Killing Homosexual Marriage

[the_human_being]

I think we've done pretty good. We've established a whole lot concerning you. We've even established that not only are you a faggot but that you're also a bigot faggot. You got your little form but you want to deny the polygamists and others their rights. You're a real piece of garbage,

We've established only that your argument has degenerated into calling me names.

So much for your 'legal' argument. How exactly does the Supreme Court authorize polygamy by making no mention of it?

You refuse to answer my questions. Why do you oppose polygamous marriages?

Who says that I oppose polygamous marriage?

Well, I figured you were since you evaded my question. You still have. Are you for or are you against them?

So...that's no one that has said I oppose polygamous marriage. And you admitting that I've taken no position on the matter one way or the other.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss Obergefell, gay marriage, or any topic relevant to the thread that you've conceded those arguments?

Conceded what? I keep telling you over and over that no ruling forbids but you keep saying they do.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Good grief conservatives get over it. Welcome to the 21st century.

Yep, you're right - Dred Scott is the law of the land, can never be reversed....

Ueah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days. The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.

Dred Scott? Wasn't he a black football player for Chicago? Played under Mike Ditka?

I heard he became a Judge in the future


BA DUM TSSSS

 

[Skylar]

We've established only that your argument has degenerated into calling me names.

So much for your 'legal' argument. How exactly does the Supreme Court authorize polygamy by making no mention of it?

You refuse to answer my questions. Why do you oppose polygamous marriages?

Who says that I oppose polygamous marriage?

Well, I figured you were since you evaded my question. You still have. Are you for or are you against them?

So...that's no one that has said I oppose polygamous marriage. And you admitting that I've taken no position on the matter one way or the other.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss Obergefell, gay marriage, or any topic relevant to the thread that you've conceded those arguments?

Conceded what? I keep telling you over and over that no ruling forbids but you keep saying they do.

You're very confused. I've said that the Obergefell ruling never even mentions it. And that the States forbid bigamy.

You do know what a State is, right?

 

[Skylar]

Good grief conservatives get over it. Welcome to the 21st century.

Yep, you're right - Dred Scott is the law of the land, can never be reversed....

Ueah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days. The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.

Dred Scott? Wasn't he a black football player for Chicago? Played under Mike Ditka?

I heard he became a Judge in the future


BA DUM TSSSS

Where's the groan button?

 

[the_human_being]

You refuse to answer my questions. Why do you oppose polygamous marriages?

Who says that I oppose polygamous marriage?

Well, I figured you were since you evaded my question. You still have. Are you for or are you against them?

So...that's no one that has said I oppose polygamous marriage. And you admitting that I've taken no position on the matter one way or the other.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss Obergefell, gay marriage, or any topic relevant to the thread that you've conceded those arguments?

Conceded what? I keep telling you over and over that no ruling forbids but you keep saying they do.

You're very confused. I've said that the Obergefell ruling never even mentions it. And that the States forbid bigamy.

You do know what a State is, right?

No problem. The Supreme Court by a ruling of 5 to 4, will just have to overturn that one as well.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, I think in order to help out with the herds of gays and lesbians that will be traipsing through all the probate judge offices in all the sates, Walmart could issue the forms and collect the fees just as they do with the hunting and fishing licenses. Once every month or so they could forward the money and the forms to the probate offices for filing. This way, if a faggot went to Walmart with his lover and picked up a form then met and fell in love with the check out boy, he could turn around right there and fill out another form and pay another fee.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days. The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.

The SCOTUS passes some of the most damaging laws the nation has seen. The destruction of marriage law that SCOTUS created is a direct infringement of the 1st amendment rights of Americans. When the court dictates law that punishes the religious beliefs of a large segment of society, trouble is brewing.

 

[Montrovant]

Well I am happy that all you left-wing pinheads have weighed in and let me know that Alabama's measure to eliminate marriage licenses is not a problem for you. It sounds like we've found a compromise all of us can live with. Gays can pretend they are married, churches can hold on to sanctity of traditional marriage and the state doesn't have to worry about discriminating or playing favorites because it no longer sanctions marriages.

If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.

Perhaps what is needed here is an explanation of what you consider the state sanctioning marriage. Is your definition of that issuing a license?

Marriage law is not changed by the proposed bill. The status or married couples in Alabama is not changed by the proposed bill, neither previously married couples nor those married after its passage. Laws regarding divorce, taxes, power of attorney, custody of children, etc. all remain the same. The only thing the bill does is changes the means by which one enters into marriage. Is the means by which the state grants marriages part of the definition of sanctioning marriages to you?

The state of Alabama would still recognize marriages, they would still be legally binding, they would still be covered under all of the same laws with the proposed bill. The only change would be that instead of being issued a license to get married a couple would need to fill forms and submit them to the proper government office.

 

[Pop23]

Wanting to talk about how to stop incestuous marriage is not talking about incestuous marriage.

Then why do you keep mentioning siblings marrying if you don't want to talk about incest marriage?

You seem....confused.

Oh, I'm not.

So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

I have, did I also mention that the marriage license does not require sex?

OHHHHHH, you forgot that part.

Your assumption makes you look kinda sick.

Of course, to folks like you, sick AINT necessarily an insult, is it?

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

 

[Skylar]

Who says that I oppose polygamous marriage?

Well, I figured you were since you evaded my question. You still have. Are you for or are you against them?

So...that's no one that has said I oppose polygamous marriage. And you admitting that I've taken no position on the matter one way or the other.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss Obergefell, gay marriage, or any topic relevant to the thread that you've conceded those arguments?

Conceded what? I keep telling you over and over that no ruling forbids but you keep saying they do.

You're very confused. I've said that the Obergefell ruling never even mentions it. And that the States forbid bigamy.

You do know what a State is, right?

No problem. The Supreme Court by a ruling of 5 to 4, will just have to overturn that one as well.

Unless they don't. As you've noted, the Supreme Court has never so much as mentioned it. Let alone shown the slightest interest in protecting it as a right.

 

[Skylar]

Then why do you keep mentioning siblings marrying if you don't want to talk about incest marriage?

You seem....confused.

Oh, I'm not.

So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

I have, did I also mention that the marriage license does not require sex?

OHHHHHH, you forgot that part.

Your assumption makes you look kinda sick.

Of course, to folks like you, sick AINT necessarily an insult, is it?

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah good luck passing a bigoted amendment these days. The one that reversed Dredd Scott granted people freedom, it didn't take it away.

The SCOTUS passes some of the most damaging laws the nation has seen. The destruction of marriage law that SCOTUS created is a direct infringement of the 1st amendment rights of Americans. When the court dictates law that punishes the religious beliefs of a large segment of society, trouble is brewing.

Save of course that marriage isn't destroyed. Its fine.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, I'm not.

So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

I have, did I also mention that the marriage license does not require sex?

OHHHHHH, you forgot that part.

Your assumption makes you look kinda sick.

Of course, to folks like you, sick AINT necessarily an insult, is it?

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.

I am, have, and will continue to do so.

Now please produce the link to the law that requires sex within marriage.

 

[Skylar]

So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

I have, did I also mention that the marriage license does not require sex?

OHHHHHH, you forgot that part.

Your assumption makes you look kinda sick.

Of course, to folks like you, sick AINT necessarily an insult, is it?

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.

I am, have, and will continue to do so.

Then give us your argument for why you advocate incest marriage.

Make your case.

 

[Pop23]

I have, did I also mention that the marriage license does not require sex?

OHHHHHH, you forgot that part.

Your assumption makes you look kinda sick.

Of course, to folks like you, sick AINT necessarily an insult, is it?

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.

I am, have, and will continue to do so.

Then give us your argument for why you advocate incest marriage.

Make your case.

Link to my advocating for the state forcing sex within a marriage, since that is what you contend.

Or, advocating for incest.

Be so kind.

 

[Skylar]

That doesn't actually answer any of my questions. So you're not mentioning sibling marriage?

Its a yes or no question. Either you are, or you're not. And you refuse to answer, instead abandoning the argument.

Well that was easy.

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.

I am, have, and will continue to do so.

Then give us your argument for why you advocate incest marriage.

Make your case.

Link to my advocating for the state forcing sex within a marriage, since that is what you contend.

Or, advocating for incest.

Be so kind.

So you don't advocate incest marriage.....or you do? Again, you run from any question about it so often, its hard to tell.

 

[Pop23]

Are you blind from almost continuous mental masturbation?

I've mentioned a thousand times same sex sibling marriage. ARE YOU MAD?

I've also asked many times for anyone to link to the law that states that married couples MUST ENGAGE IN SEX.

Now here's the funniest part:

If you contend that they must, or there is an assumption that sex will be a part of marriage, you:

A. Open up the states to define what sex is required of marriage

Or

B. Admit that tradition is a key component to marriage

Or both

Which way you want to go, hmmmmm?

So.....you are or you aren't mentioning sibling marriage? As you seem unsure yourself.

I am, have, and will continue to do so.

Then give us your argument for why you advocate incest marriage.

Make your case.

Link to my advocating for the state forcing sex within a marriage, since that is what you contend.

Or, advocating for incest.

Be so kind.

So you don't advocate incest marriage.....or you do? Again, you run from any question about it so often, its hard to tell.

Oh, and you were so sure I was, but can't find the link?

You could simply post a link that requires sex as a requirement to marriage and YOU WOULD HAVE ME!

Produce the post in which I advocate siblings having sex (remember, sex isn't a requirement of marriage), a law requiring married couples to have sex.

OR ADMIT YOU ARE A TROLL.

Thanks in advance
Sincerely,

Pop23

 

[the_human_being]

Well, I figured you were since you evaded my question. You still have. Are you for or are you against them?

So...that's no one that has said I oppose polygamous marriage. And you admitting that I've taken no position on the matter one way or the other.

Can I take it from your refusal to discuss Obergefell, gay marriage, or any topic relevant to the thread that you've conceded those arguments?

Conceded what? I keep telling you over and over that no ruling forbids but you keep saying they do.

You're very confused. I've said that the Obergefell ruling never even mentions it. And that the States forbid bigamy.

You do know what a State is, right?

No problem. The Supreme Court by a ruling of 5 to 4, will just have to overturn that one as well.

Unless they don't. As you've noted, the Supreme Court has never so much as mentioned it. Let alone shown the slightest interest in protecting it as a right.

The Supreme Court usually doesn't comment on anything unless it is brought before them. I can't figure out why you're so bigoted against it. You claim you're not but anyone can see you really are.

 

[Syriusly]

Te

So.....what do you think the 14th amendment actually does?

It protects you little homo victims from sane and normal people like me. BOO!!

And what would you do to them if they weren't protected?

Nothing really. You're really insignificant little freaks.

We 'insignificant little freaks' are in agreement with the majority of Americans.

You insignificant little bigots will continue with the butt hurt that the Constitution does indeed protect Americans- even the ones you don't like.

Tell me, how does it feel to be pointed out and snickered at? Do folks feel dirty when the shake your hand?

Projecting much?

The majority of Americans support the rights of Americans who happen to be gay being able to allowed to marry- like I do.

You of course want to deny Americans their rights- whether it is mixed race couples or gay couples.

Sucks to be you.

 

[the_human_being]

Te

It protects you little homo victims from sane and normal people like me. BOO!!

And what would you do to them if they weren't protected?

Nothing really. You're really insignificant little freaks.

We 'insignificant little freaks' are in agreement with the majority of Americans.

You insignificant little bigots will continue with the butt hurt that the Constitution does indeed protect Americans- even the ones you don't like.

Tell me, how does it feel to be pointed out and snickered at? Do folks feel dirty when the shake your hand?

Projecting much?

The majority of Americans support the rights of Americans who happen to be gay being able to allowed to marry- like I do.

You of course want to deny Americans their rights- whether it is mixed race couples or gay couples.

Sucks to be you.

Well, apparently those in Kentucky and Alabama and a few other states don't agree with your depraved lifestyle. Aren't they Americans too?