It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[playtime]

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

LOL- some may welcome the fact that isn't a consideration... ie sterile heteros.

Some have reproductive disabilities that your response would appear cruel to.

And I'm not talking to them, but rather the homophobes that have no problems with their own cruelty.

 

[playtime]

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.

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote.

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.

I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it. You aren't being facetious when you do it.

I'm glad you know so much about my motivations.... I always wonder why I say the shit I do. I've often lost sleep at night wondering why I am motivated to say things. If only I had known you were out there to explain it all to me! So you feel free to jump in anytime you see me saying something to interject the reason and motivation for why I am saying it, and then I will be a complete person.

get off the stage.

 

[Boss]

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.

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote.

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.

I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it. You aren't being facetious when you do it.

I'm glad you know so much about my motivations.... I always wonder why I say the shit I do. I've often lost sleep at night wondering why I am motivated to say things. If only I had known you were out there to explain it all to me! So you feel free to jump in anytime you see me saying something to interject the reason and motivation for why I am saying it, and then I will be a complete person.

get off the stage.

Yeahhh..... that's not gonna happen. Sorry.

 

[Seawytch]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!

What state? The state if ingrained bigotry of course. Trying to weasel out of issuing marriage licenses to gays just like they tried with interracial couples.

A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

 

[Syriusly]

Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.

No, I think you're arguing because you can't be satisfied unless you make me miserable. This is about inflicting discomfort on me personally.t.

LOL- oh yes- because of course anyone who responds to your rant against homosexuals is just trying to make you miserable.

Just like gays are trying to force you to have sex with them.

What a loon.

 

[Syriusly]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!

Alabama has a proud history- and would never discriminate against anyone.....

Year 2000
Following a November 7th ballot referendum, Alabama becomes the last state to officially legalize interracial marriage.

By November 2000, interracial marriage had been legal in every state for more than three decades thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia (1967) - but the Alabama State Constitution still contained an unenforceable ban in Section 102:

"The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."The Alabama State Legislature stubbornly clung to the old language as a symbolic statement of the state's views on interracial marriage; as recently as 1998, House leaders successfully killed attempts to remove Section 102.

When voters finally had the opportunity to remove the language, the outcome was surprisingly close: although 59% of voters supported removing the language, 41% favored keeping it. Interracial marriage remains controversial in the Deep South, where a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still support anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.

No, I think you're arguing because you can't be satisfied unless you make me miserable. This is about inflicting discomfort on me personally. You've all gone on record to say that you believe this bill changes nothing and doesn't mean a thing... but yet, you're all still here arguing for some reason. I've said that it's fine if you don't believe it changes anything or mean anything, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Now the thing you really need to know is this... I am not miserable. I am not discomforted. You pinheads don't bother me. You changing my arguments into arguments I haven't made, doesn't bother me. I will continue to point it out to others so they realize what a dishonest punk you are, but it really doesn't bother me in the least.

It takes two to argue.

Boss however wants to argue about why it is wrong for your to argue back.

 

[playtime]

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote.

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.

I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it. You aren't being facetious when you do it.

I'm glad you know so much about my motivations.... I always wonder why I say the shit I do. I've often lost sleep at night wondering why I am motivated to say things. If only I had known you were out there to explain it all to me! So you feel free to jump in anytime you see me saying something to interject the reason and motivation for why I am saying it, and then I will be a complete person.

get off the stage.

Yeahhh..... that's not gonna happen. Sorry.

Pompous homophobic egos usually don't.

 

[Faun]

What it all boils down to is, you think the Alabama bill does nothing and is totally superficial and meaningless.

You are fucking deranged.

I never said that.

In fact, I even pointed out what the bill does.

Seriously ... what the fuck is wrong with you??

 

[Boss]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!

What state? The state if ingrained bigotry of course. Trying to weasel out of issuing marriage licenses to gays just like they tried with interracial couples.

A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

But we've been over this, no one is "weaseling out" of anything with this bill. Everyone on your side agrees that it doesn't change anything with regard to your constitutional rights or how the issue of marriage is treated with regard to the law.

Marriage licenses are up to state discretion. The constitution does not compel the state to sanction marriage. It's not like interracial marriages, you know that it's not, you just want to keep pretending it is because that is emotive. It's an attempt to try and feel self-righteous, which is ironic since religion is your primary opponent and religion is also what fostered civil rights as well as an end to slavery.

And let me tell you something else, black people in general, are highly offended that you would equate in any way, their struggle for civil rights with your struggle to legitimize homosexual marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!

What state? The state if ingrained bigotry of course. Trying to weasel out of issuing marriage licenses to gays just like they tried with interracial couples.

A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

But we've been over this, no one is "weaseling out" of anything with this bill. Everyone on your side agrees that it doesn't change anything with regard to your constitutional rights or how the issue of marriage is treated with regard to the law.

Marriage licenses are up to state discretion. The constitution does not compel the state to sanction marriage. It's not like interracial marriages.

Just like inter-racial marriages- Alabama tried to block inter-racial marriages- and failed.

Now Alabamans get a twofer- they don't have to sanction 'gay marriage' or 'interracial marriage'.

Of course everyone will continue to get married- recognized by the state.

 

[Syriusly]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!

What state? The state if ingrained bigotry of course. Trying to weasel out of issuing marriage licenses to gays just like they tried with interracial couples.

A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

And let me tell you something else, black people in general, are highly offended that you would equate in any way, their struggle for civil rights with your struggle to legitimize homosexual marriage.

Nothing like a white dude telling us what 'black people in general feel to make me feel humbled.

Of course what does a black woman who actually experienced the ban on mixed race marriages feel?

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

She finished her statement by saying, “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

But sure- we should believe the white bigot Boss- rather than Mildred Loving.

 

[Montrovant]

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.

Here, let me quote :

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts.

I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts.

Care to revise your stance about dishonesty here?

I have said that Alabama plans on removing the state from sanctioning of any marriage. The sanctioning aspect comes from the act of licensing. A license is a document issued by an authority granting permission to do something. The issuing of a license implies approval, endorsement and condoning of whatever the license is for. If the State issues a license for driving, it is implied they approve, endorse and condone the action of driving. If they issue a license for fishing or hunting, the same thing applies.

For someone who complains about nit-picking you do an awful lot of it. If the bill had, instead of requiring a marriage contract for marriage changed licenses to permits, would you still be arguing that the state isn't sanctioning marriage? Is a license the only way in which a state may sanction an activity?

Obviously, administering a contract is a different thing completely. However, you are using the fact that the legislation uses the language "marriage contract" to infer there is no distinction between a contract and license. The fact that Alabama has to use specific language in order to comply with federal laws and the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, has nothing to do with the state sanctioning of an activity itself.

Marriage was already a form of contract, although somewhat different from other contracts.

I am not inferring no distinction between a contract and license. I am inferring, based on the bill's statement that no other marriage law would be changed, that marriages in Alabama would be treated the same by the state before and after the bill. The change the bill made was in the method of entering into marriage, not how the state treats marriages.

Again you bring up the need to comply with federal law. Why would Alabama keep all of their state laws regarding marriage as well? This bill would simply adjust the language of their law so that marriage was entered into in a different fashion. The state could still reject a marriage if the participants were not legally authorized to be married.

No, it specifically does not say that. Alabama cannot grant marriage. How can the State "grant" something that is a fundamental constitutional right? That doesn't even make rational sense. They didn't "grant" marriages BEFORE Obergefell.

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

Well no... the made up argument you've created for me is wrong. MY argument is that Alabama will no longer license (i.e. sanction) marriages.

If your only argument was that Alabama would no longer issue marriage licenses under the bill, there would have been no argument. You have argued more than just that, as the quotes in this post (and other things you've said not in this post) clearly show.

 

[Boss]

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already.

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.

 

[Montrovant]

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already.

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.

Did you miss the commas? I didn't say issues permits, I said issues marriage, permits marriage.....in other words, giving examples of words you can use instead of grant, since you had a nit-picking issue with that term.

Again, marriage is not the only fundamental right that ever requires state authorization or permission to exercise. That's been gone over multiple times.

According to the bill, anyone entering into marriage must be legally authorized to do so.

You are obviously going to continue to conflate sanction and license, I'll assume those words are interchangeable when you use them.

 

[Boss]

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already.

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.

Did you miss the commas? I didn't say issues permits, I said issues marriage, permits marriage.....in other words, giving examples of words you can use instead of grant, since you had a nit-picking issue with that term.

Again, marriage is not the only fundamental right that ever requires state authorization or permission to exercise. That's been gone over multiple times.

According to the bill, anyone entering into marriage must be legally authorized to do so.

You are obviously going to continue to conflate sanction and license, I'll assume those words are interchangeable when you use them.

Well, I tried a couple of words and you insisted on taking them out of context. Now you say it doesn't matter what word we use the state is still authorizing permission. How the state authorizes permission for you to exercise a constitutional right, I have no idea.

sanc·tion - official permission or approval for an action.
li·cense - a permit from an authority to do a particular thing.

(aka: What Alabama will no longer be doing with marriages.)

So the ball is back in your court just that quickly. But I have to ask this... How long do you generally argue over things that don't make a difference or matter? This particular argument has been going on for about a week and you're still no closer to winning it. We can repeat and rehash the same points over and over again for another week if you like, you're still not going to win this argument. But at what point does your mind tell you.. meh, it's just not worth it to me anymore? You'd have to think that most rational people who truly believed this changed nothing, would have already moved on.

 

[Seawytch]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!

What state? The state if ingrained bigotry of course. Trying to weasel out of issuing marriage licenses to gays just like they tried with interracial couples.

A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses

But we've been over this, no one is "weaseling out" of anything with this bill. Everyone on your side agrees that it doesn't change anything with regard to your constitutional rights or how the issue of marriage is treated with regard to the law.

Yes, we have been over it. Alabama is continuing it's practice of being the state where the bigots live. It's where the bigots lived in the 60s and it's where they live now. The bigots tried to keep blacks from marrying whites and now they want to keep gays from marrying each other. They failed then, they will fail now.

Marriage licenses are up to state discretion. The constitution does not compel the state to sanction marriage. It's not like interracial marriages, you know that it's not, you just want to keep pretending it is because that is emotive. It's an attempt to try and feel self-righteous, which is ironic since religion is your primary opponent and religion is also what fostered civil rights as well as an end to slavery.

No, I don't know it's not. I know it's exactly like interracial marriage in that non familial consenting adults are marrying and the bigots don't want them to. In that regard it is exactly like interracial marriage.

No, religion is not my "opponent", bigots within a religion are...and they are a dwindling minority.

By the way, religion was one of the primary drivers and arguments for the bigots too.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism

The Religious Defense of American Slavery

And let me tell you something else, black people in general, are highly offended that you would equate in any way, their struggle for civil rights with your struggle to legitimize homosexual marriage.

Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

 

[Boss]

Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

The rejection of gay marriage is not homophobia. That is your bigotry shining through.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

The rejection of gay marriage is not homophobia. That is your bigotry shining through.

Yeah, actually it is. It's anti gay bigotry (read homophobia)

 

[Boss]

Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

The rejection of gay marriage is not homophobia. That is your bigotry shining through.

Yeah, actually it is. It's anti gay bigotry (read homophobia)

No. It's actually not. We don't allow ANY group to redefine our traditional pillars. It has nothing to do with bigotry, it's common fucking sense. Something you have little of.