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

[Syriusly]

Then why don't you support brother/sister marriage?

I've never said either way about brother/sister. .

Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.

Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?

From a personal standpoint, no. However, the argument from you same sex supporters isn't from a personal standpoint. The ones of you that argue marriage should be allowed for two consenting adults based on the concept of equality are the same ones, when asked about a brother/sister marriage, to deny the concept of equality you claim exists. It's easy to tell you aren't about equality but about a faggot agenda. If you're not willing to apply the concept of equality you says exists to other types of marriages involving consenting adults, it makes you a hypocrite.

It's easy to tell you're hateful, ignorant, and wrong.

Comparing same-sex couples to siblings fails as both a false comparison fallacy and a slippery slope fallacy – so your 'argument' is dead from the outset.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to marry, they can enter into marriage contracts because the law is written to accommodate two consenting adult partners who are not related.

Siblings are not eligible to enter into marriage contracts because the law isn't written to accommodate such a union; indeed, no law exists to accommodate such a union.

Consequently, there's no 'hypocrisy' on the part of those who advocate for gay Americans being afforded equal protection of the law, as required by the 14th Amendment.

Either the states have the right to restrict marriage as they see fit, or there is a "civil right" for anyone to marry, and no definition of marriage can hold sway. There's no middle ground.

So ever since Loving v. Virginia States you believe anyone has been able to get married?

 

[SwimExpert]

Again, you use insults because you find yourself losing the debate.

You misunderstand. There is nothing to debate. You are wrong. Completely and irrefutably. I find your position to be the result of a severe lack of intelligence, and I have no patience to sugar coat it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

Your age of consent laws are discriminatory against NAMBLA. Who are you to say they're love is wrong? Why do you oppose equality?

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

Your "consenting adults" criteria is an arbitrary rule. Ultimately you're going to come face to face with the fact that if gays can redefine marriage, anyone can, because if any group can claim they're being discriminated against, then they can insert themselves into the civil rights movement. You don't get to impose homo marriage on the basis of discrimination laws and then pull up the ladder so nobody else can follow you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

By your argument, the 14th Amendment supports the rights of NAMBLA. If you take it to mean, "you shall not make laws that discriminate on ANY basis," then ultimately any group can pursue equal treatment under the law. If you're going to broaden the 14th Amendment beyond those classes of people it specifies, you can't arbitrarily draw the line at gay people and insist it goes no further.

They're not even TRYING to pretend to do so anymore.

A generation ago, they flatly denied it ... but today, not so much.

All over this site, the ANSA Cult is stating that there's no reason polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry... we have them on record claiming that the incest is no big deal to them, as long as they're consenting adults. "The means to 'legally consent' is the scope of their concern for Adult's pursuing children for sexual gratification.

As has been noted MANY times... what we're dealing with here, is EVIL!

And no mind is more suitable for evil than the DISORDERED MIND and HOW ODD is it, that the Homosexual; deniers of ANY sort of mental deviancy... are the purveyors of precisely the same crap that EVIL is known for FAR AND WIDE!?

Now what CAN we make of THAT?

Depravity, like water, is always seeking lower ground.

Well you are an expert on depravity.

Actually I am. That's a benefit of having read the Bible cover to cover over and over again since I was a wee lad. I'm an "expert" on the discernment of good and evil.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

Your age of consent laws are discriminatory against NAMBLA. Who are you to say they're love is wrong? Why do you oppose equality?

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

I'm a Native American married to a white woman. That's the only answer you'll get.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Again, you use insults because you find yourself losing the debate.

You misunderstand. There is nothing to debate. You are wrong. Completely and irrefutably. I find your position to be the result of a severe lack of intelligence, and I have no patience to sugar coat it.

Did you intentionally prove him right, or was it an accident?

 

[Syriusly]

Or those interested in constitutional guarantees and the protection of them. And I'll gladly admit to being part of that group.

Until it involves types of marriages with which your kind disagrees. At that point, all sorts of reasons to oppose them are considered valid.

Says who? Can you quote me saying this? Or Like your imaginary 'demand that anyone agree with what I believe', is this just more mythical nonsense you've made up?

Do you support a brother/sister marriage? Polygamous marriages?

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

Don't you mean, "There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding boy lovers"?

Or am I about a decade ahead of things?

You are getting increasingly shrill.

You still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

You know- by your logic the first step in the march towards 'boy lovers'?

 

[Syriusly]

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

Your age of consent laws are discriminatory against NAMBLA. Who are you to say they're love is wrong? Why do you oppose equality?

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

I'm a Native American married to a white woman. That's the only answer you'll get.

I am not surprised you run away from the question.

If a man and woman are of mixed race- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?
If a man and woman, brother and sister- both of whom are consenting adults- should they be allowed to marry?

If you truly support equality you should be able to answer it.

 

[Syriusly]

No kidding. Fed judges aka tyrants in robes really should stop trying to dictate their opinions to the states.

Yeah, yeah! Stand up for the constitution! The constitution says that federal law is supreme to state law. The federal judges should stop telling states how the federal constitution works in order to.....

Wait, no....turns out you're a fucking idiot.

Swim Expert,
There is no reason to use insults. You misunderstand the Supremacy clause. The Supremacy clause is limited to the specifically enumerated powers granted to the States in union, all other powers are retained by each State individually. By the adoption of the Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress, which related strictly to external affairs of the States. There is NO power granting jurisdiction over the set legal definition of marriage within a State.
YOUR SCOTUS rendered the opinion in....
New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), that......
" A State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive," 36 U.S., at 139.

No, you misunderstand the Supremacy Clause.

Article VI renders the Constitution, its case law, Federal law, and the rulings of Federal courts to be the supreme law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

The states may not 'ignore' or 'nullify' Federal law, the states may not 'ignore' the Constitution and its case law, and the states may not 'reject' the rulings of Federal courts:

'The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.' Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

As a fact of Constitutional law the Alabama Supreme Court is wrong, it is at war against the Constitution, and its members have violated their solemn oath to support the Constitution.

This fact of law is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

I assume that you are referring to Cooper v Brown? The problem that you have is that the 14th amendment does not apply concerning a States Jurisdiction.

The 14th Amendment clearly states the primacy of Constitutional protections over state law.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

 

[Syriusly]

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

has the same equal right to contract a civil union that is in every way equal to that of a marriage, .

The same Alabama law which says that it is not legal for couples of the same gender to legally marry, also makes it illegal for the state to recognize or perform 'civil unions'- a term Alabama does not legally even recognize.

Americans do not have a legal right to a 'civil union' but we do have a legal right to marriage.

There is no constitutional basis to demand a 'civil union' from a state that does not recognize 'civil unions'- but there is a constitutional bases to demand a marriage in a state that does recognize marriage.

You are incorrect. The U.S. CONstitutions Art. I, Sect. 10, recognises the unlimited right to contract as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. A civil union is a contract, and is enforceable by law, however the redefinition of the set legal definition of a marriage is NOT enforceable outside the acceptance of fiction. If the SCOTUS was not a political kangaroo court, it would recognise this fact and allow the Sodomites to make the proper case of a civil union.

I am quite correct.

The same Alabama law which says that it is not legal for couples of the same gender to legally marry, also makes it illegal for the state to recognize or perform 'civil unions'- a term Alabama does not legally even recognize.

Americans do not have a legal right to a 'civil union' but we do have a legal right to marriage.

There is no constitutional basis to demand a 'civil union' from a state that does not recognize 'civil unions'- but there is a constitutional bases to demand a marriage in a state that does recognize marriage

 

[SwimExpert]

Again, you use insults because you find yourself losing the debate.

You misunderstand. There is nothing to debate. You are wrong. Completely and irrefutably. I find your position to be the result of a severe lack of intelligence, and I have no patience to sugar coat it.

Did you intentionally prove him right, or was it an accident?

I'm being quite intentional. I find that the best cure for a crack addiction resulting from willfully selling one's soul is to feed their desires until it kills them. They get what they're worth.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your "consenting adults" criteria is an arbitrary rule. Ultimately you're going to come face to face with the fact that if gays can redefine marriage, anyone can, because if any group can claim they're being discriminated against, then they can insert themselves into the civil rights movement. You don't get to impose homo marriage on the basis of discrimination laws and then pull up the ladder so nobody else can follow you.

Okay, then why not support inter-racial prohibitions? Based on your argument, someone claiming discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, religion, whatever, is no different than someone claiming discrimination for their NAMBLA wedding.

 

[Syriusly]

The People cannot vote away the rights of a minority, which is precisely why our Founders created a judicial branch.

Nor can the minority dictate the rights of the majority.

You are absolutely correct- the Constitution protects the rights of both the minority and the majority.

And the judiciary is the branch that resolves whether the law is Constitutional or not.

Perhaps this is the point in which we should return to the basics of the contention.
The question is not that of equal rights, as the Sodomite .

You keep using that word.
View attachment 37489

'Sodomite' means anyone who has anal sex.

So it would apply to heterosexuals who have anal sex and those homosexuals who have anal sex.

It would not apply to heterosexuals who do not have anal sex and would not apply to homosexuals who do not have anal sex.

Are you saying that heterosexuals who have anal sex cannot get married and lesbian couples can?

Yes a sodomite is anyone who practices sodomy, however a marriage is consummated through sexual relations, and here is where sodomy is exclusive between same sex couples making them sodomites without recourse otherwize. I hate that the proper definition is offensive to you, it is not meant as a slur, it is only meant to use the proper definition as "Gay" does not actually mean sodomite outside of fiction. There is no such word as homosexual as in .

Sodomite: someone who engages in anal sex- regardless of who they engage in anal sex with.
Homosexual: someone who is attracted to the same gender.
Marriage- a joining of a man or a woman, or a joining a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Those are all the proper definitions.

Not your made up fantasy definitions.

If you want to refer to the marriage of two people of the same gender- then the proper term would be some variation of 'homosexual' or 'gay' or 'same gender' marriage.

Your insistance of using the term 'sodomite' as your own personal definition means nothing.

And I will point out the correct term by mocking your misuse of 'sodomite' each time you do it in the future.

 

[Syriusly]

Again, you keep comparing homosexual marriage to civil rights movement. Again, no comparison

-Geaux

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

And in more than 30 states, Canada and multiple countries in Europe- it is also the joining of one man and one man, or one woman and one woman.

Progress is a lovely thing.

Boy lovers everywhere are thanking you for their soon to come day in court. Their perversion will receive the same protection as yours.

I am sure you believe that 'boy lovers' are thanking the Lovings for being the first to open the door to your slippery slope to 'boy love'.

By your logic, your perversion- a mixed race marriage- was the start of the slippery slope to hell.

Wrong. LVV was about race, which the Constitution addresses. No, you perverts are the first to make lifestyle choice and sexual deviancy a protected status. They will definitely be benefiting from your perversion, not from LVV.

According to the proud citizens of Alabama- and Virginia- what the Lovings had was perverted- to them your marriage would have been as 'perverted' as same gender marriage.

Your slippery slope argument starts with the Lovings daring to love each other.

Even though bigots said their love was perverted.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you support mixed race marriage?

As long as one is male and one is female. I wouldn't do it.

Then why don't you support brother/sister marriage?

I've never said either way about brother/sister. .

Okay I will restate it- you said you would support a mixed race marriage as long as one is male and one is female.

Would you support a brother sister marriage where one is male and one is female?

From a personal standpoint, no. .

But you did not oppose a mixed race marriage as long as the couple were of opposite gender.

A brother and sister would be of opposite gender- why would you oppose their marriage?

Tell me the difference between opposing the marriage between a brother and sister and opposing a mixed race marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

Well, at least your asking me this time. Rather than telling me what my opinion is.

I don't really have an opinion on brother and sister marriage. I don't know enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently.

Our laws aren't set up for poly marriage, so we have no way of regulating it. If two people are married and they add a third, are both married to the third person, or only one of them? If one of the three wants a divorce, does that mean that the other two are no longer married once the divorce goes through? Or the other two are still married? If you divorce, does property get split 3 ways? Or does it get split based on the time in the relationship? Does every member of a poly marriage have conjugal rights to every other member? What if one person wanted to add a third, but the other didn't?

We have no precedent for any of this. Nor any laws to cover it. And the issues get more wildly complicated the larger the number of participants grow.

We have answers for every such question in two person marriage. And all the same rules apply for gays as apply for straights. There need be no adjustment to any law save that you stop excluding gays.

Poly marriage would require massive changes to our laws, and all new precedent for hundreds of unresolved legal issues that our law has no tools to resolve.

It's not something you have to study. It's a simple question based on equality. If a brother and sister, both of whom are consenting adults, want to marry, should they have the same equality you demand for same sex couples under the 14th amendment. If you truly support equality, you can answer it.

I notice that you seem to have plenty of excuses for not being willing to support equality. Hypocrite.

Notice that you don't actually disagree with anything I've said regarding polygamy. Or how we don't have the laws to regulate it.

Remember that.

All I need to know is that you tout equality of marriage for same sex couples then find all sorts of excuses to deny it to other types of marriages. Why should their be laws regulating polygamous marriages. You oppose any related to same sex marriages.

Where has he said he opposes any related to same sex marriages?

i mean it just appears that you are lying.

But maybe I missed where Skylar said said he was opposed to any related to same sex marriages.

Skylar says he has no opinion on it and states he doesn't know enough about it to discuss it. Basically, he's the same type hypocrite you are. You don't have to know the details about the specific type of marriage. All he has to know is he claims equality of marriage for two consenting adults. If he supports equality for two consenting same sex adults yet doesn't support equality for two consenting siblings, he's a hypocrite. It centers around the claim of equality not a specific knowledge of the details of the type of marriage. He's either for equality of marriage as he claims for same sex or he's for a faggot agenda. Maybe the two of you could get together and cornhole each other. You seem to think it's normal.

So you just lied about what Skylar said.

Not a surprise, but thanks for confirming it.