Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Silhouette]

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

I see where this is going..

Why take a revenue loss giving tax breaks to a situation that the state no longer can control to its own benefit. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters grow up to be statistically on drugs, indigent, depressed and suicidal. They are statistically-guaranteed to become burderns to the state.

Also, and fiscally just as important, normalizing homosexuality by being forced to give it a public stamp of approval ("gay marriage licenses") will result in an upward trend of adolescents and kids imprinting themselves to sexually orient "gay". On average, each indigent HIV/AIDS patient (they all become indigent quite quickly) costs the government over $500,000 before they die the horrible death of AIDS. With the price of HIV drugs tripling recently, this places an unbearable burden upon the state who ultimately has to pay for the new "Supreme Court Cult" that was retooled into society's fabric by the fource of five, to its collective detriment...

...not the least of which is to children who are getting swept up in all this to a terrible end:

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

 

[mdk]

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

I see where this is going..

Nowhere?

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Actually there is a presumption that sex will occur within marriage. Marriages can be nullified if a man is impotent- or if either party entered a marriage with the inability- or unwillingness to have sex with their partner.

Not that that has anything to do with Pop's straw man, but just a point of fact.

Pop's whole argument revolves around one thing: he has declared that the only reason to deny siblings marriage is procreation.

He wants someone to argue with him but he ignores actual citations from judges citing other reasons.

He is a troll.

^^^talk about strawman.

Of course you could win this by simply posting the law requiring sex as a requirement to obtain a marriage license.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Actually there is a presumption that sex will occur within marriage. Marriages can be nullified if a man is impotent- or if either party entered a marriage with the inability- or unwillingness to have sex with their partner.

Not that that has anything to do with Pop's straw man, but just a point of fact.

Pop's whole argument revolves around one thing: he has declared that the only reason to deny siblings marriage is procreation.

He wants someone to argue with him but he ignores actual citations from judges citing other reasons.

He is a troll.

^^^talk about strawman.

Of course you could win this by simply posting the law requiring sex as a requirement to obtain a marriage license.

Do you beleive that men should have the right to rape their wifes to keep their license valid?

If it's a requirement afterall......

You seem to be a warped lil pervet, aren't you?

So post the link to sex being a requirement to marriage or just go away lil Sally

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Actually there is a presumption that sex will occur within marriage. Marriages can be nullified if a man is impotent- or if either party entered a marriage with the inability- or unwillingness to have sex with their partner.

Not that that has anything to do with Pop's straw man, but just a point of fact.

Pop's whole argument revolves around one thing: he has declared that the only reason to deny siblings marriage is procreation.

He wants someone to argue with him but he ignores actual citations from judges citing other reasons.

He is a troll.

^^^talk about strawman.

Of course you could win this by simply posting the law requiring sex as a requirement to obtain a marriage license.

Do you beleive that men should have the right to rape their wifes to keep their license valid?

If it's a requirement afterall......

You seem to be a warped lil pervet, aren't you?

So post the link to sex being a requirement to marriage or just go away lil Sally

Says the pervert who just wants to talk about siblings marrying each other in every thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, and while sex is certainly not a requirement in marriage, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the vast, vast majority of marriages involve sex. More importantly, sex is not the only argument against close family marriages.

Actually there is a presumption that sex will occur within marriage. Marriages can be nullified if a man is impotent- or if either party entered a marriage with the inability- or unwillingness to have sex with their partner.

Not that that has anything to do with Pop's straw man, but just a point of fact.

Pop's whole argument revolves around one thing: he has declared that the only reason to deny siblings marriage is procreation.

He wants someone to argue with him but he ignores actual citations from judges citing other reasons.

He is a troll.

^^^talk about strawman.

Of course you could win this by simply posting the law requiring sex as a requirement to obtain a marriage license.

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

 

[Syriusly]

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

I see where this is going..

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is going back to you lying about the Prince's Trust survey and attacking homosexuals again.

 

[Boss]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

 

[Boss]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

 

[Faun]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

 

[Boss]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean. If the State has no benefit or requirement depending on "marital status" then how can they be recognizing marriage of any kind? So this whole "will recognize" thing doesn't make any sense... what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Skylar]

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

I see where this is going..

Why take a revenue loss giving tax breaks to a situation that the state no longer can control to its own benefit. Fatherless sons and motherless daughters grow up to be statistically on drugs, indigent, depressed and suicidal. They are statistically-guaranteed to become burderns to the state.

Save that the children of same sex parents are fine. Nixing your entire argument.

And of course, the State still gets to control marriage, subject to con situational guarantees. Any changes they wish to make that don't violate constitutional guarantees are theirs to make.

Nixing your argument again.

And of course, same sex marriages make up a comparitively tiny number of total marriages. After the initial surge immediately after legalization, same sex marriages generally make up 5 to 6% of total marriages. A state that would dismantle all marriages over 5% of them deserves what it gets.

And no states is interested in doing so. Not even Alabama. Nixing your argument a third time.

Also, and fiscally just as important, normalizing homosexuality by being forced to give it a public stamp of approval ("gay marriage licenses") will result in an upward trend of adolescents and kids imprinting themselves to sexually orient "gay". On average, each indigent HIV/AIDS patient (they all become indigent quite quickly) costs the government over $500,000 before they die the horrible death of AIDS. With the price of HIV drugs tripling recently, this places an unbearable burden upon the state who ultimately has to pay for the new "Supreme Court Cult" that was retooled into society's fabric by the fource of five, to its collective detriment...

...not the least of which is to children who are getting swept up in all this to a terrible end:

And how does denying marriage to same sex parents help their children?

It doesn't. Denying same sex couples marriage doesn't help a single child. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't mean their children will magically have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that these children will never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the 10s of thousands. Harm you're more than happy to inflict...if it means you can also hurt gays.

Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

• Youth aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 26% of all new HIV infections in the United States in 2010.

• Most new HIV infections among youth occur among gay and bisexual males; there was a 22% increase in estimated new infections in this group from 2008 to 2010. HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

As you well know, the Prince Trust study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting. It doesn't even mention gays, gay marriage, or anything you're arguing. It speaks of good same sex role models.

You insist that this can only be a mother or father. The Prince Trust study contradicts you, citing mentoring programs that meet that need. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument.

Again, you know you're completely full of shit with the Prince Trust nonsense. We know you're full of shit. And you know we know you're full of shit. So who are you trying to convince? You can't even convince yourself.

 

[Skylar]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean.

Its already been explained to repeatedly. Shall I quote you quoting the answer you insist you've never received?

I will. I'll laugh and point at you as I do. But I'd be more than happy to.

Shall I?

 

[Boss]

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean.

Its already been explained to repeatedly. Shall I quote you quoting the answer you insist you've never received?

I will. I'll laugh and point at you as I do. But I'd be more than happy to.

Shall I?

The only answer you provided (once, not repeatedly) was full of a bunch of platitudes and nonsense. Statutory aspects of contract law have nothing to do with intimate relationships of the parties. State agencies and courts are obligated to observe statutory contractual requirements of law, (always have been, always will be) in NO WAY does that signify any endorsement, sanctioning or recognition of the nature of the relationship or reason for such contracts.

 

[Skylar]

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean.

Its already been explained to repeatedly. Shall I quote you quoting the answer you insist you've never received?

I will. I'll laugh and point at you as I do. But I'd be more than happy to.

Shall I?

The only answer you provided (once, not repeatedly) was full of a bunch of platitudes and nonsense.

Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.

Show me anywhere in SB377 where it states that Alabama no longer recognizes marriage. Show me anywhere in SB377 where Alabama refuses to recognize marriage from any other State.

You'll find you hallucinated both passages. As they don't exist. SB377 merely changes marriage from a license to a contract. It doesn't change any other aspect of marriage law in the State. Says who? Says SB377:

"This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

As usual, Boss......you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Statutory aspects of contract law have nothing to do with intimate relationships of the parties.

A contract called the 'contract of marriage' doesn't have anything to do with marriage? That's really your argument? Then why is it a legal record of marriage recorded in the Office of Vital Statistics?

Remember, you're fucking clueless. So it tends to limit your ability to debate the legal aspects of this issue

 

[Boss]

Nope. It was clear as a bell, even citing the Alabama SB377 itself. A law you have never read and refuse to read.....despite absurdly basing an entire thread on it.

LMAO... who said I have never read it and refuse to read it?

It is clear as a bell, the State will no longer sanction marriages. The only thing you've cited is their legal obligation to record vital statistics and the statutory obligations of contract law. Neither of these functions are recognizing or sanctioning marriage. Both of these functions have been around, observed and performed by the State long before the issue of Gay Marriages.

SB377 merely changes marriage from a license to a contract.

And in doing so, removes the State from being a party to the action.

What is interesting is how you continue to attempt insulting me and denigrating me, even though you don't think this law changes a thing. I would think you'd be happy and pleased that a solution had been reached which resolves my opposition to state sanctioning of gay marriage and doesn't interfere with your rights. But here, it almost seems as if you want to fight.

I don't have anything to fight about with you, nor do I care to. I am going to work toward changing the laws in my state so that we don't sanction gay marriages. You can work to stop me from doing that if you like... that's what makes America great.

 

[Syriusly]

I win this argument every time I point out that you are dragging out your straw man.

You've not won anything from what I can tell. You haven't answered the man's question. You keep dismissing him as making a straw man argument but I think he raised a legitimate point.

Of course you think he raised a 'legitimate point'.

You also believe that gay men are going to try to pass legislation allowing them to force you to have sex with them in public.

You raise stupid points- like this thread- about how you are willing to kill marriage in order to kill marriage for homosexuals.

Pop talks about one thing- in every thread- incestuous marriage. That issue of course has absolutely nothing to do with your OP or thread- but Pop dragged his straw man in here as he drags it everywhere with him.

When I see Pop interested in anything like an actual dialogue, I will participate- but since he keeps insisting that the ONLY reason for banning sibling marriage is the issue of procreation- and then ignores every other reason- he is just here to drag his straw man around.

 

[jillian]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean. If the State has no benefit or requirement depending on "marital status" then how can they be recognizing marriage of any kind? So this whole "will recognize" thing doesn't make any sense... what the hell are you talking about?

there are over a thousand rights and obligations that go with marriage.

medical proxy

pension benefits

etc.

you do understand that, right? and yes, Alabama will have to recognize gay marriage and the rights and obligations that go with it.

 

[Syriusly]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

It is not 'education' that he is lacking- we just disagree with your unsubstantiated claims.

You say one implies sanctioning and the other doesn't- yet they do the exact same thing- they both recognize marriages as legal in Alabama.

Neither sanctions marriage or doesn't sanction marriage- they both recognize marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

BOSS SAID:

"It's not up to me, it's up to the States."

Wrong.

It's up to neither you nor the states.

States have no 'authority' to deny citizens their rights; citizens do not 'forfeit' their rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence; and one's rights are not subject to 'majority rule' or the 'will of the people' – Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where the fundamental rights of citizens are immune from attack by the states.

Before you scream your rights are being denied, don't you have to find a right being denied first? Seems to me, states deciding they will no longer sanction marriage leaves you without a cause. There is no discrimination, they aren't going to sanction ANY marriages.

Now... I never said states have the authority to deny citizens their rights. I know that you WISH that's what I had said because you can jump all over that with both feet. And it seems like a lot of you people don't seem to know what do at this point... you've won your moral crusade, convinced the high court to rule 5-4 in your favor and changed the Constitution. We've moved on to a different topic and you seem to want to gravitate back to the same argument you just won. We're no longer having that argument, it's over, you won. The points you made for THAT argument are worthless in the next argument because it's a different argument.

I understand your shepherds probably haven't gotten you programmed for the next argument yet and you're probably just in rerun mode. Pay attention, the argument is not over gay marriage being legal or constitutional. The argument is not about equal protection of gay couples seeking marriage licenses. Those arguments are over now, your side won. I disagree with the ruling and your argument but the court has spoken and I understand it's law of the land now and the argument is over. I've now moved on and so has my state. We are currently debating whether or not the State can abolish ALL marriage licenses.

I think they can because there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the State to recognize marriage at all. Your task, if you choose to argue, is to find the part of the Constitution which mandates States must recognize marriage. We already know, because the argument has been settled, that they have to recognize gay marriage if they recognize traditional marriage. That's no longer debatable and isn't the argument. Getting yourself all worked up in a froth over gay couples having the same "rights" as straight couples to obtain a marriage license, is kind of goofy and pointless now... that argument is settled.

And when the first state actually stops recognizing marriages, perhaps you should get back to us.....as of now, they all still do. More, even the state that had proposed legislation that you think would end their recognition of marriages, did nothing of the sort. Of course, since you seem to think state recognition of marriage is entirely based on the issuance of licenses, it's not surprising you'd make odd claims and predictions.

Well, you'll only have to wait until the next session of the Alabama legislature. I strongly suspect there will many other states following the same course. But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up until what I am advocating becomes reality... if we could do that, we wouldn't have ever seen gay marriage. I have every right to speak about this or any damn thing else I want to talk about. You're not the Boss of ME!

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties. If you can't comprehend how one implies state sanctioning and the other doesn't, I don't know what to tell you... get some education, read some books, find a dictionary!

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

What do you mean by "recognize"? How? In what way? You all keep SAYING this but you're not explaining what the fuck you mean. If the State has no benefit or requirement depending on "marital status" then how can they be recognizing marriage of any kind? So this whole "will recognize" thing doesn't make any sense... what the hell are you talking about?

Exactly as Alabama recognizes marriage now. Just with a fill in the form rather than a license.

All of Alabama marriage laws will still apply- divorce laws will still apply- annulment laws will still apply.

And Alabamans, regardless of whether you approve of their marriage or not, will still continue to get legally married, recognized by the State of Alabama.

And if that still is too hard for you to figure out- check the Alabama State Income Tax form- and see if it contains the word 'married' or some equivalent on it- that is recognition.