Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A truck does NOT have 18 wheels, this is why people today are so ignorant.

Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.

Excuse me? I have been a "trucker" for 38 years, and I know the difference between a tractor and trailer, and a "Truck". A "truck" is NOT a tractor and trailor. A tractor pulls a trailer, the trailer to which you refer is 53', the combination of the two exceeds 53'.
Now you didnt answer my question concerning "civil union".
Also in a so called "gay marriage" between two of the same sex, which is the husband, and which is the wife, as you see now you must establish a new fiction wherein a woman may be a husband and a man may be a wife. Now a husband and wife may no longer refer to the sex of the individual. Fiction, fiction, fiction.
Please answer at least this one question....
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?

Just excellent points here and presented through a soundly reasoned construct. Just a well stated point of view.

There is nothing about the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality that does not rest in deceit, thus which is not entirely fraudulent... . As the entire ruse is political and designed to influence the ignorant, as a means to alter US Federal Policy, toward undermining the viability of the Culture, by fundamentally changing the United States of America.

The most pitiful part of which, is that the idiots advocating for such live here... there's lives being intrinsically built here and they're entirely incapable of understanding that they're literally undermining their own viability in the process; so we can see that the deceit begins within the disorder of their own minds.

Thus providing yet another glimpse of 'The Harm' that homosexuality represents to you, the reader.

The evidence just keeps pouring in... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Golly! >IF< populism were a viable means of governance... MAN! Would THAT be a great point!

Sadly, for your would-be point, Populism is NOT a viable means of governance. So, well... you see how it is.

 

[Seawytch]

How does Bruce and Bob getting married harm those 2 children?

For one, those children will wonder why the great majority of other kids have moms and dads, while they have two dads or two moms. The whole idea of these children feeling abnormal is enough to harm them.

For one, these children exist whether their parents are allowed to marry each other or not. For another, every major medical and child welfare organization support gays marrying FOR the children. It is in not allowing the parents of these children to marry that is harmful.

You want to know what my kids "wonder" about? Why none of their friends parents are still married to each other like THEIR parents are.

 

[Seawytch]

So you are saying that because a child is growing up with homosexual parents that they are living a homosexual lifestyle? What twisted world do you live in? I suppose you have sex with your children in a heterosexual lifestyle? Living with gay people is not forcing the children to live as gays! Children don't care all they know is they have loving parents period! You also said that the neighbor kids would tell them and they would feel different? Umm so you support bullying of children because they may have gay parents? You blame the parents but not the bullies! Wow


I see more hate from heterosexuals then homosexuals. And most kids live in with heterosexual parents! So your kids learn to bully and hate! What a great parent you are! Loser

Yes, I am stating that homosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.

Hard to wrap your twisted mind around that, huh. moron. You see more hate? Right, you make things up. Idiot.

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

 

[James Everett]

Actually, that's exactly what words are. They change as their meaning and usage change. That's why we keep printing new editions of dictionaries every year. Because the meaning and usage of words change over time. This is especially true of legal definitions, which change with any statutory adjustment.

You can ignore the dictionary if you wish. You can ignore the courts if you wish. You can ignore the law if you wish. But your willful ignorance doesn't change a thing. Marriage still includes same sex couples. Its still recognized in 37 of 50 States. And its still likely to be recognized in 50 of 50 States by June.

Get used to the idea.

Again, definitions do not change,.

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

 

[Silhouette]

For one, these children exist whether their parents are allowed to marry each other or not. For another, every major medical and child welfare organization support gays marrying FOR the children. It is in not allowing the parents of these children to marry that is harmful.

You want to know what my kids "wonder" about? Why none of their friends parents are still married to each other like THEIR parents are.

And what about the children of incest and polygamy? Would you disenfranchise them also? What makes your cult so special that it doesn't include the children of these unfortunate situations also?

And of single parents? Perhaps they choose to be monosexual? Don't their children have rights as well?

This isn't about "the rights of just kids caught up in gay lifestyles". This is about the rights of ALL children and what society (their state and discreet community) deems best for their formative environment. Of course it sucks to be a child of a single parent, a polygamist, a brother and sister or a homosexual. But that doesn't mean we change the definition of marriage to include anything under the sun to the collective detriment to children in untold numbers into the future.

 

[Silhouette]

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Which one of you does your son call Dad?

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Federal judges who decide cases where they have no jurisdiction are black robed tyrants. That would be at either side of the argument.
Look guy! If Californians vote to change the definition of marriage, I don't believe SCOTUS has authority to step in there either. Are we clear?

And SCOTUS wouldn't have had to step in had it not been for these untethered federal judges exercising power they don't have.

 

[mdk]

For one, these children exist whether their parents are allowed to marry each other or not. For another, every major medical and child welfare organization support gays marrying FOR the children. It is in not allowing the parents of these children to marry that is harmful.

You want to know what my kids "wonder" about? Why none of their friends parents are still married to each other like THEIR parents are.

And what about the children of incest and polygamy? Would you disenfranchise them also? What makes your cult so special that it doesn't include the children of these unfortunate situations also?

And of single parents? Perhaps they choose to be monosexual? Don't their children have rights as well?

This isn't about "the rights of just kids caught up in gay lifestyles". This is about the rights of ALL children and what society (their state and discreet community) deems best for their formative environment. Of course it sucks to be a child of a single parent, a polygamist, a brother and sister or a homosexual. But that doesn't mean we change the definition of marriage to include anything under the sun to the collective detriment to children in untold numbers into the future.

You are the only here that is suggesting we change marriage to anything under the sun.

 

[mdk]

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Which one of you does your son call Dad?

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Why does it matter?

The Prince's Trust in no way support your assertions. The only reason to you keep spamming it is to drive traffic to your failed, obtuse, and uninteresting threads.

 

[James Everett]

Again, definitions do not change,.

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

And what did 'truck' mean before there were motorized vehicles?

Does the term 'hand truck' ring any bells?

You know the 'definitions never change' schtick is an idiot's gambit. You're being contrary out of petulance now.

You have modified the definition of truck with the word "hand" which makes it a different tool. A hand truck is a different tool than a pickup truck, or a tractor. "Truck" as a stand alone word means to "traffic for exchange". The definition remains the same, simply because the word "Truck" is used to describe various tools, does not mean the proper definition changed, it simply means that people are ignorant, and thus not using the proper modified verbiage to mean what they are actually speaking of in their verbiage. The definition remains set. Now in terms of "Gay marriage" you are modifying the word to mean something other than simple marriage, which is " a contract between a man and a woman". Even with your modifier of "Gay" you are using incorrect verbiage. The proper modifier is "Sodomite" marriage, which separates it from the proper definition of marriage, just as "hand truck" modifies "truck". Again, the proper terminology would be a civil union between sodomites. Please explain why it is necessary to create a fiction rather than simply use proper terminology such as a "civil union?

Child.

If we approached law in your terms; "Sodomite Marriage" would you agree with the Freedom or would you want to control Butt Sex with forceful Law? You should note that many Man/Woman marriages have butt sex. Even some girlfriend/boyfriend.

You seem to be spewing law about "sodomy" and you are correct, decades ago there were laws written to CONTROL the gay population. I'm sure you aren't one of those CONTROL freaks, (R)ight?

Little boy, you are correct in that SODOMY can and is practiced between men and women, however what you are attempting is to change the definition of "marriage" to mean that which it does not. Two sodomites contracting between themselves does not meet the proper definition of a marriage. Also little boy, to answer your question here...
"would you agree with the Freedom or would you want to control Butt Sex with forceful Law?"
The answer is NO. What I believe in is common law, which is based in Gods gift of freewill to man, which is that everyone is free to do as one may choose as long as in doing so one dose not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.
My assessment is not about the freedom of Sodomites to contract an agreement that is equal to that of a marriage, my assessment and opinion is drawn from proper definition, and that is that a marriage is simply defined as a contract between a man and a woman, be they practicing sodomy or not. I have not spewed law about sodomy, I have however reference law concerning State jurisdiction, and it is under that jurisdiction that a State can prevent their States law from redefining the definition of marriage. It however is my opinion that the States (meaning State governments) did agree between them selves via the 1787/1789 CONstitution that through Art. I, Sect. 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else.
Therefore it is my opinion that Sodomites may contract the equivalent of a marriage between themselves as a civil union, yet NOT redefine marriage in a State wherein the jurisdiction to set that defined standard.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, that's exactly what words are. They change as their meaning and usage change. That's why we keep printing new editions of dictionaries every year. Because the meaning and usage of words change over time. This is especially true of legal definitions, which change with any statutory adjustment.

You can ignore the dictionary if you wish. You can ignore the courts if you wish. You can ignore the law if you wish. But your willful ignorance doesn't change a thing. Marriage still includes same sex couples. Its still recognized in 37 of 50 States. And its still likely to be recognized in 50 of 50 States by June.

Get used to the idea.

Again, definitions do not change,.

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

And what did 'truck' mean before there were motorized vehicles?

Does the term 'hand truck' ring any bells?

You know the 'definitions never change' schtick is an idiot's gambit. You're being contrary out of petulance now.

Please explain why it is necessary to create a fiction rather than simply use proper terminology such as a "civil union?

Why do you imagine that 'civil union' the proper terminology for the marriage of two people?

It is an invented term, just as marriage itself is.

Marriage:

: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other


Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

I will go with Webster rather than an anonymous self appointed expert.

 

[Syriusly]

I am a person who is angry with Elektra's bigotry.

Reasonable people disagree with me all the time and I don't get angry about it.

Elektra's absolute ignorance- and determined effort to stay ignorant annoys me.

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

Elektra doesn't give a damn about any of the 33,000 kids who wait 3 or more years to be adopted- if she had her way, no child would be adopted by a homosexual- so that number would just go up- every child who would have been adopted by a homosexual would make that number 33,001- and then 33,002.

The math is simple.

We have more kids abandoned by their parents than there are heterosexuals willing to adopt them. Telling those kids its better for them to linger in foster care, or age out of the system than be adopted by a homosexual who is offering them a lifetime commitment pisses me off.

And I am okay with that.

Poor idiot, you speak for all the poor children but I can't? That is not bigotry?

What makes you think, children want to be adopted by homosexuals?

I display no bigotry, I merely stated children do not want you to force them to live with homosexuals,

You provide your own opinion about what children want- and it is clear you have absolutely no experience with children at all.

You keep talking about the 'poor orphans' when the vast majority of children available for adoption are children who have been abandoned in one fashion or another by their biological parents- you are clueless when it comes to the situation of children waiting to be adopted.

You display your bigotry in every post.

 

[Syriusly]

A truck does NOT have 18 wheels, this is why people today are so ignorant.

Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.

.
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?

Sodomite:
: a person who has anal sex with another person : someone who practices sodomy

That would apply to some homosexual male couples- and some heterosexual couples- and pretty much no lesbian couples.

Why do you think that couples who have anal sex cannot be married but must instead have 'civil unions' and how exactly are you planning on checking that out?

 

[Syriusly]

Keep up the good fight Bama

-Geaux
-------------------

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight.

FAIL

No comparison

-Geaux

Who is comparing anything?

I am just stating the facts:

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

In this case, indeed they are

-Geaux

I am sure Alabamans always feel like they are fighting the good fight- just like before

Yep- Alabama- which didn't legalize mixed race marriages until 2000- 23 years after the Supreme Court said that State laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional.

Alabama- always fighting the good fight

 

[Syriusly]

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

And what did 'truck' mean before there were motorized vehicles?

Does the term 'hand truck' ring any bells?

You know the 'definitions never change' schtick is an idiot's gambit. You're being contrary out of petulance now.

You have modified the definition of truck with the word "hand" which makes it a different tool. A hand truck is a different tool than a pickup truck, or a tractor. "Truck" as a stand alone word means to "traffic for exchange". The definition remains the same, simply because the word "Truck" is used to describe various tools, does not mean the proper definition changed, it simply means that people are ignorant, and thus not using the proper modified verbiage to mean what they are actually speaking of in their verbiage. The definition remains set. Now in terms of "Gay marriage" you are modifying the word to mean something other than simple marriage, which is " a contract between a man and a woman". Even with your modifier of "Gay" you are using incorrect verbiage. The proper modifier is "Sodomite" marriage, which separates it from the proper definition of marriage, just as "hand truck" modifies "truck". Again, the proper terminology would be a civil union between sodomites. Please explain why it is necessary to create a fiction rather than simply use proper terminology such as a "civil union?

Child.

If we approached law in your terms; "Sodomite Marriage" would you agree with the Freedom or would you want to control Butt Sex with forceful Law? You should note that many Man/Woman marriages have butt sex. Even some girlfriend/boyfriend.

You seem to be spewing law about "sodomy" and you are correct, decades ago there were laws written to CONTROL the gay population. I'm sure you aren't one of those CONTROL freaks, (R)ight?

Decades ago? The Sodomy laws were still in effect until just a few years ago.

When the sodomy laws were found to be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of Americans.

Why do you want police in Americans bedroom determining what kind of sex we can have?

 

[Syriusly]

Again, definitions do not change,.

Definitions change all of the time.

Look at the definition of 'Truck'

A truck is a truck. It isn't a car, it isn't a bicycle, it is a truck. It can have 18 wheels or four.

Further in legal terminology, an attorney would be sure to distinguish in a court case the deference between a "Truck" and a "Tractor- trailer as in an 18 wheeler. Did a truck hit you? Or was it a tractor? Did the tractor hit you? or was it the trailer?

How can that be- 'definitions do not change'......lol......

In England- where they speak English.....a truck is a lorry.....not a truck.

A lorry is still a lorry, the definition of a lorry has not changed. The definition of a lorry has not been changed to refer to a lorry as a cow. You are attempting to establish fiction to justify fiction, such is the equivalent of establishing a lie to cover another lie. And yet we see that you still have avoided all of the challenging questions that I have posed for you to respond.

Wait- when did you post a challenging question?

I thought I had read all of your posts and I can't remember a challenging question yet from you.

 

[James Everett]

A truck does NOT have 18 wheels, this is why people today are so ignorant.

Excuse me? It is 53 feet long and can haul 80,000 pounds, a tractor trailer, or a truck. My dad was a trucker for 8 years. I went on 2 hauls with him to California and back. I know what I'm talking about.

Excuse me? I have been a "trucker" for 38 years, and I know the difference between a tractor and trailer, and a "Truck". A "truck" is NOT a tractor and trailor. A tractor pulls a trailer, the trailer to which you refer is 53', the combination of the two exceeds 53'.
Now you didnt answer my question concerning "civil union".
Also in a so called "gay marriage" between two of the same sex, which is the husband, and which is the wife, as you see now you must establish a new fiction wherein a woman may be a husband and a man may be a wife. Now a husband and wife may no longer refer to the sex of the individual. Fiction, fiction, fiction.
Please answer at least this one question....
Why is it so important to create a fiction, rather than contract a "civil union" between sodomites,wherein there is neither husband or wife?

Just excellent points here and presented through a soundly reasoned construct. Just a well stated point of view.

There is nothing about the Normalization of Sexual Abnormality that does not rest in deceit, thus which is not entirely fraudulent... . As the entire ruse is political and designed to influence the ignorant, as a means to alter US Federal Policy, toward undermining the viability of the Culture, by fundamentally changing the United States of America.

The most pitiful part of which, is that the idiots advocating for such live here... there's lives being intrinsically built here and they're entirely incapable of understanding that they're literally undermining their own viability in the process; so we can see that the deceit begins within the disorder of their own minds.

Thus providing yet another glimpse of 'The Harm' that homosexuality represents to you, the reader.

The evidence just keeps pouring in... .

I would disagree with you assertion, or better stated reference to "Federal policy": The fact is that there no longer exists any federal aspect within the U.S. government. The U.S. government under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution established a federal system cobbled together with a national system establishing neither a wholly federal system nor a wholly national system, this may be understood by reading James Madison's explanation in the CONstitutional debates #s 39 and 62.
The federal portion was the State governments participation in legislation via their appointed representatives, ( their senators appointed by each State legislature to represent their State government within the central body= the collective of States in union assembled), the 17th amendment removed the federal portion leaving only the national portion in place. The national portion is the House of representatives divided by districts without regard to State government affiliation, this national portion represents the whole of the people, not the individual State governments which made the Union of States= The United States.
Now both the House of representatives and the Senate represent the party to which its members are affiliated rather than the State governments or the people. Those two party's are owned and controlled by international corporations which fund them and they in turn fund their candidates thus own them and their loyalty.

 

[Syriusly]

For one, these children exist whether their parents are allowed to marry each other or not. For another, every major medical and child welfare organization support gays marrying FOR the children. It is in not allowing the parents of these children to marry that is harmful.

You want to know what my kids "wonder" about? Why none of their friends parents are still married to each other like THEIR parents are.

This isn't about "the rights of just kids caught up in gay lifestyles". This is about the rights of ALL children

Okay- once again I will ask you- how does preventing gay parents from marrying help any children?

 

[Syriusly]

Describe that for us if you can. I'm gay and this is my "lifestyle":

Get up, make coffee, surf internet.
Take shower, dress, wake kids, make lunches for kids
Take kids to school, go to work
Pick up son after practice (wife picked up daughter), go home
Eat dinner, help with homework, play video games or watch TV
Kiss wife, go to bed
Wash, rinse, repeat

Which one of you does your son call Dad?

This was all explained to you in an earlier post- which kid calls you Dad?