Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[kaz]

Sometimes, yes. But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.

True, but irrelevant since no one said they are

What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages. Which of course it is. Just as it was unconstitutional for a government to ban interracial marriages. Such types of discrimination is not constitutional.

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized. u

Actually- they are both banned and not recognized.

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts. The courts were not in response to that statute. Sorry, whiffed on that one

 

[Syriusly]

Liberty is a mental disease? WTF is wrong with you?

Liberty is a concept. liberalism is a mental disease. WTF is wrong with you?

WOW liberty is JUST A CONCEPT. WTF is wrong with you? Huh? Yes, liberalism is a mental disease. One in which I am not afflicted.

Sometimes, yes. But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time.

Begging the question. Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time

 

[kaz]

You are for giving more people access to government marriage, this discrimination

That means you are for expanding discrimination

Yet you are arguing against discrimination

Which means you are arguing to reduce discrimination, by expanding discrimination

Yet- here you are arguing that marriage is discriminatory- and you want to keep it more discriminatory- and object to marriage being less discriminatory.

Eliminating all government marriage makes marriage "more discriminatory?"

And giving more people rights that other citizens don't have makes marriage "less discriminatory?"



Um, OK?

 

[Syriusly]

Sometimes, yes. But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.

True, but irrelevant since no one said they are

What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages. Which of course it is. Just as it was unconstitutional for a government to ban interracial marriages. Such types of discrimination is not constitutional.

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized. u

Actually- they are both banned and not recognized.

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts. The courts were not in response to that statute. Sorry, whiffed on that one

You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

 

[kaz]

Right, when clearly he doesn't have that power, you do. You're the one advocating judicial fiat

Bullshit. I'm arguing the constitutionality of taking AWAY THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY GROUP BASED ON DISCRIMINATION.

You cannot "tak(e) away" that which you never had. You need to learn the English language and stop arguing like a government loving leftist

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

 

[Syriusly]

You are for giving more people access to government marriage, this discrimination

That means you are for expanding discrimination

Yet you are arguing against discrimination

Which means you are arguing to reduce discrimination, by expanding discrimination

Yet- here you are arguing that marriage is discriminatory- and you want to keep it more discriminatory- and object to marriage being less discriminatory.

Eliminating all government marriage makes marriage "more discriminatory?"

And giving more people rights that other citizens don't have makes marriage "less discriminatory?"

But government marriage is not being eliminated. There is no movement to end it, there is no indication that it will end- certainly you are not abandoning your own government sanctioned marriage.

You just want to deny that marriage to same gender couples.

Because you are 'against' government marriage..........but apparently only for same gender couples.

 

[kaz]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

 

[Syriusly]

Bullshit. I'm arguing the constitutionality of taking AWAY THE RIGHTS OF A MINORITY GROUP BASED ON DISCRIMINATION.

You cannot "tak(e) away" that which you never had. You need to learn the English language and stop arguing like a government loving leftist

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

Wow you are double downing on dumb this morning.

First of all- your claim was this:


Kaz: You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage.

And then I pointed out that you were wrong:

Syriusly: Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

So you try to move the goal post to obscure the fact that your initial claim was just flat out false- by making another false claim.

Hint: gay marriage was not 'invented' in California by the courts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Poor Skylar... she SO needs the pretense that she's some understanding of the objective laws of nature that govern human reasoning.

But she can't rise above her own subjective needs, to understand that appeals... ALL appeals are only fallacious, when the appeal serves as a distraction from the point of the argument, and when the appeal is not substantiated by sound reason and/or facts bearing the relevance of the appeal to the standing point(s) of the argument.

Fact: Nature exist.

Fact: Within Nature there are immutable laws which govern every aspect of nature, from every scope of the geometric/chronological physical universe, in which our human systems are designed to scan, assess and draw conclusions for the purpose of survival through out and down within the quantum dimensions, of which we can barely scratch the surface and; which have absolutely no relevance to our existence, but which our minds must study, due to that ever present need to pursue the truth; to learn, that is written into our operating systems, to insure to the degree possible, our survival.

Fact: Those Natural Laws are observable have been observed, for thousands of years. They can be and have been tested... and those tests provide consistent results. Without regard to their physical or metaphysical applications.

Fact: Ignoring those Laws, like ignoring the laws of the legal code, is no defense from the consequences that come as a result of such.

Fact: Consequences do not always being immediate impact; short circuit an alternating current with one's body may bring anything from an uncomfortable shock, to explosive, instant death... contrasted with the violation of the laws governing promiscuous sex may bring immediate consequences from infectious disease to pregnancy, or the summed effect may gather for decades, until one looks back upon an empty life, full of unfulfilled dreams, broken promises and slow death from incomprehensible demoralization.

Fact: Recognition of these laws requires an objective consideration, which is easily overridden by the subjective need to NOT recognize those laws.

Fact: Skylar and the Cult Advocating for the Normalization of Sexual Deviancy openly refuse to recognize those laws.

Fact: Their refusal to recognize those laws is not precluding them from realizing the consequences for such.

Fact: Their unwillingness, or inability to reason objectively, means, as nature requires it must, they they will erroneously blame someone or something else for their problems and as a result of that poor judgment; such will prevent them from ever finding the means to make the corrections necessary, to solve those problems... and in the process, further injure themselves and others.

Fact: THAT is "HOW HOMOSEXUALITY INJURES SOMEONE BESIDES THE TWO PEOPLE ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

There it is in plain english...

Feel free to dispute any one.

... Go BIG or Stay Home.[/QUOTE]

 

[Syriusly]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

1) Marriage in the United States is anything anyone wants to call marriage- you can call your dog and cat sitting together marriage- but the only actual marriage is legal marriage.

2) No one is going through the criminal courts- civil courts are being used- just as they were used 3 other times to fight laws that were found to be unconstitutional.
That is what courts do.

 

[Syriusly]

Keyes is a one trick pony. He has the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Fact: Nature exist.
]

Fact: Keys is a loon.

 

[kaz]

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws three times- it wasn't 'criminal circumvention' then- it won't be this time

Begging the question

 

[kaz]

Sometimes, yes. But arguing courts need to implement gay government marriage through criminal circumvention of the Constitution which gives the power to make that determination to the legislature is pure authoritarian leftism

No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.

True, but irrelevant since no one said they are

What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages. Which of course it is. Just as it was unconstitutional for a government to ban interracial marriages. Such types of discrimination is not constitutional.

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized. u

Actually- they are both banned and not recognized.

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts. The courts were not in response to that statute. Sorry, whiffed on that one

You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

And again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Here is what Kaz is saying: Waaaah I hate marriage so I want to make sure gays can't marry-

of course I am married and I want my benefits of marriage but I want to make sure to deny Gays marriage

1) I said marriage is not equal to government marriage, they have nothing to do with each other. One is a union of a man and a woman, at least with the intent being for life. Government marriage is a faux legal contract which gives some citizens perks over others. I say a faux contract because a real contract is negotiated between citizens

2) I did not say to deny gays government marriage, I said you should get it through the Constitutional legislative process instead of the criminals courts.

They can't get it through Legislation. Because, at their core, reasonable people sense the danger that is normalizing DEVIANCY; which is to say the perverse reasoning that justifies unhealthy sexual behavior as something other than what it is... a disembodied obsession with sex, acquired through the obsessive desensitization to normal sexual behavior. A 'trained' response, which separates the being from a healthy sexual apatite... a twist on sexual gluttony.

Take any deviancy and you'll find an obsession....

 

[kaz]

You are for giving more people access to government marriage, this discrimination

That means you are for expanding discrimination

Yet you are arguing against discrimination

Which means you are arguing to reduce discrimination, by expanding discrimination

Yet- here you are arguing that marriage is discriminatory- and you want to keep it more discriminatory- and object to marriage being less discriminatory.

Eliminating all government marriage makes marriage "more discriminatory?"

And giving more people rights that other citizens don't have makes marriage "less discriminatory?"

But government marriage is not being eliminated. There is no movement to end it, there is no indication that it will end- certainly you are not abandoning your own government sanctioned marriage.

You just want to deny that marriage to same gender couples.

Because you are 'against' government marriage..........but apparently only for same gender couples.

Ouch! That was painful just watching that pretzel you just tied yourself into

 

[Syriusly]

No one is arguing that gays be forced to marry by the government.

True, but irrelevant since no one said they are

What they are arguing is that it is unconstitutional for a government to ban homosexual marriages. Which of course it is. Just as it was unconstitutional for a government to ban interracial marriages. Such types of discrimination is not constitutional.

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized. u

Actually- they are both banned and not recognized.

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

Nope, that was passed in 1996, after the courts were creating legislation, it was in response to the courts. The courts were not in response to that statute. Sorry, whiffed on that one

You seem even more indifferent to the facts than usual this morning.

Here was your claim:
Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

And my response pointed out- that homosexual marriages are indeed banned

From Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

And again, that was a legislative response to the courts, not a judicial response to legislation

I guess that is as close as you can come to admitting that your claim:

Homosexual marriages are not "banned" they are just not recognized.

Was flat out wrong

 

[Syriusly]

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

 

[kaz]

You cannot "tak(e) away" that which you never had. You need to learn the English language and stop arguing like a government loving leftist

WHO NEVER HAD LIBERTY? What drugs are you on?

Back to the playground for you, huh?

I'll type slower since you can't keep up. We never had gay government marriage, which is what you were talking about. You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage. I mean duh.

The funny part is how you continually get it wrong.

Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

Whiff again. Gay government marriage in California was created by the courts the first time as well, Skippy

Wow you are double downing on dumb this morning.

First of all- your claim was this:


Kaz: You can't take away gay government marriage when there was never gay government marriage.

And then I pointed out that you were wrong:

Syriusly: Yes- we did have 'gay government marriage'- if by that we mean the legal wedding of two same gender people- in California.

And then we in California specifically passed laws to make that illegal- to ban 'gay government marriage'.

And then the courts found that that ban was a violation of the California Constitution.

So voters changed our Constitution.

And then a federal court found that passing a law to specifically ban gay couples from marrying was unconstitutional.

So you try to move the goal post to obscure the fact that your initial claim was just flat out false- by making another false claim.

Hint: gay marriage was not 'invented' in California by the courts.

Hint: You are stupid

Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, the courts have no say

Gay marriage isn't in the Constitution, marriage isn't either as a matter of fact, but Equality before the Law is, which isn't up for a vote of the people and why you're fucked.

You can go on, and on, and on but your dog doesn't hunt. Guns, religion, equality, the courts step in on laws passed about all three. That's how it works here, which screws you completely and I'm very happy about that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So

The courts say you have no clue when it comes to the law

Bam, really? That's so cool. Can you point me to that ruling? I'd love to read that

Feel free to read all of the Supreme Courts rulings regarding marriage.

You might want to start with Zablocki.

He must read all of the SCOTUS ruling on Marriage, to cull from them YOUR ARGUMENT which you CLAIM is culled from such.

I gotta say... that's not reasonable.

What it IS, is obscurant; a deflection from your own point, as a means to mask your arguments vacuous nature.