.

Obergefell does not cause the law to discriminate. Your argument remains as dead as ever.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?



It depends on which of the 50 state laws you're talking about. In most of them, siblings can't marry because this type of marriage is prohibited by some public decency act, generally passed by Christians with moral values. Most of these public decency acts also include sodomy and homosexual acts but that was ruled unconstitutional in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas)

So basically, any reason that we collectively have to ban sibling marriages has not yet been sustained by SCOTUS. Whenever "moral values" meets "individual liberty" the courts have ruled in favor of individual liberty. You may ask, then why hasn't sibling marriage become legal already? Perhaps the proponents have been waiting for a landmark SCOTUS ruling which redefines the nature of marriage and prohibits discrimination on the basis of tradition and morality?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Let's test your theory then:

Can you name a sound reasoned legally acceptable, other than procreation and the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society, reason that this was the only legal partnership that required the partners be of opposite gender, not to closely related?

Go for it.

If it is procreation, then obviously, excluding an entire demographic group of partners that biologically can't possibly procreate is the poster child for discrimination. Or so it would appear.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> ..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..



It might also be pointed out, while risk of birth defects are greater, there is no guarantee this will be the result. A sibling couple in The Netherlands had 6 kids, no birth defects. So even this argument, as valid as it may seem, is totally ambiguous. With the advent of groundbreaking science in genetics and DNA testing, we could ostensibly eliminate most birth defects through screening potential breeders and prohibiting certain relationships on the basis of risk they pose in procreation. Obviously, this would not be very popular.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..
> ...



Agreed to for the most part, and we both know that popularity is not sound legal reasoning.

Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?

I might also point out, that birth defects of the innocent child although appalling, is not the greatest harm caused. the long term problems caused to future generations could be far worse, and this can only be fully understood by testing these children's offspring, and their offspring and on and on.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?



Well I don't think we should do this, I was simply pointing out that we could do this. If our emphasis is going to be potential harm to society, we can justify all kinds of crazy shit. We now have nationalized health care and we're all collectively paying for it... so we have a compelling interest to eliminate behavior that could contribute to health care costs... like banning anal sex because of the risk in contracting AIDS. 

What I would like for these liberal mush-brains to understand is, every case decided by SCOTUS has ramifications and consequences and they're not always associated with the issue at hand. Many who supported gay marriage simply think the Obergefell ruling exists in a vacuum and the ONLY thing it does is allows gays to marry. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Well unlike you- I have actually read the Bible.



Bullshit. You never read the bible. You google what you want to know. I used to lead a bible study class for 2 years. I forgot more about scripture than you'll ever know.

The bible doesn't state two women shouldn't have sex because they can't have sex. It does state that homosexuality is an abomination which two women being together falls under. Argue it all you want but ANY bible scholar would agree (and anyone with half a brain cell).

Romans 1:27 talks about how two men being together carries a high risk of disease and that any couple engaging in such acts will receive due penalty.

It all starts with Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Dave or Eve and Brittney. Had God wanted us to be homosexuals he would have designed us that way.

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, *nor homosexuals*, norsodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?
> ...



I agree, including family members as being eligible for marriage is dangerous, but I can't find the legal argument, especially with a law that doesn't have sex as a requirement AND which no longer requires that the partners be one from each gender, how we can exclude it entirely.

More troubling is that those that created the arguments that lead to this paradox, can't seem to come up with a fix either.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?
> ...



We now have nationalized health care, do we?  I wonder why I still see calls for a single payer system?  Why not everyone has or is even eligible for state or federal health insurance?

I don't think people believe that SCOTUS rulings happen in a vacuum.  I think people disagree with your beliefs about the consequences of the ruling.  Do you understand the difference?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



If you are both opposed to consanguineous marriage, perhaps you could provide a reason for keeping it illegal.  You must have a reason, yes?  Or is it just 'icky', as you have accused others of using as a reason?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



 family marriage between fertile opposite sex partners can create a defective innocent child and longer term social harm.

But that's just between those that can breed.

You already knew that.

I oppose all family marriage, now present the argument against it. I can't come up with a Compelling State Interest in denial to same sex siblings.

You?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your only argument is potential genetic problems?  So infertile opposite sex consanguineous marriage should be allowed?

I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions.  That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same.  We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.  If the courts feel the way you do, then even before Obergefell, infertile consanguineous couples would have been able to sue for the right to marry and won.  Now we would just add same sex consanguineous couples to the list.  If the courts, like you, cannot conceive of any other reason to prevent it, of course.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > ..the harm that incestuously conceived children can cause to society..
> ...


So..those 6 kids have had no children with birth defects too?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

airplanemechanic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well unlike you- I have actually read the Bible.
> ...



The Bible specifically condemns male homosexuality- but not in Corinthians

Here is what  1 Corinthians (NIV) says

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mena]">[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

*Footnotes:*

1 Corinthians 6:9 The words _men who have sex with men_ translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.
Note- no mention of women- other than perhaps as adulterers. Nor are homosexuals being called an abomination here- men having sex with other men is on the same level as the 'greedy' and 'drunkards'

Do you object to greedy persons marrying? What about people who sometimes get drunk? And how upset do you get with Hindu's- with all of those false idols?

I am sure that many 'Bible Scholars'- i.e. those who interpret the Bible to promote specific Conservative goals would agree with you. 

I always wonder- why you- and they- focus so much time and energy on a subject of so little importance to Jesus- since he never even mentions homosexuality- and never spend any time on the sin of divorce and remarriage- and you have yet in this great tirade of yours to mention Jesus's two great commands- but I have.

Why is the issue of homosexuality- barely mentioned in the New Testament- never mentioned by Jesus- so much more important than what Jesus said was important?

_36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’a]">[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”_


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?
> ...


I know this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Why you ignore it is anybody's guess ... same-sex marriage was first legalized more than a decade ago. The parameters of marriage had changed and yet, incestuous marriage was still banned. Your entire premise is based on nothing but your delusion that incestuous marriage will become legal, we just have to wait until the day you are proven right. Even worse for your hallucinatory dementia is your bizarre belief that homosexuality is the same as incest, pedophilia, and beastiality. Your entire argument rolls downhill out of control as a result of such senile thinking. But then, such is expected from someone as deranged as you.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I'm sorry you think I ignored your argument about consanguineous couples and the other reasons you might have to deny marriage. I think I covered them earlier. If not, let's go through those.

Possible abuse? That exists in all marriages, but since marriage is a constitutional right, the bar that the State must overcome is incredibly high. It must pass the "Strict Scrutiny Test", not the "Rational Basis Test".

Since the possibbilty of abuse is possible in all marriage, then, to rise above the strict scrutiny test, you must prove that there is not just the possibility of it happening in all same sex sibling marriage, but that the likelihood of it happening is far greater than non related family marriage.

Can you do that?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


As you pointed out, neither sex nor procreation are requirements of marriage. Using your logic, a brother and sister could have married prior to Obergefell. Afterall, such a marriage did not require incestuous behavior and should have been allowed.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Ignoring once again that Wisconsin law shows that your argument that the prohibition against incest is due to procreation. 

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your mutually exclussive thought process fails you. 

Marriage exists. If it exists as a law, then logically it exists for a reason, correct?

Prior to Obergfell it existed differently then after, correct again?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The courts have been ruling that tradition is not an acceptable argument since at least Loving v. Virginia.
And as we have discussed with the issue regarding siblings versus first cousins marrying- procreation clearly hasn't been the reason States have been prohibiting incestuous marriages.

That you do not accept any reason that has been posted here just demonstrates your own peculiar bias- which of course is based upon your butt hurt that gay couples can legally marry.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And you said sex is not a requirement of marriage, so how could the state have prevented a man from marrying his sister given they may not even have sex together?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Wisconsin and the other states did not prohibit too closely related family members from marriage then did they. 

You do understand that it is the State that defines "too closely related" is, not you. 

Glad I could clear this up. 

Interesting though, now, after Obergfell, it would appear same sex first cousins can marry without providing such evidence. 

Odd don't you think?


----------



## aris2chat (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Wow, you missed the whole point of 50 shades.  It was not about abuse, it was about heightening sensations.  The submissive is the one in control, the one that stop the play at any time they choose, the one that can say more or less according to their own pleasure or pain.

Legalizing marriage for mixed races or faiths did nt diminish the marriage of others, nor does mariage of same sex.  The only way to diminish marriage is your betrayal of your vows to your spouse, be they the standard or ones you wrote.  Your vow is your legal contract, witnessed and signed.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Prior to Loving v. Virginia marriage existed differently than after. 

Marriage does exist for a reason. I suspect we disagree about what that reason is. But really why it exists- and why we have the legal right to marriage is immaterial to this argument. 

But here is a description that is a particular favorite of mine:

_We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."_


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Gas is not a requirement to drive down the highway, but electric car owners must still obey speed limits, because the equal application of the law is all that is required for a law not to be discrimination.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Faun says one thing.

Pops just drags out another straw man- unresponsive to Faun's post.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Traditionalist thinking, but not a legal basis for the denial of a constitutional right. 

As for your personal opinion as to the existence of the law, I would be interested to hear it.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.



*Translation:* _ I've given many of the same reasons you once gave to prohibit same-sex marriage and you've dismissed those on the grounds of the OddballFail decision but that totally doesn't change anything else but homo's gettin to marry! duh!  ...N'besides... If you wanna make a case you can try and we'll see but it ain't happened yet so nananana boo boo!_


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Nope, just demonstrating the legal application of equal law. 

It is equal application that makes law non discriminatiry  

The reason this is important is that the speed limit was created and administrated to protect society from great harm. 

The reason that opposite sex siblings are prohibited from marriage is to protect society from an even greater social harm. 

Yet, what is the great social harm caused by marriage of same sex siblings?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > See how that works?
> ...



Of course I was. I disproved your pseudo-legal gibberish with the bill you imagined you were citing. And demonstrated conclusively that despite your claims, that SB377 does NOT eliminate the recognition of marriage in Alabama, does not remove the State from authorizing marriage, and in no way impacts any perk of marriage.

And most importantly....*that your entire argument regarding 'killing homosexual marriage' was nonsense. *As SB377 does no such thing. Nor does any law in any State, nor any bill under significant consideration.

What else could you do but ignore me? You don't handle contradiction well.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Marriage is a right, driving is not.

Look at that... another silly argument of yours gets flushed down the toilet.

Seems you can't explain this conundrum you've created.

Sex is not a requirement of marriage. But a man and a woman still couldn't marry if they were brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son.

That's why your position is laying on a slab in the morgue adorned with a toe tag.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So that's why you think incest marriage and polygamy should be legalized?

I've been asking you to make your argument for weeks. Is this your awkward attempt to actually do so?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why do you think any of us have to prove anything?

There are hurdles to you being able to legally marry your sibling.


You must first file a law suit claiming your right to marry your sibling- and challenging the State to defend its law
And then the State has to defend the law. Can or will a state attempt to defend bans on incestuous marriage? Maybe Alabama won't- maybe Alabama has been waiting for the opportunity to have the law overturned so Boss can legally marry his brother or sister- if the State declines to defend the law- you could win by default- and marry your sibling.
But if the State does choose to defend- then it is up the State to provide an argument acceptable to the court- not us.
IF a state cannot defend its bans on incestuous marriage- then why does the state have the ban? This is irregardless of prior Supreme Court decisions- from Loving to Obergefel. 

But that is a big if- there are arguments the State can make- you choose to believe that those will not suffice- but based upon your posts- you will refuse to accept any argument- because your entire meme is based upon your disapproval of gay marriage.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



My answer, which you obviously wish to ignore is in the thread just above yours. 

Deflection noted though b


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I don't know... are we going to start banning things on the basis of potential threat to future generations?  ....VERY Interesting concept!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

DixieJohn said:


> God is against homosexuality! I'm against homosexuality!



Then don't be a homosexual?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I don't want to marry my sibling, so the premis of your rant is silly. 

But then - deflecting from the arguments is all you got.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Not good, not good at all.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine. 

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That's because his argument has been appropriately disassembled many times over to the point he can no longer explain it or defend it. What's left for him besides either accepting defeat or pulling out more deflections from his ass?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I openly oppose both.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You realize this makes you a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe, right?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


What societal harm was there in the past for a gay man to marry his lesbian sister?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



You didn't post the quote from Judge Crabb multiple times?

Funny, I thought that was you?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You're fucking deranged.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Likely none, but since it didn't need to be addressed because all siblings were prohibited from marriage, and since the government were not discriminating, its a moot point.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Once again- the law shows that procreation is not the issue on the prohibition between closely related family members marrying- since infertile siblings cannot marry, but infertile First cousins can. 

You are unwilling to address why States allow infertile cousins to marry- but not infertile siblings. 

And not surprising- since it kills your argument- well that is rather an abuse of the term 'argument'- it kills your straw man.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



^^^^ why would anyone beleive a racist, bigot, homophobe, right wing hater dupe?


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



So when you babble about 'equal protection of the law', you're *not* arguing for the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And all siblings are still prohibited from marriage. Equal justice for all.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Has nothing to do what you said ... which was sex is not a requirement of marriage. So why couldn't a brother marry his sister before Obergefell?
> ...



Another example of Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.

Same gender marriage has been legal for 12 years in Massachusetts- on the very same grounds as Obergefel- exactly what bloody shade of green light would all of these siblings wanting to marry be waiting for in Massachusetts?


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Thanks for proving me right.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



That actually be clear. The social safety net. 

Have you come up with a reason yet as to why same sec cousins will not have to provide proof of fertility?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Proving your a racist, bigoted, homophobe, right wing hater dupe wasn't all that hard. 

But thanking me is always appreciated.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


My gratitude was for proving me right, not for proving you right. Dayam, you're too fucking deranged to even comprehend that.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



The problem with hater-dupes is that they think I'm mutually exclussive terms. 

As this posters question proves. 

Because I search for a legal argument to stop same sex sibling marriage, which I oppose, but neither i, nor the other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?

Wow, open your closed mind conservatard!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm not the one sleeping with someone with my own gender. 

You look silly, no matter if your OCD controlled mind fathoms that or not. Of course if it did, you wouldn't be controlled by your OCD. 

And that won't happen until you get proper theropy.


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


So? Neither am I. The rest of your projection is noted as usual.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



^^^ her OCD made her say this. 

Forgive her, I have


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The exact same argument that allows infertile cousins to marry, but not infertile siblings. 

You reject any argument that doesn't support your straw man. 

No point in pretending like you actually desire an answer- you just want to reject every answer other than the one you have created.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Or...your standards are merely applied to you. By advocating the argument that incest marriage and polygamy should be legal......that strongly insinuates that you support the legalization of each. And you've clearly cited 'insinuation' as 'evidence'. 

Your standards apply to you, do they not?

And given your obsession with the topics, as you discuss virtually nothing else.....this obvious support of the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy becomes even more apparent. 


> other posters obviously can't either, somehow I'm not opposed to incest?



Like your claim that I said sex was a requirement of marriage?

Yet every time I demand you quote me saying as much......you try to change the topic. 

Odd that. Its like you're holding us to one standard....but yourself to another.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And Pop predictably collapses into personal insults. 

Sigh......trolling is as trolling does, I suppose.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, do you think that two brothers marrying should be forced into these genetic tests, or would that burden only fall on opposite sex couples, creating another legal paradox?
> ...



Yeah- actually the only thing that Obergefel does do is overturn bans on same gender marriage. That is how Supreme Court rulings work. 

When Loving v. Virginia was made, it did not mean that polygamous groups could not marry- despite Virginia's warnings. When Massachusetts courts overturned Massachusetts ban on same gender marriage- it did not mean that siblings could marry- despite the Catholic Leagues warnings.

The only ones promoting incestuous and polygamous marriage here- are those who actually oppose it- Boss and Pops- because of their butt hurt over homosexuals being allowed to marry each other.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You answered nothing. You just danced with your straw man.

Once again:
Wisconsin allows First Cousins to marry- but only if they prove that they are unable to bear children. As you noted- several other states do the same thing.
Wisconsin and all other states ban all siblings from marrying- regardless of whether they can have children or not.

Which by simple powers of deduction demonstrates that none of the States that allow infertile first cousins to marry base their bans on sibling marriage upon procreation- but some other issue


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Gas clearly fuels Pops posts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Always amusing when a bigot like Pop calls everyone who disagrees with his desire to discriminate- 'bigots'


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Because Wisconsin doesn't feel cousins are so closely related?

Got it. 

But it is odd that in both cases the law seems to keep both from procreating. So why would Wisconsin deny same sex siblings. 

The search for the States Compelling Interst continues. 

Thanks


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Yet I am the one pointing out that discrimination exists?

You look silly again.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Like I said- you are just lying about what I said again- par for the course for you.

Wake up.

Here is you- lying about what I said:
_Read what Syriuosly wrote about a public safe guard. The law kept family members from each other for the common good. And discriminated against no one, up until Obergfell._

I would love to see that quote- or maybe you are speaking of some other poster with a name much like mine.

Because it appears to me that you are just lying about what I said- again.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



I can't quote something you claim that I said you said, when no such claim was initially made. 

And I can oppose potential problems without knowing how to legally stop the problem. 

You are a shallow thinker, but any non OCD afflicted mind can easily see that.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wisconsin clearly doesn't care about procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation. 

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Like I said- you just lied about what I said. 

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Your posting included a quote from Judge Crabb. YOU INCLUDED IN IN YOUR SEVERAL DOZEN POSTS. 

Got it


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



No I didi'nt. and crying just makes you look sad.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



He's trolling. His sole purpose is to shut down threads like this. 

I mean, after Boss' entire argument collapsed, they had to switch the conversation to something. As the whole 'killing homosexual marriage' bullshit wasn't working out too well.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And you, a life of deception and masturbation.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Is it Opposite Day in OCD world?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



And again:

Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



If they don't care about it, why does the law make it impossible?  

Do you ever think?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh he is certainly trolling- but not to shut down this thread- he is as slimy a homophobe as Boss is- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

_“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’  In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers.  Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic.  What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify.  But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue.  After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people?  Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying.  In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry?  But why not be inclusive?  This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them.”_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation.

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...




Like I said- you just lied about what I said.

But then you don't have a problem with prevarication..


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Great, you follow up with even more deranged posts.  How many times do I need to post that I'm a heterosexual male until you finally figure it out?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I oppose family mariage

So your premis (not unlike your life), is without merit. 

I've never read the quoted text, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. 

I've never claimed to want to marry my sister, if I had one that is

And you are still a bigot


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Doubt that, but you think of yourself anyway your OCD a makes you think.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then let's do the Strict Scrutiny Test which is required when dealing with Constitutional Rights. 

If the prohibition meets constitutional muster, what is the compelling State reason for denying same sex siblings from marriage.  

Deflection in 3....2.....1...,,


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


Thanks again for proving me right.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Thanks again for proving my point.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Oh my my, two references to the social safety net, in a Syriously post. 

Well, well lil dude


----------



## Faun (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


And now pops is reduced to squawking like a mindless parrot.

Pretty much sums up how dead his argument is.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Again the Faux progressive shows its all an act, but that's what hater dupes do!


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Faun said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Laughing.....you keep saying this like Pop has any intention of actually discussing the topic of this thread. He's merely trolling.

Try trolling the trolls. I call it 'uber-trolling'.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Thanks again for giving me an opportunity to provide Judge Crabb's opinion:

_Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net_

An opinion of someone who would be deciding if you have the right to marry your sister. _ And Judge Crabb tells you the reason why the State has justifications to prevent you from marrying your sister._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

_“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’  In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers.  Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic.  What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify.  But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue.  After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people?  Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying.  In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry?  But why not be inclusive?  This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them_


----------



## Skylar (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I've given multiple possible reasons for preventing consanguineous marriages on multiple occasions. That you have dismissed those arguments doesn't mean I'm going to repeat them or that the courts would feel the same. We'll see if this issue is brought up, I suppose.
> ...



I've actually shown that the reasons I've given why consanguineous marriage might be prevented are not the same as the reasons for preventing same sex marriage.  I believe I've done so more than once.  Apparently you ignored that.  Or do you think that same sex marriage was banned anywhere because of the unique relationship between parties which puts one in a position of authority over the other?  Do you think that two unrelated homosexuals cannot create a new immediate family because they are already immediate family members? 

It might help if you actually read some of the things you comment on.

EDIT : Changed a sentence which sounded nonsensical.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I see you don't like testing your theory, so it's back to, cuz You say so......

I quite expected that


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Incest is a crime. 

I think I've pointed that out before. 

Nonetheless, incest is defined as vaginal penetration in Maryland. So it appears that same sex make siblings would not be included as incestuous.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Speaking of deflection- LOL!

Respond to my post- don't deflect from it.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Have I quoted from that?

Nope, not once

But of course, if you're OCD like Syriously is, these things just pop up in your head.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I did, now should we apply the applicable legal standard, or are you the simpleton coward we all think you are?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yes- you have mentioned it before- once again you attempting to dance away from a post without responding to it- with an unrelated bizarre factoid. Once again - you want to talk about 'incest' where no one else is referring to incest. 

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

_“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’  In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers.  Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic.  What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify.  But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue.  After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people?  Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying.  In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry?  But why not be inclusive?  This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them_[/QUOTE]

Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage[_previously defined for Pops- but since he is just trolling- he ignores inconvenient truths_] and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? I wonder if Pops is really William Donohue?

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

_“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’ In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers. Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify. But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue. After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people? Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying. In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry? But why not be inclusive? This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them_


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Since all siblings are still prohibited from marriage, and since the government is not discriminating, why isn't it still a moot point?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 14, 2015)

It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against-  marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.

I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.

They could have presented an honest and balance case discussing the pros and cons but did no such thing. Rather, they have engaged to anti-intellectual and dishonest blathering and trolling. They pretend that they understand the legal issue while doing nothing more than making it up as they go.

I took the time to pull together a few articles that discuss various views on and aspects of these subjects-that I think are quite interesting. This is, in no way, to be taken as either and endorsement of, or condemnation of polygamy, sibling marriage or any other practice.

*Dedicated to Boss and  Pop…….see if  you can learn something from this boys. Maybe it’s time to come up with an honest argument against same sex marriage and stop trying to bullshit people.*

_______________________________________________________________



> *Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates*
> 
> Read more: Incest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates - Family, Marriages, and Sister - JRank ArticlesIncest/Inbreeding Taboos - Sibling Marriage And Human Isolates
> 
> *There are several reliable examples of human communities where incest and/or close inbreeding have occurred on a regular and systematic basis. These examples include not only the well known cases of royal family incest but also incestuous practices among commoners.* This social class distinction is important to note because human sociobiologists have dismissed the many instances of royal incest as exceptional and of no consequence to the debate. Cases involving commoners, where sibling or other incestuous marriages are usual and systematic, strongly challenge sociobiological suggestions that a selection mechanism exists to prevent inbreeding.


____________________________________________________


> *While cousin marriage is legal in most, and avunculate marriage is legal in many countries, sexual relations between siblings is considered incestuous almost universally. However, the innate sexual aversion (taboo against sexual attraction) between siblings forms due to close association in childhood. Thus, children who grow up together do not develop sexual attraction, even if they are unrelated, and conversely, siblings who were separated at a young age may develop sexual attraction*. Thus, most cases of sibling incest, including accidental incest in the case of couples who met without being aware of their being siblings, concern siblings who were separated at birth or at a very young age.[52]
> 
> *However, laws prohibiting incest between siblings have come under attack in recent years as defining a victimless crime, and violating the human rights of siblings who wish to have sexual relations as *consenting adults.  Sibling relationship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> *Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?  Opinion: Sibling marriage? Why not?*
> 
> Proponents of same-sex marriage say it is a fundamental right, protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, no line should be drawn between marriage rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples. Opponents counter by saying that historical definitions of marriage, as well as important public-policy considerations, should be the basis of such laws; lines may be drawn.
> 
> *But even framing the issue points out the vexing question that the Supreme Court will have to wrestle with when it reviews this decision: If marriage is a fundamental and inviolable right under the Fourteenth Amendment, why must it be limited to same-sex, otherwise non-related, couples? Why doesn’t the same constitutional principle apply to plural marriages? Or to otherwise closely related couples? Why not marriages between brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces?*



Actually, no, they did not actually grapple with that issue and made no mention of it as it was not a question before the court. However, as I have said before, if such a case were to be brought, they would indeed have to rule on it, on its own merits while considering what rational basis, or possible what government interest there is in prohibiting those practices.

_____________________________________________________________


*And there is this that they could have used if they were intellectually invested in the issue: *



> *Legalize Polygamy!* Next Step: We Need to Legalize Polygamy. No Joke.
> 
> Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
> 
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



But all marriages result in families.

Meanwhile- you make the same claims- with the same logic- that the Catholic League made 12 years ago- and it is still illegal for you to marry your sister. 

Your 'rational', your posts, your claims are eerily like those made 12 years ago when Massachusetts pulled an Obergefel..

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

_“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’  In making this ruling,* Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers*.  Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—*but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic. * What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify.  But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue.  After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people?  Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying.  In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry?  But why not be inclusive?  This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity.


“If there is one saving grace in this ruling, it is the decision to force state legislators to do what they hate to do—make a decision about an issue they would prefer judges to make for them_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Clearly you didn't- and you still just try to deflect- once again- the post you are running away from:

]Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation. 

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]
> 
> You nailed it- well put
> 
> However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-*At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.*



You nailed it- well put

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-*At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]
> ...



Thanks! That should have been does  NOT endorse


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Gee....so if the court caused the legalization of incest marriage[_previously defined for Pops- but since he is just trolling- he ignores inconvenient truths_] and polygamy in 2003....

....why is incest marriage and polygamy still illegal in 2015?

I don't 'caused' means what these poor souls think it means. But then, this is the same group that has completely abandoned any of the OP's debunked claims.......the bar is set rather low.[/QUOTE]

I've not mentioned incest nearly as much as other posters in this thread have, with the exception of mentioning.......

Incest is a crime. 

I have brought up that it appears that the strict scrutiny test of the "compelling state interest" standard, it appears that Obergfell overturned the safety net ( that you indeed included in many many postings ), that it may indeed be possible that not including same sex siblings in marriage is arbitrary and unconstitutional. 

Now, have you come up with that compelling state interest that meets the strict scrutiny test yet?

If not, your simply drooling down your chin hoping for attention, like so many others with OCD.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Corrected it on my post.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots./QUOTE]
> ...



And faux progressives not even attempting to hide their bigotry, racism and homophobia, cuz they argue just like the hater dupes that tried to keep the black man down. 

Shame on you!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I've not mentioned incest nearly as much as other posters in this thread have, with the exception of mentioning.......

Incest is a crime.

I have brought up that it appears that the strict scrutiny test of the "compelling state interest" standard, it appears that Obergfell overturned the safety net ( that you indeed included in many many postings ), that it may indeed be possible that not including same sex siblings in marriage is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Now, have you come up with that compelling state interest that meets the strict scrutiny test yet?

If not, your simply drooling down your chin hoping for attention, like so many others with OCD.[/QUOTE]

And why do you keep mentioning that incest is a crime? It is as relevant as me pointing out that income tax evasion is a crime.

And why are you parroting the claims made by the Catholic League 12 years ago? And why have none of your predictions come to pass?

More of Pop's trolling. but not to shut down this thread- he just wants to consume the thread with parroting the Catholic League claims from 2003.

Doesn't this sound amazingly familiar? Yet I still haven't heard about Pops marrying his sister in Massachusetts in the last 12 years....

Commenting on this development is Catholic League president William Donohue:

_“According to Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, ‘The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support.’  In making this ruling, Judge Marshall has, however unwittingly, sanctioned marriage between two brothers.  Whether it would extend to an incestuous marriage between heterosexuals—brother and sister, mother-son, father-daughter, is uncertain—but clearly two sisters would be covered by her logic.  What it comes down to is this: if love is the sine qua non of marriage, then all incestuous relationships qualify.  But if the ruling applies only to homosexual couples who challenge the state’s ban, then only brother-brother, sister-sister, marriages pass muster.


“Polygamists have every right to sue.  After all, who is Judge Marshall to limit marriage to two people?  Her ruling explicitly discriminates against Tom, Dick and Harry marrying.  In effect, she is saying that one of them must be left out—Tom can marry Dick, but not Dick and Harry?  But why not be inclusive?  This is hardly the kind of ruling that respects real diversity._


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-*At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does not endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.*


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against-  marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.
> 
> I bring this up now as proof that certain people on this board who claim that polygamy and sibling marriage should or even must be allowed as a right do not really give a crap about the topic, or about anyone’s rights. If they did, they would have done the research and made the case for it- and the fact is that there is a case to be made –and there is some support for both sibling marriage and polygamy.
> 
> ...



Just pointing out that the USSC obviously didn't grapple with same sex sibling marriage issue, cuz they left the door wide open (Refernce Marylands law). 

Interesting though, why didn't they since no marriage law contains the need of sex to qualification. 

Not sure how your quotes justifies this obvious omission


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



That's is the same arguments that the rednecks down south used to try to shout down progressives like me that sought racial equality!

Next we'll see you in white sheets hanging black men!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against-  marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.
> ...



It WAS NOT a question before the court! You are a fucking idiot who does not understand how things work and you are too stupid to even know what it is that you don't know!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



That you for validating everything that I just said!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Pop's keeps confirming what you said. 

However, what we have seen here is nothing but thinly veiled bigotry by people who only want to derail the conversation about same sex marriage and stoke slippery slope fears-*At the same time, they moronically accusing anyone who does endorse sibling marriage and polygamy as bigots.*


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting to note just how much information that there is out there-both for and against-  marriage that is not just between two unrelated people. In addition, there is anthropological information that describes the various cultural practices across geographical and cultural lines as well as historically.
> ...



Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Silly Goose, same sex siblings can't procreate


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Yet your arguments in this thread are the same as those made by those that fought for segregation. You know, how including this group would somehow cause societal harm, even though they didn't come forth with a compelling state reason. 

You racists bigots can hide behind your gayness, but we all see the hatred you spew. 


Shame on you both!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Once again- you disolve into delection.

Clearly you didn't- and you still just try to deflect- once again- the post you are running away from:

]Wisconsin marriage law clearly requires no potential for procreation- since infertile siblings cannot marry- but infertile First cousins can marry.

The marriage laws do not prevent anyone from procreating- the law limits marriage for first cousins to those who cannot procreate.

The law doesn't allow siblings to marry whether they can procreate or not.

Bans on incestuous marriage are not based upon the possibility of procreation. 

Logic simple enough for a 10 year old- yet too complex for homophobes.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I'm a fucking idiot?

Dude, I know that the male end of a lamp cord goes into the female plug of an outlet. 

Get my drift Sally?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yeah I know, the error of omission is appalling.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well, first of all, "marriage" has nothing to do with authority over another, it is the antithesis of that if anything... the joining in union. Second, marriage does not cause or contribute to authority over another which can happen regardless of marriage. Finally, your concerns of parties being influenced by authority are moralistic concerns that frankly are not your business. People exhibit authority over others all across the land and it doesn't seem to bother society one little bit. Some people actually enjoy and prefer being subjected to authority. You come here everyday to be completely owned by me! Who am I to deprive you of that? 

I have no idea what kind of point you're making about "creating a new immediate family" when this was never the rationale for allowing gay marriage... then, it was about allowing two people to have the same rights as everyone else. Suddenly it's all about your moral concerns over what it might lead to and what dangers it might cause... all of which are unsubstantiated, speculative and morally subjective reasons you've created in your closed and bigoted mind.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Why, what quote exists for an omission?

Poor Dear bigotted Syriously

Syriously racist


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



To be fair- you have demonstrated you have no idea what point anyone is making in this thread- not even yourself.

You are still butt hurt about homosexuals being able to get married, and inflict all of your nonsense on everyone else as some perverted form of revenge.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Poor demented Troll Pops

The only error of omission is your logic.

Once again you dissolve into deflection

Why would he have provided a quote to justify your complete ignorance?

The Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia dealt with bans on mixed race marriages.
And the Supreme Court in Obergefel dealt with bans on same gender marriages.

Nothing more- nothing less


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Cutting and pasting you racist rants just make you look loony


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.  

I didn't say that marriage causes or contributes to authority of another, I said that the authority a parent has over a child might be considered a reason to prevent their marriage (or sexual/romantic relationship).  As with consent, you seem to be willfully ignoring the obvious.  There are laws against certain people in positions of authority or influence having romantic relationships, such as a doctor or therapist and patient.  California Law on Psychotherapists-Clients Sex: Direct Quotes From California Laws, offered by Zur Institute, Inc.  Would you argue that a parent is in a less influential position over their child?  I've already stated on multiple occasions that this argument is less convincing concerning siblings.

When two people get married they are, legally, now immediate family.  They get rights as next of kin, decision making, etc..  With marriage between parents and children, or siblings, the couple are already immediate family members and so the creation of a new family does not occur.  If the creation of a new family is determined to be intrinsic to marriage, that would prevent immediate family members from marrying.

You have said that the arguments for preventing marriage between close family members are the same as those presented for preventing same sex marriage.  I've given you multiple examples in which this is untrue.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Every time you call someone a racist in a thread in which race has played basically no part, you look more like you are trolling.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Nobody is arguing that a parent doesn't have unique authority over their child. But if the marriage is simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate, then what's the problem?

Although I detest the thought of it, I can't find compelling state interest in denying this association.

You make the case for next of kin. That is important to the couple for sure, but what makes the governments interest greater than the individuals. A power of attorney can be done for 100 bucks.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




Well he is trolling of course.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Really? You must talk to your own folks I can't count how many times I was called that, bigot and homophobe when arguing against same sex marriage, using these very same arguments. 

You understand how hypocritical your post sounds, don't you?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



You would like me to leave so I would stop proving how racist you are. Faux Progressive Syriously.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Pops is just trolling. 

He asks for- and then refuses- any alternative answer other than what he demands that everyone else accept.

Hell he ignores the statement of a judge in a marriage case specifically refuting his very claims.

Pops cites himself, quotes himself- he is trolling.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Like you to leave?

You are as amusing as a one eyed baboon trying sticking his hand in a bottle to grab food, but unable to pull it out because the food is in his hand. 

You are a troll- and it is amusing to point out what a troll you are.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss 
Remember when I wrote about the gay marriage marketing scheme. 

When you trip one up, they attack like fire ants on a goat that crosses their path. 

See above 

The fun thing is that it only takes a few of them to imitate a swarm. 

All a part of the brilliant gay marriage marketing plan

You might hate it, but you must appreciate it's simplistic beauty


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Hypocritical?  Have I called you a racist?  Has someone in this thread called you a racist for opposing same sex marriage even?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Who said marriage is 'simply to provide a low cost way to pass on estate'?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



In this thread, couldn't tell Ya, hard to hear above the noise


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Who said it isn't? It's not your or my call. It is the partners that are allowed to define what they wish the partnership to be.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Remember- Pops is just trolling.

You say "A"

And Pops replies "Well you said "B" and here is the problem with "B".

His replies have little to do with your posts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



LOL- Pops can't hear because over his own shouts of 'racist!, racist!'


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 14, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Would be nice if adults could actually engage in reasoned conversations without the children wondering in.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Who would ever invite you to the adult table?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The many laws surrounding marriage would argue against the idea that it is the partners that define what they wish it to be, from a legal standpoint.


----------



## Boss (Oct 14, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



*You can pretend that parents don't have a unique position of authority over their children if you like.*

I've not pretended to know every circumstance of every relationship. I am asking you what business is it of yours? Some people might be sexually attracted to the authority, that might be what cranks their tractor. Who the hell are you to interfere by interjecting  your morals? If their relationship is consensual and not harming you, why do you think you have a say? 

You mutter around about how this and that are "obvious" but you don't seem to understand they are also morals. Most of which have a religious background or basis. 

If "creation of family" is a prerequisite of marriage, homosexual couples can't marry. They are not creating a new family, only a couple. There will be no offspring or ancestors, therefore, no family. There is no "next of kin" because there are no kin. I think the Obergefell case considered this very argument against gay marriage.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 14, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It is society's morals regarding persons in position of authority and their potential abuse that must be considered, not my individual opinion.  I notice you did not comment on the fact that there are already laws regarding romantic/sexual relationships in which one party is in a position of authority and influence over another.  What business is it of the state if a therapist and their patient want to have a relationship?

When an infertile couple marries, they are creating a new family.  Any couple can adopt, and a fertile homosexual can have children.  

Perhaps next of kin is the wrong phrase; technically a spouse may not fit that description but I believe it fits from common use.  The point is that a spouse becomes the inheritor, gets power to make medical decisions, things of that nature, without a will, living or otherwise.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well, the concept of marriage being the union of a man and woman, I hate to tell you, is NOT just my personal opinion. This was also society's collective moral value for over 200 years in this country and continued to be our collective moral value until the SCOTUS intervened to change that. 

You want a comment from me about laws regarding authority and relationships? Fine... they can be changed the same way marriage was changed, without regard for collective societal morality. Apparently, all there needs to be is an individual bringing a case for their rights being denied. 

We both seem to understand that these types of relationships happen so it stands to reason sooner or later someone is going to have a problem with this moralistic law interfering with their new "constitutional right" to marriage. We're not having an argument over what the law HAS said, that all changes with the new SCOTUS ruling, it has an effect, it didn't happen in a vacuum. That ruling can and will be cited repeatedly in court to support all kinds of situations where "societal morality" bumps up against individual liberty.... and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it. 

You laughably want to present the argument that this is impossible because society has collectively decided this or that... well, hell, if only someone had thought of making that brilliant argument against gay marriage?  Oh wait...


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And that marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race was 'society's collective moral value' for over 100 years.

Until the Supreme Court declared that such bans violate the Constitution.

You appear to be still upset that the Supreme Court overturned the bans on mixed race marriages.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values.  The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them.  In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society.  If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.

More than half the country had same sex marriage before Obergefell. 

The point of bringing up current laws involving romantic relationships with people in authority is to show that your argument about it being 'none of my business' is one that states have already disagreed with.  There is legal precedent for preventing relationships based on someone having too much influence or authority over another.

Marriage as a constitutional right is not new, was not created by Obergefell.  If marriage as a constitutional right is a problem, it was a problem long before same sex marriage.

I have not argued that it is impossible for any type of marriage to become legal.  I have argued that Obergefell will not lead directly to the various forms of marriage you fear.  I, and others, have brought up many differences in every potential type of marriage you have listed, pointed out that some of the things you seem to attribute to Obergefell (like marriage being a right) are not based on the ruling, pointed out that same sex marriage has been legal for more than a decade already, etc..


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Well, the concept of marriage being the union of a man and woman, I hate to tell you, is NOT just my personal opinion. This was also society's collective moral value for over 200 years in this country and continued to be our collective moral value until the SCOTUS intervened to change that.


Which is why I voted for Obama and will [likely] vote for the Democrat in next year's presidential election. Had McCain won in 2008, SCOTUS decisions like Obergefell would probably not have gone the way they did.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.



Indeed, the Constitution is the highest expression of society's collective moral values. And the court is supposed to defend it. They are not authorized to interpret their own meanings into the constitution. IF that is the case, there is no need for a Constitution and it actually means nothing. The court does not have domain and authority over the people. They are one of three co-equal branches of government, of which WE control. 

There was not an issue of discrimination or denial of a right in this case. People were not being denied something on the basis of their gender. A new thing had to be created in order to claim a right to it. The Constitution doesn't mention gay marriage, homosexuals, or even marriage for that matter. It does not state that people can arbitrarily create new institutions and claim rights to those new institutions and for this to be automatically protected by law. And even IF that's what the SCOTUS erroneously orders the Constitution says... it MUST be applied to all persons creating new institutions and claiming rights under the law. 

If what you are arguing is true, there would have never been a Civil War or any fight over slavery. It would have been ruled unconstitutional by an activist SCOTUS years and years before. As it was, the SCOTUS repeatedly turned down cases and ruled against abolition because it couldn't change the Constitution and write new laws. Even after a bloody civil war where half a million people died, the only thing that could change the condition of slavery was Constitutional amendment. THAT was the "reinterpreting" needed and it was done by THE PEOPLE not the Court.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


I'm wondering what "wondering in" means.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.
> ...




. Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that! I believe that that is testimony to the fact that they never intended the constitution to be a ridged document that enumerated every single right that we have and foreclose any claim to additional rights that are not spelled out. They understood that times would change and that issue that they could not conceive of would arise. They produced a brilliant and elegant document that is alive and evolving.

Consider, every single opposite sex couple in this country- as long as they are of legal age, not to closely related as per state law, and meet other minimum requirements-can obtain a marriage license without question. It is assumed to be a right. Same sex couple still could not do so in all places before Obergefell. They were in fact being denied equal protection under the law as per the US constitution as numerous federal courts have declared.

While marriage is not a federal issue, matters that are reserved to the states are not absolute and those rights must be exercised within the context of the entire constitution. The Supreme Court has, some 16 times stated that marriage is in fact a fundamental right and it will only be a short leap for the court to say that same sex marriage is a fundamental right.

Numerous federal courts at the district and circuit level have said that the bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. Many have stated that discriminatory laws-not just marriage but any laws that deprive gay people of rights- do not even pass a rational basis review- the lowest standard for the court- leave alone strict scrutiny, which would require the state to prove a compelling government interest in justifying the law.

As far as a constitutional amendment goes.....There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:

Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no _direct_ references to slavery, it includes several _indirect_ references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language.  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution

In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery.


It has been said that *you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist.  *The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!



How about it? Anything that is not specifically enumerated as a power of Federal government is left to the States and people respectively. This is why marriage is a state regulated institution and why SCOTUS should have rejected the case due to lack of standing. If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. It obviously wasn't.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

*This is a  great article....the whole history of the movement:

How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right* How Gay Marriage Won

On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.

The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, “The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis.” Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: “The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. “*Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.* “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

*The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made* back in the 1970s. *And the Constitution has not changed since Baker* made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). *But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically:* In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated.

Much as Americans like to imagine judges, particularly Supreme Court justices, as ahistorical applicators of a timeless code, the court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. *As social mores have evolved, the justices’ consensus has too, on issues ranging from cruel and unusual punishment to segregation. “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent,”* the New York University School of Law professor Barry Friedman writes in his book on this phenomenon, _The Will of the People_. “Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there.”


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!
> ...


You can keep clinging to that belief all you want. Not my problem. Game over.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



I wander myself?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!
> ...



Of course Boss is ignoring the three previous cases where the Supreme Court overturned unconstitutional marriage laws.

Poor Boss- still upset that Loving v. Virginia eliminated bans on mixed race marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.
> ...



And if society does indeed disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, 'society' can revise the Constitution to reflect what Society wants- as happened with the 13th and 14th Amendments.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



I guess he also does not approve of a black man marrying a white woman. Ya think that he would marry one?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *This is a  great article....the whole history of the movement:
> 
> How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right* How Gay Marriage Won
> 
> ...



Premise error

There is no such thing as "gay marriage"

What the justices legalized was same sex marriage. 

The whole thing is a clever marketing tool. 

So this is what is now what is considered a constitutionally protected civil right.......

The right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee, for a partnership that has little, if any definition.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Well clearly he is aghast that the Supreme Court would think that a State ban on mixed race marriages could be considered Unconstitutional- do you think that all of this 'angst' is just his decades long resentment that mixed race couples were allowed to marry- because of the Supreme Court?


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:



Again... It seems you are stuck on the argument that SCOTUS ruled gay marriage a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. I think we all live on this planet and watch the news... there is no argument, they did do this. So if that is the argument you believe we are now having, you have won already, there is no one here who can defeat that argument. 

My understanding is, we are arguing about the ramifications and consequences of that ruling as well as the unfounded basis for it and why it was erroneous. We talk a bit, argue back and forth a while, then you present the proof that SCOTUS made a ruling as if that is the debate. You continue to wave that ruling around as if it settles all arguments and renders all other opinions on any other topic irrelevant.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss 
Here comes the two our three posters who's intent is to make it look as though a large crowd is shouting you down. 

Cute ain't it?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *This is a  great article....the whole history of the movement:
> ...



Premise error.

There is no such thing as 'the right of two citizens to consent to sign a document and pay a fee for a partnership'

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:
> ...



Well clearly your 'understanding' is all of that crap. 

You claim there are ramifications and consequences- quoting yourself- citing yourself- and then claim the Supreme Court was in error- based of course upon your greater understanding of the Constitution than those ignorant Justices.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

I also find it interesting how hard the fought to be included in "marriage" and still want to actually be separately referred to an "gay marriage"?

Quirky to say the least


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



Got it, and so why get all bent outta shape about same sex siblings?

Unless you really don't beleive your own argument. 

And that appears to be a distinct possibility.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > This is a great article....the whole history of the movement:
> ...



No we are having the same argument but you don't seem to know it. You are saying that the SCOTUS ruing was an overreach of there authority and I am showing how you are wrong.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The only ones that I am aware of that are bent out of shape about same sex siblings are you- and Boss.

You are bent out of shape about any siblings marrying.

Meanwhile

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Incompetence hangs in the air like the cold stench of death.

I'm drowning in a sea  of  inanity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils

They make me  long for the comfort of the grave.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



You're not showing me anything. You keep posting OPINIONS of others and they are mostly based on a false premise. Overreach of authority is not a new issue with SCOTUS, they've been doing this since Marbury v. Madison. In this case, they made a lawless ruling on a false premise. You can have a different opinion but the lawless ruling of the court doesn't make your opinion correct and mine incorrect.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage. The framers of the constitution could not have conceived of gay marriage. However, they could conceive of opposite sex marriage, and, there is nothing about that in the constitution either . How about that!
> ...



What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.  

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

bodecea said:


> I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.



Pop is not going to lobby for this and neither am I. We're just explaining how "equal protection" works to people who just used it to obtain *their kind* of marriage. Someone WILL challenge it, and they WILL win, IF the court follows the Constitution. The Obergefell case WILL be cited as part of their case and WILL be considered in the court's deliberation. These are just facts that need to be faced in light of the ruling. Our pointing this out to your stupid ass is not our "support" of such things. Stop trying to manipulate conversations and denigrate others because they don't agree with you. It's cheap, petty and immature.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution would be the highest expression of society's collective moral values. The USSC has the responsibility to determine whether laws violate the protections afforded by the constitution when such cases are brought before them. In effect the court is charged with defending the collective moral values of society. If society disagrees with the court (or the constitution), a constitutional amendment is always available to show the change in society's collective moral values.
> ...



How does my argument in any way preclude the Civil War from happening?  Did I say that the Supreme Court gets it right all the time?  Did I say that society gets it right all the time?  What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?

Who interprets the constitution?  Each individual?  The legislature, the president?  You say the USSC cannot interpret their own meanings into the constitution, but that sounds suspiciously like you are saying the court cannot interpret the constitution in ways you disagree with.  The USSC has been interpreting the constitution for many years.  Now, with this particular ruling, suddenly it's a problem for you?

Yes, the court is one of three co equal branches of government.  From what you post, it gives the impression you would prefer they were far from equal and instead more of a rubber stamp to the legislature.

No one was denied the ability to marry a man based on their gender?  No one was denied the ability to marry a woman based on their gender?  Of course they were.  Whether or not that involved a denial of rights is of course debatable, but that it is true is objectively observable.

No new institution was created with Obergefell.  The already existing institution of marriage was expanded to include same sex couples.

You can claim that Obergefell means that anyone MUST be granted marriage should they wish it.  I disagree; it does nothing of the sort.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> Who would have standing to bring a case to the court regarding same sex marriage and whether bans against such are constitutional?



The line you quoted is not pertaining to the government, it is pertaining to the people. What it is saying, in essence, is that the specified rights listed in the Bill of Rights (for example) are not to be construed as the ONLY rights the people have, nor are they to be construed to deny those other rights. 

The Constitution clearly enumerates powers of the Federal government and leaves the question of "rights" up to the people and states if not already included in the Bill of Rights. Marriage should have been left completely with the states to deal with as they wished. 

When you abandon this Constitutional principle, you effectively establish a new form of government. We are not a representative republic anymore, we are an oligarchy ruled by 9 justices in black robes.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?



Based on your opinion that the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people, as they did in Obergefell. From the very inception of our nation, slavery was an issue of moral right and wrong. This matter was left to the people and states to decide. The court did not have the power to confer citizenship on slaves and ordain them with Constitutional rights. Too bad it wasn't the 2015 court because they WOULD have!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



As opposed to Boss- who keeps posting his own opinions- quoting himself, citing himself- claiming that everyone but himself has a 'false premise'

Poor bigoted Boss.

Still so frightened that gay men will be trying to pass laws to force him to have sex with them.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Thanks spam master


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?
> ...



And if the 2015 court had said that Africans were human beings, Boss would be saying that was going to lead to incestuous marriage also.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Hey- you are welcome- always glad to post the good news

The only ones that I am aware of that are bent out of shape about same sex siblings are you- and Boss.

You are bent out of shape about any siblings marrying.

Meanwhile

Americans have a right to marriage.

Same gender Americans. Opposite Gender Americans. Gay Americans. Mixed race Americans.

Loving merely recognized the rights that mixed race couples have- as Obergefell recognized the rights that same gender couples have


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Fighting against bigots and for the rights of others is never easy

They're hear, they're near, they're related. Get used to it you haters.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Spam Man!!!!!!


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.
> ...



Despite all evidence to the contrary.

12 years of the same legal situation in Massachusetts- 12 years of the Catholic League making the same predictions- and 12 years with no incestuous or polygamous marriages in Massachusetts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Oh really- I have no problem arguing against homophobic bigots like you and Boss. 

Not hard at all.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I wish you luck on your road to legalize sibling marriage.
> ...



Did you know how Obergefell would be ruled?  You have said it shouldn't have been heard at all, it was an incorrect decision, etc....either you don't have as strong a grasp of constitutional protections in relation to this case as you think or the court did not bother to follow the constitution.  Either of these possibilities seems to argue against your predicting what the court will rule in the near future, at least until the makeup of the court changes.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Of course you are. But your lifestyle is your choice, why you whining about hanging around the insane?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



And yourself! Which is what your doing.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Africans are human beings! Damn, you ARE A RACIST


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Then why can't you and the other gnats run us off?

Oh, maybe it's cuz we exposed you as Faux Progressives?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Dilbert Comic Strip on 2008-02-03 | Dilbert by Scott Adams


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power. 

If you want to twist and distort things around to make some other argument, we're not going to have it.... you can do it... I won't respond to it.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.
> ...



You said this :


Boss said:


> If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a fundamental right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights.



Whether marriage is a right or not has nothing to do with the powers of the federal government.  Your claim that if marriage was a fundamental right it would be included in the Bill of Rights is clearly contradicted by the 9th amendment.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



My point is that if you think this court overreaches and goes against the constitution any predictions you make are going to be questionable at best because they don't follow what you think is their proper role and power.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Marriage already existed.  The court made it so that same sex couples were included in the already existing institution of marriage.  That marriage is a fundamental right was already determined by the Supreme Court in multiple previous rulings.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What part of my argument assumes that the USSC would have ruled slavery unconstitutional before the Civil War happened, and further assumes that such a ruling would have prevented the war?
> ...



I did not say the court can determine moral right and wrong for the people.  The closest I came to that is the idea that the court, in determining the constitutionality of laws, is attempting to enforce the morals of society.  Nor do I think the court determined moral right and wrong in Obergefell.  That same sex marriage is now legal does not force anyone to find it morally correct.

Slavery should not have been left to the states.  Nor should women's rights.  Nor should minority rights.  The idea that all men are created equal certainly seems, in this modern day, to mean all humans.  

The courts didn't need to confer citizenship on slaves, that citizenship should have been considered to already have been there and the courts would have been enforcing the protections that all adults are granted by the constitution.  Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and the times were different.  The court then interpreted the constitution differently than would be done today.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.




The SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

2004 Massachusetts
2008 Connecticut
2009 District of Columbia
2009 Iowa – State Judicially
2009 New Hampshire
2009 Vermont
2011 New York
2012 Maine
2012 Maryland
2012 Minnesota
2012 Washington
2013 California
2013 Delaware
2013 Hawaii
2013 Illinois
2013 New Jersey
2013 New Mexico
2013 Rhode Island
(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



To say Same-sex Civil Marriage didn't exist prior to the Obergegell decision is incorrect.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Well lets review- shall we?

I shall list couples- and you and I can state our positions as to what who we personally believe should be able to legally marry:
White heterosexual couples- yes
Black heterosexual couples- yes
Mixed race heterosexual couples- yes
Gay couples- yes
Siblings- should not be able to marry
Mothers/sons- should not be able to marry.
A man and 40 women- no position

The choices are yes- no- no position.

Let us see who is the bigot.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You have to read ALL the words in the sentences I post. I said: If the framers had thought marriage should be something the people had a *fundamental* right to, it would have been included in the Bill of Rights. Take out the word "fundamental" and my sentence becomes something entirely different, and an argument you can defeat with the 9th Amendment. 

But clearly, the 9th Amendment doesn't grant the SCOTUS the power to create a new fundamental right to same sex marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Says you- 

Citing you

Sour grapes. 

Still upset about Loving v. Virginia.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Wow- Boss is really upset about the Supreme Court overturning Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yes!!


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The court didn't follow the Constitution. This was not a matter of equal protection as no one was able to obtain a same-sex marriage since that doesn't exist in reality. They had to first create this thing that didn't previously exist, then they had to determine some people had a fundamental right to the thing. All of it is outside the jurisdiction of the court and an overreach of their Constitutional power.
> ...



Two points.  

1) The courts and state legislators cannot create new institutions without expressed consent from the people. This requires a ballot initiative and if that did not happen, there is no new institution and the State can't establish any legal law based on one. If liberal activist courts ruled it into being, it doesn't exist legally. If liberal activist politicians used every trick in the book to pass it... it's illegitimate. Courts certainly do not have this power in our country under our Constitution. 

2) Once you've ruled out all instances where the will of the people was unconstitutionally circumvented, I think there are only two states who have passed same sex marriage laws by vote of the people. I have no legal argument with their decision or their right to do this. States, through the people can make any kind of new institution and that is fine. My objection is to the US Government and Supreme Court doing it lawlessly by a 5-4 ruling of justices acting on their personal feelings rather than the Constitution.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The courts had already previously declared marriage a fundamental right.  Obergefell didn't create that right, it said the right extends to same sex couples.

Is it your contention that the 9th amendment does not apply to fundamental rights?  That all fundamental rights are enumerated in the constitution?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



1) Marriage is not a new institution.  Same sex marriages are part of the same institution as opposite sex marriages, just as mixed race marriages were part of the same institution as same race marriages, just as no-dowry marriages were part of the same institution as dowry marriages, etc..

2) 3 by referendum according to the Wiki article Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .  Quite a few created by state legislature.

I'm unsure why you think state legislatures cannot pass law or that they are not ostensibly representing the will of the people, considering the representational basis of our government.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Same sex Civil Marriage was passed by ballot initiative in some states.  Therefore SSCM did exist as a public insitution prior to the Obergefell ruling and it was done via ballot.


>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



First set can

All others I oppose, yet I can find no Complelling state reason to deny their right. 

Have you yet?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Which states were those?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



When has a Black man ever been able to change race? Silly, you don't even think they're human after all.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Some would also say that at that exact same time, same sex sibling marriage also became constitutional. 

I KNOW, that's simply silly, but then I can't think of a single compelling state interest in denying them this right, you?

I wonder how the vote would have gone if this would have been known?

Of course when you frame the debate as "gay marriage", that deflects any interest, don't you think?


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...



All is lost, they got Dilbert on their side!


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Why would you care, you are too.


----------



## Faun (Oct 15, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What is a power of government is different than what is a right of the people.
> ...


Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution and the U.S.S.C. is completely within their jurisdiction to decide if a law brought to their court, violates the Constitution.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 15, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Which states were those?



Maryland, Washington, Maine, and Minnesota.  In the case of Minnesota the initiative was to ban SSCM which was defeated allowing the legislature immediately turn around to pass the a bill setting the law.


>>>>


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 15, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Which states were those?
> ...



Ok, I'll give you Minnesota. So 4 out of 50 or roughly 8.5 percent of the StateS with likely less that in poplulation.

Interesting, when you put into that context. Add the number of judges that forced it on the other states, and the population percentage moved by a factor of 0.


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Same sex marriages are part of the same institution as opposite sex marriages...



Except, they are *not*, are they?


----------



## Boss (Oct 15, 2015)

Faun said:


> Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...



They did. Nothing in any law contradicted the Constitution. Again, gay marriage had to be created for it to become a right being denied. Marriage was the union of a man and woman without regard for sexuality. When it was restricted from black people marrying white people it was a civil rights issue because the same thing was being allowed to some but not others. In this case, gay marriage didn't exist and no one could have same-sex marriages. There was no discrimination happening. We also don't have child marriages, it's not a discrimination happening. We also don't have sibling marriages... not a discrimination happening. Marriage was the union of a man and woman... could be gay men and women, could be straight... no judgement was made. 

Again... MY opinion is that Marriage should not be a government institution at all. There is no need for this in 2015. It is really a throwback relic to a time that has gone forever in America and we should move ahead.... progress. You libtards slobber all over Europeans and what they do... in The Netherlands people seldom ever get married. For the Dutch, it's just not an option. We should be working together to free our people of government repression and return our freedom to define our own relationships on our own terms. 

But like the good little Socialist Commie you are, that's the LAST thing you want to try and do... isn't it?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



For some people, their problem is that they do not accept the legitimacy of the 14th amendment, or it's applicability beyond race. Boss is unique in that he goes further and seems to not accept the legitimacy of the constitution as a whole, rejects the concept of federal supremacy and thinks that we are still under the Articles of Confederation.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



True, and those people are you. Can you name another civil right that excluded nearly everyone from full participation in its access?

I can't. 

It's the same argument that Virginia attempted in "Loving".  You can marry anyone, just not anyone.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2015)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> For some people, their problem is that they do not accept the legitimacy of the 14th amendment, or it's applicability beyond race. Boss is unique in that he goes further and seems to not accept the legitimacy of the constitution as a whole, rejects the concept of federal supremacy and thinks that we are still under the Articles of Confederation.



I don't have any problem with the Constitution or the 14th Amendment. Your problem seems to be that you believe some parts of the Constitution nullifies others. I doubt the framers were that short-sighted and I assume they intended the whole Constitution to work together. I also assume the later amendments don't nullify previous amendments unless they expressly state this repeal as their purpose, as in the case of the 21st Amendment. 

Anyone who has studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers finds they are eloquently written and brilliantly constructed. The Constitution needs no "interpretation" as any aspect is explained in detail by the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said. 

Madison explained the "concept of federal supremacy" very well. It is not intended for federal government to usurp the power of the states. If it were, there would be no 10th Amendment. We have the Constitution, we have federal legislature and we have state legislatures. The federal government has enumerated powers which allow it to pass various laws. The state has power over everything not enumerated, which also allow them to pass various laws. All laws have to abide by the Constitution but in some cases, state and federal laws might both be in accordance with the Constitution, yet still in conflict with each other. A good example of this is Colorado's marijuana laws. As of now, there has been no problem with this because no one has challenged Colorado's law with a valid complaint of harm. If such a case arose and the court found there was a legitimate harm done, the Colorado law must defer to the federal law. 

With marriage, there is no federal marriage law. Regulation of Marriage is not an enumerated power. For all of our history it has been a state-regulated institution with various state-by-state guidelines. The 14th Amendment didn't suddenly give the federal government the power to change that. Nor does the federal supremacy clause. 

The 14th has again been perverted by the liberal secular left to cram something down our throats against our will. It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights. It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care. It wasn't intended for homosexuals to play house or to legitimize their promiscuous and deviant sexual behavior.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.



Not entirely true.  Marriage gains benefits from federal tax law.  There are also immigration laws which deal with marriage I believe.  There was DOMA as well.



Boss said:


> The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what the Constitution says, not what they WISH the Constitution said.





Boss said:


> It was never intended to allow illegal immigrants to plop out anchor babies and claim citizenship rights.



This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.



Boss said:


> It wasn't intended to force everyone to pay for universal health care.



We don't have universal health care.  The ACA is more of a bastardized mix of universal health coverage and private coverage.  Not everyone has or is required to have health coverage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



And another example of Pops lying. Which is rather redundant.

Unlike Boss- I support the Supreme Court overturning unconstitutional state marriage laws- as it did in Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell.

How about you?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> [
> With marriage, there is no federal marriage law. Regulation of Marriage is not an enumerated power. For all of our history it has been a state-regulated institution with various state-by-state guidelines. The 14th Amendment didn't suddenly give the federal government the power to change that. Nor does the federal supremacy clause.r.



Yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly overturned State marriage laws that are unconstitutional- and once again provides the very same argument Virginia made in defending its racists mixed race ban on marriages.


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...
> ...



As far as the State of Virginia was concerned- inter-racial marriage did not exist.

And of course same sex marriage did exist- and existed for over 10 years in the United States before the Supreme Court recognized that the rights of Americans who wanted to marry their partner of the same gender were being violated.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Same sex marriages are part of the same institution as opposite sex marriages...
> ...



Except they are- one marriage license for every couple getting married- regardless of the gender of the spouses.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



State legislators represent the people- and depending upon the State's Constitution can indeed create new institutions.

Courts of course- such as the Supreme Court- create now new institutions- they only overturn unconstitutional laws.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Another "pay no attention to that man in the corner" argument. SSM existed in only a few States within the country for that time.

Making things appear greater then they actually are is another of these marketing tool. The larger you can make something appear, the harder it also appears to be to defeat. 

Army's have used that trick for centuries


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Yeah- people like you and the Catholic League- yet still- no siblings are getting legally married- in 12 years after 'some' people say something idiotic- their idiotic claims still have not come true.

Want to also tell us your prediction on when the Rapture will happen?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples. 

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.


----------



## Faun (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Marriage laws ARE left up to the states. But like all laws, they must conform to the U.S. Constitution...
> ...


States sanctioning marriage is neither socialist nor communist. You truly are fucking deranged. Your mental challenges aside, yes, part of the law did violate the Constitution. The part about marriage being limited to a man and a woman violated the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > With marriage, there is no federal marriage law.
> ...



This sounds like your usual rebuttal to any argument I present at USMB. A meandering nit-picking of select terms and obtuse myopic focus on what those terms can mean when taken entirely in another context. Boss says "we have no federal marriage law" and so you have to find some examples of laws which mention or are affected by marriage to prove Boss wrong! Boss says "universal health care" and so you have to make an argument that it's not universal because it's not mandated... you can pay a "tax" and avoid coverage. Oh... and let's see if we can borrow a pronoun from another sentence to infer some unintended meaning on a different sentence, while we're playing fast and loose with context and distorting the hell out of his argument!  Let's construct some more straw men and throw a few more monkey wrenches into the discussion in order to complicate the dialogue and detract from any point he may have been trying to get across. THATs what Montro is all about. 

*This sounds like you want to the court to uphold what the constitution says, unless you disagree with it, then you want them to go by intent.*

No, I want them to go by intent. I don't want illiterate morons like you determining what it says because you don't seem to grasp context. You also seem to think we can change meanings of words willy-nilly to fit our agenda at the time. This kind of liberalism when it comes to language is a danger to the intentions of our Constitution. So I want them to study the Federalist papers, understand the context in which various arguments were made and what was intended when the final law was settled as part of the Constitution. Finally, I want them to understand their job is not to redefine institutions or redefine laws and rights, but to uphold what is established by the people... whether it fits their personal viewpoint or not.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Yeah, I don't think 'inevitable' means what they think it means. If same sex marriage must lead to incest marriage....

....why didn't it?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Instead we have illiterate morons like Boss telling us what the Constitution means- and that he knows the Constitution better than the judges and Justices that have studied it their entire lives.

Boss is still upset that the Supreme Court overturned the bans on mixed race marriages.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



For the same reason that mixed race marriages didn't lead to incestuous or polygamous marriages either.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You just refuse to admit even the slightest mistake, don't you?

I pointed out that there are and have been federal laws dealing with marriage.  Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

I pointed out that the ACA is not universal healthcare.  It is not.  No everyone must have insurance, nor do all those without insurance have to pay a 'tax'.  Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

You say you want the justices on the USSC to follow what the constitution says, and follow that up by pointing out something you think it intended but did not say.  That's pretty contradictory.  Did I say that invalidates your entire argument or anything of the sort?

If by we you mean society can change the meanings of words willy-nilly, yes, it can.  If you mean the court can do so, it's been pointed out again and again that same sex marriage existed years before the Obergefell ruling.  The court did not create a new meaning where none previously existed.  You might argue that the Massachusetts court did so.

The problem is not my 'nit-picking'.  Rather it is your unwillingness to admit a mistake and seeming offense at having any mistakes pointed out.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You said in the United States. Massachusetts is not the united states. Your geography seems as bad as your civics.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Why hasn't it?

Incest is illegal numbnuts. 

Think beyond your vibrator. 

Good god you folks will do anything to deflect from your hatred of equality.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Your geography seems out of date- Massachusetts has been part of the United States since our Founding.

When same sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, it was the first state to legalize such marriage.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



And once again- Pops is the one to insist on talking about incest.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Your continued deflection is expected by a radical racist. 

Your post was specific that same sex marriage existed in the United States for 10 years. It existed in 1 state for that period for that time period. Which means it was non existent in 49. 

A logical statement was that same sex marriage only existed in one single state during that time period. 

Your argument appears to be the same used by the John Birch Society, you Racist Bigot.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Racist bullshit

Syriously....proud member of the KKK


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



The only one focusing on race here is you- citing you- quoting you.

And despite your attempts at deflection to make this about race- my posts were all accurate- your understanding as usual is not.

And as I said- same sex marriage has been legal and existed for over 10 years before the Supreme Court recognized the rights of same gender couples.

And despite the predictions of the Catholic League that you parrot- still no siblings getting married in any state with same gender marriage.

So much butt hurt from you- just because gay couples can now legally marry in all 50 states.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 16, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...



Lying Bullshit from Pops

Pops- pulling crap out of his ass again and flinging it at USMB.


----------



## Pop23 (Oct 16, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Then why do you fight so hard and not produce that Compelling State interest that you claim exist? And why haven't you produced that societal safety net that Judge Crabb spoke about, but didn't elaborate on?

Hmmmmm, makes you wonder


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



What you are doing is not pointing out anything or making any sort of relevant point. You are demonstrating a rather sad and pathetic side of your personality. It's rare, but you and I have engaged in meaningful dialogue before. I've even given you credit for making well-thought-out and reasoned arguments in the past... when is the last time you gave me any credit? Don't take that wrong, I am not asking for recognition or anything, I don't need your praise. I already know you value what I have to say to some degree because you spend the time to respond. 

But you have this really immature and nasty habit of trying to derail the conversation when you can't think of a good reply. You fancy yourself as being 'clever' at this.. like a little F. Lee Bailey, pointing out my errors and flaws. Here I am, thinking we are mutually sharing our opinions and hopefully gaining insight into what the other is saying and you are nit-picking my usage of informal pronouns. And quite frankly, on a message board wrought with barely coherent grammar on a regular basis. It is frustrating to me because I know you are capable of better dialogue. You don't come across as F. Lee Bailey... you come across as Peter Griffin doing a bad impression of F. Lee Bailey. 

I just wish there was a way I could convey to you how much respect you lose from me when you resort to that. This is not about me admitting errors. I can admit when I make a mistake or say something incorrectly. I've done that with you before. This is all you baby. This is your pathetic and sad cry for attention. You've heard my opinion, you've told me yours, and you can't really change my mind so you decide to run from the conversation and nit pick my grammar errors or take things out of context or obtusely try to distort them in some way. 

Now that has become a game that you can play really good. Like my little sister when we were kids. Mom would give us paper and crayons to draw a picture. We'd work on our art a while until sister got frustrated with her work and looked over at mine, which was obviously brilliant... then she'd proceed to take her ugliest crayon and go to ripping it back and forth across my masterpiece in a fit of rage. Then she would start crying when I yelled at her... mom would come in and feel sorry for her and she'd get a treat while I got time out. She was a master at that game, all through us growing up. 

But... I digress.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



What I do is respond to your posts.  If I see things you have said in error I will point them out.  I'm sorry if that is a problem for you.  You have certainly pointed out various things in my posts which you have considered to be in error.

I made a pretty short post responding to a few items I saw which were incorrect.  Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.  Maybe it's residual resentment from getting in trouble as a child, I don't know.  

I find your unwillingness to admit error or accept someone pointing out errors in your post just as annoying as you seem to find having those errors brought up.  You may not like it but I will continue to point out errors in your posts as I perceive them.


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If I see things you have said in error I will point them out .. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.



Nonsense. My dander is low and lovely. It's nice to see you admit that you are here to point out errors, I am here to have meaningful conversations.  I would rather hear you address some of the points that have been made with regard to "strict scrutiny" versus "rational basis" test when it comes to constitutional rights versus collective societal values. We can't have that conversation if you are nit-picking over usage of informal pronouns. 

I realize it's a more difficult topic for you to converse about, especially since it destroys your idea that Obergefell doesn't have any ramification other than to allow gays to marry. I understand that if you face this reality it also pretty much destroys your moral "societal viewpoint" arguments regarding age of consent, sibling marriage and all kinds of other things you are in denial about having to face in the future. And so, it's just easier for you to take the pinhead way out and start nit-picking minutia. 

Like I said earlier... Respect-O-Meter is declining rapidly.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 16, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If I see things you have said in error I will point them out .. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.
> ...



I am not particularly concerned about your Respect-O-Meter.  

It's unfortunate for you that you cannot have a meaningful conversation and have errors in that conversation pointed out at the same time.  Some of us are able to do both.

I actually already brought up that, from what I've read, cases involving gender and sexual orientation tend to fall under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict or rational.  However, since the courts already established marriage as a fundamental right prior to Obergefell, it would make sense to use strict scrutiny.

Whatever the case, I don't see how Obergefell changed how marriage cases will be viewed as far as scrutiny is concerned.  Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.  If you want to blame the fact that marriage cases may full under strict scrutiny on anything, blame it on Loving.  I believe that is the first time the court described marriage as a fundamental right.

Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.  The idea that same sex marriage somehow makes age of consent irrelevant is your own disturbing belief.

I haven't said that Obergefell cannot have any ramifications other than to allow gays to marry.  I have rejected your claims that it requires all other forms of marriage be made legal.  Those are not the same thing.

Care to whine some more about nit-picking now?


----------



## Boss (Oct 16, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.



I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, *Marriage* is something entirely different than _Gay_ Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions. 



Montrovant said:


> Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.



Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.
> ...



On multiple occasions before Obergefell, including Loving, the USSC described marriage as a fundamental right.  From my reading previous cases involving marriage have used strict scrutiny because of that determination.  I will give you an example : Zablocki v. Redhail.  From section a of the syllabus, "(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, _e.g., Loving v. Virginia,_ 388 U. S. 1, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.".  Here is a link to the full text : Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978) .  So here we see the court describing marriage as a fundamental right and applying strict scrutiny based on that.

There may not have a been a law written defining marriage as a fundamental right.....but there still is no such law.  Obergefell did not create a new law; you will find no new statutes where none previously existed.  The USSC has apparently considered marriage a fundamental right for years and made decisions based on that classification a dozen or more times before Obergefell.

Arguing that the fundamental right described by the courts in previous years was based on the idea that marriage was for opposite sex couples is a much stronger argument.  Although I have read that in none of those cases did the justices mention opposite genders when discussing marriage, it can likely be assumed for most of them.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.



I have never said anything about arguing against a type of marriage because it is 'icky'.  You (and perhaps Pops, although I don't remember for certain) created that argument yourself.

As I pointed out in the previous post, the USSC considered marriage a fundamental right prior to Obergefell and applied strict scrutiny in other cases based on that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Monty, you're having trouble with words again, "Of fundamental importance" is not saying "a fundamental right".  And again, stating something to that effect is not establishing a law based on it. Finally... even IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still the union of two genders, with numerous other qualifiers like consent, age, relation, etc.... not same sex unions. 

So we have two deceptions happening here... we have the inclusion of same sex unions as marriage, which no one agreed was marriage on a national level... we didn't have a vote... it has not been established... AND, the insistence this newly created type of "marriage" is somehow a fundamental right the framers failed to include in the Bill of Rights. 

Is there anyone here who honestly thinks, if we went back in time and asked Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin.,... Do you think two men in a relationship with each other constitutes "marriage"... they would AGREE with that?


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I'm not having trouble.  I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.  I also pointed out that there is still no such law.  However, marriage is treated as a fundamental right by the USSC and has been since well before Obergefell. 

Also, although you could easily see this for yourself with little effort, if you go to Page 434 U. S. 381 of the Zablocki case you will see, "On the merits, the three-judge panel analyzed the challenged statute under the Equal Protection Clause and concluded that "strict scrutiny" was required because the classification created by the statute infringed upon a fundamental right, the right to marry.".  For someone who complains about nit-picking as much as you do, it strikes me as pretty hypocritical to be complaining about the wording difference between fundamental right and of fundamental importance.

Of course if we went back in time the founders would consider marriage between a man and a woman.  They might have considered marriage between members of the same race, as well.  Are you arguing that court decisions be based on what the founders would have believed at the time and ignore the changes in society in the intervening years?  I think it's a bit late for that.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.
> ...



Again... we both agree there are certain parameters and moral lines that we don't cross on the basis of rationality (rational basis test). You may have the right to be in love with your Rottweiler, you don't have the "fundamental right" to marry him. When a right is fundamental... like for instance, the right to live... we must apply a different test, that is called the "strict scrutiny" test. It is the most stringent standard of judicial review used. It is the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a fundamental constitutional right or principle.

Obergefell changes the nature of marriage in two distinct ways. First, it includes homosexual relationships which have never been considered marriage before, and it establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right. The opinion doesn't simply say it's fundamentally important, it is established as a fundamental right as a principle basis to find in favor of Obergefell. So now, marriage has been redefined to include a particular sexual behavior and ensconced into law as a fundamental constitutional right which must be viewed under strict scrutiny from that day forward. You cannot switch it back and forth on the basis of your predisposition toward the sexual behavior. 

The next challenge, as I have stated, will come from polygamists. They are already challenging it. After they get their "fundamental right" the hebephiles will suddenly appear at the door, knocking for their helping of justice as well. Then the siblings.. then the zoophiles. You cannot stop the ride because you don't like it anymore. You've made marriage a fundamental right and something that can be redefined to include sexual behaviors that are out of the normal lexicon. You and I may find it repulsive and icky, it does not matter, it's now a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be denied on the basis of rationality anymore.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Pop23 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Pop23 said:
> ...


You will have to explain what Syriusly's comment on you always talking about incest (which is true) has to do with the KKK.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.



Yes there is. The Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right. 

It is now the law of the land.


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.
> ...



You are wrong.  The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.  It has been pointed out to you, including citing from previous rulings, on multiple occasions.  Further, no new law was created by Obergefell.  If you think that one was, what is its name?  What is the text of this new law?

Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, it built upon the previous determination that marriage is a fundamental right.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not having trouble. I said there was no law defining marriage as a right.
> ...


If the Obergefell ruling establishes marriage as a fundamental constitutional right....what's this then?



> Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.



No, the courts had previously mentioned MARRIAGE as fundamentally important and may have even stated it as a fundamental right... they did not base their ruling on this, it was only the basis for scrutiny in the cases. In any event, marriage was not ever defined as same-sex union. So we can disagree on this, but it doesn't matter because same sex unions aren't marriage. 



Montrovant said:


> Further, no new law was created by Obergefell.



LMAO... Sure it was! Gay Marriage was legalized nationwide... where have you been?


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.
> ...


That's not new law...that's striking down restrictions...Removing a restriction is not the same as adding a new law.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well it appears to be a common sense statement about the male-female union formerly known as marriage. What does it have to do with two homos having gay sex and playing house?


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> That's not new law...




Tell that to Kim Davis.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


It is part of the_ Loving v Virginia_ DECISION way before Obergefell.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Obergefell changes the nature of marriage in two distinct ways. First, it includes homosexual relationships which have never been considered marriage before,...



As pointed out before this is a factually incorrect statement.  Prior to the SCOTUS accepted the writ of certiorari applications in January 2015 issuing it's decision on June 26, 2015.

Prior to the decision, heck prior to the writ applications there were 18 States with Same-sex Civil Marriage based on State action including:

2004 Massachusetts
2008 Connecticut
2009 District of Columbia
2009 Iowa – State Judicially
2009 New Hampshire
2009 Vermont
2011 New York
2012 Maine
2012 Maryland
2012 Minnesota
2012 Washington
2013 California
2013 Delaware
2013 Hawaii
2013 Illinois
2013 New Jersey
2013 New Mexico
2013 Rhode Island
(And Yes California is included since it was the State that chose not to appeal the District Courts decision resulting in the SCOTUS rejecting those that appealed the Prop 8 ruling.)



>>>>


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You are wrong. The courts found marriage to be a fundamental right long before Obergefell.
> ...



If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.

Marriage was defined as same sex in much of the country before Obergefell.  More, the USSC struck down DOMA prior to Obergefell and that was about same sex marriage as well.

You can personally define same sex unions however you want.


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 17, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.
> 
> Marriage was defined as same sex in much of the country before Obergefell.  More, the USSC struck down DOMA prior to Obergefell and that was about same sex marriage as well....You can personally define same sex unions however you want.


 When do children get a voice in defining marriage?  They are, after all, partners in the contract.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Part of it... but it's not the BASIS for the Loving decision.  And Loving was about the institute of union between a male and female gender person. Same sex unions are no such union, by definition. 

So I disagree that Loving established marriage as a fundamental constitutional right and even IF that is the case, they didn't establish same sex partnerships as marriage.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Obergefell changes the nature of marriage in two distinct ways. First, it includes homosexual relationships which have never been considered marriage before,...
> ...



It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing! 

We've had this absolute SHIT crammed down our throats against our will by activist liberal punks who are pissed off about George W. Bush and his God talks. You magically turned this into something we somehow all agreed on without knowing it. Then claimed a right to it was being denied. YES... you did pass it into law... you had to rewrite the fucking Constitution to do it, but by God you did it... take that George W. Bush and God!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!



1.  There is no such thing as a "national referendum".

2.  Yes candidates have run supporting SSCM an and been elected.

3.  Yes SSCM was passed by some State Legislatures and State Ballot Referendums prior to the Obergefell decision. 

To say SSCM didn't exist before the Obergefel ruling is false.  Which is what I addressed.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If I see things you have said in error I will point them out .. Rather than accepting your errors or even just arguing that you were not, in fact, incorrect, you get your dander up because I pointed out errors in the first place.
> ...



Translation from Boss speak: "Stop pointing out my lies because it derails my tirade against homosexuals'


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.
> ...



Except that they are not, of course.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.
> ...



Boss keeps telling us that Marriage is what he says- and not what anyone else says.

Especially not what States and courts that he disagrees with says.

But the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that marriage is a fundamental right of Americans


Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

Although_Loving_arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

_Maynard v. Hill,_125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as *"the most important relation in life,"*_id._at125 U. S. 205, and as *"the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,*"

In_Meyer v. Nebraska,_262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that *the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,*

In_Griswold v. Connecticut,_381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

_Carey v. Population Services International,_431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that *an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage*,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life *is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*


----------



## Montrovant (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Nor was marriage as a fundamental right the sole basis of Obergefell.  I honestly don't understand this line of argument.

Now, that same sex marriage was not part of marriage until recently, that is an argument I understand.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Says Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.

This entire thread is just Boss's contrarian opinion fest, with Pop's trolling added in.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



There you go- Boss doesn't care what States do.

Odd for someone who so pasionately argues about how horrible the courts were for overturning same gender marriage bans imposed by STates- he just doesn't give a damn whether States themselves decide to have inclusive marriage.

All that matters to Boss is Boss's opinion- citing himself- quoting himself.


----------



## Boss (Oct 17, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!
> ...



1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed. 

2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages. 

3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.


----------



## bodecea (Oct 17, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.
> ...


Well....how do you plan on asking unborn children about whether they want their future parents to be married or not?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It is always hard to tell when  Boss is deliberately lying- and when he is just an ignorant ass.

Gay couples have been getting married in the United States since 2013- Obergefell didn't change the nature of marriage at all. What Obergefell did do was recognize that the rights of same gender couples are the same rights as opposite gender couples- and Boss hates that.

And Obergefell didn't 'establish' marriage as a fundamental right- that had long been established- as noted in Zablocki

_By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry,_


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Poor Boss- still trying to equate equal rights for gay adults- with him wanting to marry his dog.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.
> ...



children don't get a voice in defining any laws- note children are not allowed to vote.

And Children are not partners in a marriage- though sometimes they are the product of a marriage- they become participants in a family.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!
> ...



Seriously- how can anyone beyond a 6th grade education complain about there being 'no national referendum' on 'gay marriage'?

There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for a national referendum.

Boss once again displays his ignorance of the Constitution.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> 1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.



No a "referendum" and "ratification" are two different things.  Under the Constitutional Amendment process State "ratify" and amendment.  Under a "referendum" there is a direct vote on an issue placed on a ballot before an electorate.  There is no process for a national referendum on any issue.



Boss said:


> 2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.



I assume you meant "Senate" when you wrote "State" and yes there have been plenty of elected officials that supported equal treatment for same-sex couples.

http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-eas...ssional_Marriage__Positions_House_By_Name.pdf
http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-eas...ssional_Marriage_Positions_Senate_By_Name.pdf



Boss said:


> 3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.



The Federal government recognizes Civil Marriages performed by States.  The Federal government doesn't "do" marriages, the "recognize" (as in acknowledge the existance of) marriages perfomed at the State level.

So ya when State Legislatures and State Ballot Referendums approve of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples that does impact Federal recognition.


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 17, 2015)

Boss said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Poor Boss- still all pissed off that gay couples can marry now- excuse me- his 'best friends'.

And still scared gay men are going to change the law so they can force him to have sex with him in public.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 17, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Seriously- how can anyone beyond a 6th grade education complain about there being 'no national referendum' on 'gay marriage'?
> 
> There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for a national referendum.
> 
> Boss once again displays his ignorance of the Constitution.



It's an attempt to use the "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy but fails in this case since attitudes have changed since the early 2000's and equal treatment of same-sex couples under Civil Marriage laws actually has the majority position.


>>>>


----------



## Silhouette (Oct 19, 2015)

Boss said:


> It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!


 


WorldWatcher said:


> 1.  There is no such thing as a "national referendum".
> 
> 2.  Yes candidates have run supporting SSCM an and been elected.
> 
> ...


 


Boss said:


> 1. Yes there is, it's called "ratification" and it has happened 17 times since the Constitution and Bill of Rights was formed.
> 
> 2. No State or House candidate in the US Congress has ever ran and been elected on the promise to legalize gay marriages.
> 
> 3. State legislators have ZILCH to do with federal law and federal courts.


 
Boss has some compelling points here.  When children come into the discussion, his case gets even stronger...  Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 19, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!
> ...



Oh Christ are you still here. To claim that parenting by gay people is bad for kids is  stupid enough but to say that gay people should not be married for that reason is beyond  moronic. Most of the kids who are in the care of gay people are not there because of marriage. They, however, can benefit by their parent's ability to be married and allowing them to have two legal parents. I have tried to educate you about that before but you are too obtuse and hateful too get it. It continues to be apparent that your disdain for gay people blinds you to the fact that discrimination against gays harms their children , How can you care so little about the children. Do you have a heart, a soul or a brain?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 19, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!
> ...



Nothing like one bigot cheering on another bigot.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 19, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!
> ...


*Deal with it!*


----------



## Faun (Oct 19, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > If the court makes a ruling based on strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny is applied because marriage is a fundamental right, then yes, the ruling of the court is based in part on marriage being a fundamental right.
> ...


That's odd? None of my kids' names appear on my marriage license.


----------



## Skylar (Oct 20, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > It does not matter what STATES do.  They are free to call a turkey and ham sandwich "married" if that's what they want to do in their state. It has nothing to do with federal laws and federal courts. In federal law and federal courts, same sex unions had not previously been defined as marriage. We never had a national referendum, we didn't elect representatives campaigning on it... nothing!
> ...



Save that denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help any child. While denying same sex parents marriage does hurt their children.

So your proposal helps no child...but harms 10s of thousands. 

No thank you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Oct 20, 2015)

Deal with it people!



> New Federal Lawsuit Is Potentially Bigger Than Obergefell For Gay Rights New Federal Lawsuit Is Potentially Bigger Than Obergefell For Gay Rights
> 
> .............another lawsuit filed last week has the potential to eclipse _Obergefell v. Hodges_ in terms of overall impact because it would affect more people, according to an attorney for the plaintiff.
> 
> In the face of Congress' longtime failure to pass explicit LGBT job protections, former Federal Aviation Administration employee David Baldwin's lawsuit is aimed at obtaining a federal decision —  and eventually from the high court itself — saying anti-gay job bias is already illegal under existing civil rights laws.





> This July, the EEOC ruled in Baldwin's favor, saying anti-gay bias qualifies as sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> 
> The EEOC's decision came two years after it ruled that transgender people are protected against job discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. And although both decisions were historic, they are binding only on federal agencies and don't necessarily protect non-governmental employees. Since the EEOC's decision in his case, Baldwin has sought to resolve the case with the FAA, but the agency never responded, prompting his lawsuit.


----------



## mdk (Oct 22, 2015)

It appears homosexual marriage is still alive. Better luck next month, Boss. lol


----------



## Skylar (Oct 22, 2015)

mdk said:


> It appears homosexual marriage is still alive. Better luck next month, Boss. lol



Laughing.....even Boss has abandoned the hapless bullshit of the OP. 

Can we call this thread debunked?


----------



## mdk (Oct 22, 2015)

Skylar said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > It appears homosexual marriage is still alive. Better luck next month, Boss. lol
> ...



To be fair to Boss, it was always bunk. lol


----------



## G.T. (Oct 22, 2015)

1800+ posts. Homosexual marriage still stands. Aww


----------

