It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past..

All Boss does when he pontificates like this is demonstrate how ignorant he is.

What would have changed if one justice had voted differently?

The issue would still be left up to the States- and every State whose legislature and voters have made same gender marriage legal- would still continue to be legal. In addition, every state in which the State Supreme Court overturned State bans on same gender marriage(like Massachusetts) would still have same gender marriage.

And finally- California would continue to have same gender marriage. California's case was resolved prior to Obergefel. Of course Boss and his homophobic buddies could try to pass the same Constitutional initiative again- but California now firmly supports the rights of American couples of the same gender to marry.

But- Boss could keep Alabama free to discriminate.

Just as if the Court had never overturned bans on mixed race marriages, Atlanta would have continued to discriminate against mixed race couples for another 25 years.

 

[Pop23]

[
I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.

How do you know. You can tell sexuality via a forum post?

Amazing

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

Polls can absolutely be manipulated to try and get the response you want. However, the same poll 50 years ago would almost certainly have had far, far fewer positive responses towards homosexuality or same sex marriage. Acceptance of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general has been trending upward for years. Good PR? Sure, that plays a big part. That doesn't mean that attitudes haven't changed a great deal.

Very true, and I didn't mean to imply they didn't ... you do need to look at the methodology. That said, the trend is pretty clear and no amount of "we're gonna change this!" posturing by the dead-enders is going to reverse it.

There are ways to effectively kill homosexual marriage. I made a thread about this as well. As I pointed out there, this entire "movement" is being pushed by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. If we remove the source of that perception the inequity issue vanishes because it's no longer relevant.

In 20-30 years a future generation might look back on this period with amusement and curiosity. Back when people thought gays could marry and be treated equally to traditional married couples. They'll laugh at the silliness of it like we laugh at bell-bottom plaid pants. They may even have 'theme' parties where people come dressed as same-sex brides and grooms and play music from the time. It won't be a cultural thing anymore, we will have moved on. In short, this is a cultural fad.

The only "trend" you're seeing is people wanting to be trendy. Our society has been bombarded by the idea that homosexuality is cool and you're not cool if you don't think so. So naturally, there is growing trend of people who jump on the bandwagon of something that is politically correct. It has nothing to do with their personal sentiments... take you for example, when I indicated you were gay, it took you no time at all to set the record straight... pardon the pun.

If you honestly think future generations will trend back toward exclusionary policies regarding gays, and will trend away from acceptance of gays and gay marriage, you are living in a fantasy world.

Yeah, they still wear Beatle haircuts

 

[Pop23]

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.

Why are you anti-sex? Did you have an abusive childhood that left your irreparably harmed so you fear sex?

No, my childhood was normal.

Are you reaching out for help?

 

[Pop23]

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.

I'm not trying to deny straight people any rights, Pops. I'm not even remotely anti straight. My parents and kids (and most of my best friends) are straight.

As long as they might be helped financially by marriage, then you are indeed.

 

[Pop23]

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.

I'm not trying to deny straight people any rights, Pops. I'm not even remotely anti straight. My parents and kids (and most of my best friends) are straight.

And I'm not trying to deny any gays any rights.

 

[Pop23]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past..

All Boss does when he pontificates like this is demonstrate how ignorant he is.

What would have changed if one justice had voted differently?

The issue would still be left up to the States- and every State whose legislature and voters have made same gender marriage legal- would still continue to be legal. In addition, every state in which the State Supreme Court overturned State bans on same gender marriage(like Massachusetts) would still have same gender marriage.

And finally- California would continue to have same gender marriage. California's case was resolved prior to Obergefel. Of course Boss and his homophobic buddies could try to pass the same Constitutional initiative again- but California now firmly supports the rights of American couples of the same gender to marry.

But- Boss could keep Alabama free to discriminate.

Just as if the Court had never overturned bans on mixed race marriages, Atlanta would have continued to discriminate against mixed race couples for another 25 years.

Only 3 states voted to allow same sex marriage, but I wonder if those three would have if they realized they were bagging the societal safety net?

 

[Montrovant]

Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then? You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.

I was the same as a lot of people. Pulled into an emotional question of a perceived inequity. I've always considered "marriage" to be one man and one woman, nothing else. I've never understood it to be a "fundamental right" and I still don't understand why a "fundamental right" has governmental licensing OR why it has to conform to your many rigid and moralistic viewpoints. If it is a human right that is fundamental, it doesn't require licensing or approval from moralist judgement.

But in the beginning, I felt compassion towards my gay friends and thought this was about them being able to obtain something others had and they were being denied. I can't divulge the names of the gay couple who's wedding I attended in 1986. I can't do anything about it if you don't believe me... I probably wouldn't believe it myself if it hadn't happened to me, but they are who convinced me my position was wrong.

What they made me realize is, "marriage" is not and cannot be defined by a piece of paper, or by any other standard you may wish to apply. It's sort of akin to "salvation" it's a personal thing. The government cannot make you married any more than it can save your soul. This is between you and your partner. A government that can tell you marriage has to include gays can tell you it has to include mailboxes or dead people. It can also swing the other way and tell you it requires missionary style intercourse approved by the Southern Baptist Convention. OR... and this is a new facet... The government CAN tell you that marriage isn't allowable until your 40. When you allow government to decide, you surrender your freedom to government.

I actually disagree with the way the USSC treats marriage. If they just considered marriage a fundamental right, that would be one thing, but they effectively have said that civil marriage is a fundamental right and that I don't agree with. However, I realize civil marriage as a fundamental right is the reality in our country.

I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before, but there are other examples of licensing a fundamental right, such as licensing of a gun.

Government sanctioned, legal civil marriage is not the same as personal or religious marriage. One can exist independent of the other. While the government (which in our case ostensibly means the people) may define civil marriage (as it must, if civil marriage is going to exist), the government does not define your personal or religious views on marriage. You've pointed out the same sex wedding you attended many times. That such a wedding happened well before same sex marriage was incorporated into civil marriage shows that the government does not define marriage for individuals.

You are free to consider same sex marriages something other than marriage. That you cannot treat them differently than opposite sex marriages in a legal sense does not change what you personally feel about it.

 

[Boss]

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.

Yes, we saw how quickly Kobie corrected me when I assumed he was gay... he's very secure in his heterosexuality. I asked him if he had ever tried it and there wasn't a reply... I am assuming he hasn't tried it.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.[/QUOTE]

No, it is not what I am saying at all. A union can be all kinds of things, it depends on context. Men with the same genitals engaged in a sexual act is a union it's just not a marital union. My argument over marital concept is the issue, you can't unite two of the same thing as one, they are already one.

Think about... if Reese's had 'married' chocolate with chocolate... we'd be very disappointed in the product... it's not much of a "marriage" ...it's just a chocolate cup. In order for the "marriage" to work, it has to be two different things... peanut butter and chocolate. Same sex marriage is an oxymoron... it's like a chocolate chocolate cup.

 

[Boss]

I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before, but there are other examples of licensing a fundamental right, such as licensing of a gun.

And what other fundamental right is there an example of? You used a plural, so I expect more than one example. With regard to guns, there is a compelling state interest to license and register firearms. Using strict scrutiny, there is still a public safety issue that involves other rights which trump the unfettered right to bear arms.

This wasn't always the case, it had to be decided by SCOTUS and the same could happen for marriage in the future.

Government sanctioned, legal civil marriage is not the same as personal or religious marriage. One can exist independent of the other.

Why does this need to be the case? Why should "government marriage" have to exist at all? The right is talking about fair tax and getting rid of income taxes, the left is talking about eliminating the loopholes, so from a government perspective there won't be a tax issue anymore. Social Security is about bankrupt and will eventually have to be restructured... if we even decide to keep "spousal benefits" we can certainly alter the parameters to surviving civil union partners. We have been dealing with property rights and beneficiary issues for hundreds of years through private contracts, doesn't seem to be much of a problem to do that. So why is it, in 2015, we have to have government sanction our domestic relationships?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out before, but there are other examples of licensing a fundamental right, such as licensing of a gun.

And what other fundamental right is there an example of? You used a plural, so I expect more than one example. With regard to guns, there is a compelling state interest to license and register firearms. Using strict scrutiny, there is still a public safety issue that involves other rights which trump the unfettered right to bear arms.

This wasn't always the case, it had to be decided by SCOTUS and the same could happen for marriage in the future.

Government sanctioned, legal civil marriage is not the same as personal or religious marriage. One can exist independent of the other.

Why does this need to be the case? Why should "government marriage" have to exist at all? The right is talking about fair tax and getting rid of income taxes, the left is talking about eliminating the loopholes, so from a government perspective there won't be a tax issue anymore. Social Security is about bankrupt and will eventually have to be restructured... if we even decide to keep "spousal benefits" we can certainly alter the parameters to surviving civil union partners. We have been dealing with property rights and beneficiary issues for hundreds of years through private contracts, doesn't seem to be much of a problem to do that. So why is it, in 2015, we have to have government sanction our domestic relationships?

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage, more power to you. I think it is an unrealistic goal, at least in our lifetimes. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just don't think it is practical.

With rights requiring licensing, I should have said licenses or permits. There are times when public assembly can require a permit; I don't know if a license is ever required.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage. There is also common law marriage, which is usually an unlicensed marriage. That is pretty conclusive proof that civil marriage can exist without licensing if that is an issue.

 

[Boss]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged. Here's what you said earlier...

Pop23: SSM proponents wanted the Strict Scrutiny test applied

Montrovant: From what I've read, gender and orientation cases have fallen under intermediate scrutiny.

Pop23: True​

Your argument is so dead, you're now running around in circles, arguing with yourself.

You make yourself dizzy running around in circles like that.

This isn't a gender or orientation case.

When these were ruled upon they affected ALL. It was a 14th amendment argument. Thus strict scrutiny applied.

Nice try though.

SSM isn't about gender??

Your poor argument. I feel so bad for it. Not only is it dead, now you're stabbing its rotting corpse.

Nope, it's about fundimental civil rights, therefore it must be judged using strict scrutiny.

Do you really know what your talking about?

What gender exactly is Gay?

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

 

[Boss]

If you can get enough people to agree..

Another thing that I have a problem with is this. Several examples have been given of different domestic arrangements becoming legitimized through marriage, now that the law has changed. In each instance, you guys chortle... well, if you can get enough people to agree.... and that's fine, but look at this issue of gay marriage. How many people support it who are not gay, will never have a gay marriage and don't even care to entertain the thought of having a homosexual relationship? As I've pointed out, this is what is driving the issue, not the homosexuals. They represent a small minority who wouldn't be able to get diddly-squat done by themselves.

So we see by this issue, the question of "if you can get enough to agree" is not a big deal when it comes to some of these bizarre things because we're not talking about the small number of people who like to fuck their goats anymore, we're talking about the movement behind them.

I happen to believe, if we venture down this path of government-sanctioned marriage, the very same "secure heterosexual" liberals who are pushing this agenda will be pushing the next one. If they can get political momentum from it, they will do it. If they can use it to bash Christians and conservative values, that's what they will be all about. We just need the groundwork laid for it... a few heart-wrenching stories of people being discriminated against and voila... instant crusade!

 

[Montrovant]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain. The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license. Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state. Marriage would still be part of the same statutes it was before the bill. Nothing would change except the manner one would enter into a state-authorized, state-recognized, legal civil marriage in Alabama. It wouldn't end Alabama granting marriages to couples who fit the criteria; Alabama would not have stopped authorizing future civil marriages in the state and only had to deal with those from out of state.

By retaining marriage I mean that people would still have been getting married in Alabama legally with the same rights and privileges they had before. They just wouldn't need to acquire a license in order to do that.

 

[Faun]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

Congratulations. It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.

I'm sure she's devastated that her marriage is not a real Boss marriage.

Not just Boss, it's society in general. In every conversation here about this subject, the term "marriage" has to be accompanied by an adjective to distinguish a difference. If there is a difference then it isn't the same. We can fantasize and pretend otherwise, but we all know that gay marriage is not real marriage.

A piece of paper from the state doesn't make it any more real. My state can give me a piece of paper that says I am a unicorn, it does not make me a unicorn.

You're fucking deranged.

Same-sex marriage in the U.S. couldn't be more real. It's as real as a marriage between a man and a woman. It's as legally binding and offers every tax advantage and every legal benefit bestowed upon a next of kin.

 

[Faun]

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Boss often denies saying things he's said earlier. It's part of his dementia.

 

[Faun]

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

 

[Boss]

If you can get enough people to agree to do away with civil marriage...

It's not a matter of "do away with" ...we can't do away with civil domestic unions even if we wanted to... those are going to happen.

Of course, your own state has had a proposed bill which would have ended licenses for marriage while retaining marriage.

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

We've already covered this ground. The state can't defy federal laws or the Constitution. They are obligated by law to uphold the law. So, yes... they have to recognize any domestic partnership regardless of what it is called along with the accompanying license or contract from another state. That is legal jurisprudence they are obligated to do no matter what their policy is on marriage licensing.

This is what you are calling "retaining marriage" and the State of Alabama has no control over it. However, they DO control marriage licensing.

By retain marriage I mean that every law in Alabama regarding marriage, from taxes to power of attorney to inheritance and anything in between, would remain.

Again... What other choice does the State have? Of course the legislation they pass will adhere to federal laws and the Constitution. Why would they pass anything in defiance of that? How could they do it and get away with it?

Because the State of Alabama is operating within the Constitution and federal law, does not mean they endorse or sanction gay marriage in an official capacity. They do not recognize it because there is nothing for them to recognize. They MUST recognize federal laws and the Constitution.

The only change would be that in order to become married in Alabama one would need to file the proper paperwork with the proper government office rather than obtaining a marriage license. Alabama would still authorize marriages in the state.

No, they would not authorize "marriages" of any kind. That's the point of eliminating the licenses. This eliminates state sanction of gay marriage. If you don't think it changes anything but paperwork and formalities.. good! Sounds like a winner of a plan to me... you're okay with it and I'm okay with it. Why are we arguing?

 

[Boss]

What do you mean by "retain marriage?" How does the state retain something it doesn't have the capacity to hold?

Alabama would in fact hold the marriage contracts. So yes, they have the capacity to hold them and would be holding them should that law pass.

Amazingly, you still don't know this despite it being brought to your attention repeatedly.

Holding the contracts? What the hell does that mean and what does it have to do with endorsing, sanctioning or supporting marriage? There would be civil union contracts and any two people could apply for them. That's not "retaining marriage" in my view.

What keeps being brought to my attention is that it doesn't interfere with your little pretend gay thing you call marriage or any of your newly bestowed fundamental rights from SCOTUS. I think that's a good thing since I believe in passing laws that will withstand constitutional scrutiny. If you're okay with it and I'm okay with it, why are we arguing?