Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

Again, there's nothing about sanctioning in the SB377. And by your own admission, no laws change save how marriage is entered. You can't even explain hypothetically how your 'killing homosexual marriage' babble works under SB377.

You've conceded the entire argument.

While the 14th amendment explicitly cites equal protection of law. One of the bases of the the Obergefell ruling.

See, that's the difference between our respective positions. You've straight up hallucinated your quotes and pseudo-legal gibberish. It doesn't exist in anything you've quoted. Where as equal protection of the law is most definitely part of the 14th amendment:

See how that works? I can actually quote my source saying what I claim it did. You can't.

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.

 

[Syriusly]

This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.

You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.

Oh, I've posted it repeatedly, once this morning alone. And I'll happily post your silly batshit again:

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deny saying it. I would amuse me.

How many times has he been caught doing that now, in this thread and the last one? I have lost count.

 

[Pop23]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!

I'm not hiding. I already responded to your post. The State of Alabama is going to abolish state sanctioning of marriage..

And that is your opinion.

Nothing in the proposed law says any such thing.

In my opinion your opinion is as wrong about this as with everything else- but IF it makes you sleep better at night believing that- fine with me.

I'll translate this:

Since you are a heterosexual, your opinion matters not.

 

[Syriusly]

rrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!

I'm not hiding. I already responded to your post. The State of Alabama is going to abolish state sanctioning of marriage..

And that is your opinion.

Nothing in the proposed law says any such thing.

In my opinion your opinion is as wrong about this as with everything else- but IF it makes you sleep better at night believing that- fine with me.

I'll translate this:

Since you are a heterosexual, your opinion matters not.

Well you do like to make crap up.

 

[Boss]

This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.

You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.

Oh, I've posted it repeatedly, once this morning alone. And I'll happily post your silly batshit again:

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deny saying it. I would amuse me.

Thank you. I used a poor choice of words. Accommodating and sanctioning are two different things. I should have been paying closer attention. My apologies.

 

[Pop23]

And again... the 14th Amendment isn't talking about marrying anything and doesn't mention gays.
(same exact point, same exact logic.)

You are truly amazing. I would never have thought that anyone could be so impervious to facts and logic. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the reasons that I gave for the states not being able to abolish state sanctioned marriage are wrong. You're hiding from me , aren't you? You have me on ignore!

I'm not hiding. I already responded to your post. The State of Alabama is going to abolish state sanctioning of marriage..

And that is your opinion.

Nothing in the proposed law says any such thing.

In my opinion your opinion is as wrong about this as with everything else- but IF it makes you sleep better at night believing that- fine with me.

I'll translate this:

Since you are a heterosexual, your opinion matters not.

Well you do like to make crap up.

How so pinhead?

 

[Syriusly]

Then you really don't have any objection to SB377 or similar bills, correct?

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.

Yet- all of those records are listed in the Health Department together.

Any records could be kept anywhere.

Why do you think that all of those records are typically maintained by Health Departments?

 

[Pop23]

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.

Yet- all of those records are listed in the Health Department together.

Any records could be kept anywhere.

Why do you think that all of those records are typically maintained by Health Departments?

Tradition?

But traditions are horseshit to progressives

 

[Boss]

You have not given a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary.

Yes I have and you're just blathering idiocy.

Every single other detail of marriage law would remain the same. Every benefit, every perk, every change in legal status of the participants would remain the same.

So you don't have any problem with it, correct?

I'm not upset about 'your side' finding a solution.

I think that's a lie. You're doing everything you can to tear that down and render it irrelevant. It doesn't seem to be satisfactory that we have different opinions, you feel the need to destroy my opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.

Yet- all of those records are listed in the Health Department together.

Any records could be kept anywhere.

Why do you think that all of those records are typically maintained by Health Departments?

Tradition?

But traditions are horseshit to progressives

Well you have never been able to think of many reasons for anything other than 'tradition'.

Shows in the stunning failure by your ilk in the courts.

 

[Syriusly]

You have not given a detailed explanation supported by definitions in the dictionary.

Yes I have and you're just blathering idiocy.

Every single other detail of marriage law would remain the same. Every benefit, every perk, every change in legal status of the participants would remain the same.

So you don't have any problem with it, correct?

I'm not upset about 'your side' finding a solution.

I think that's a lie. You're doing everything you can to tear that down and render it irrelevant. It doesn't seem to be satisfactory that we have different opinions, you feel the need to destroy my opinion.

That in the same post where you say

Yes I have and you're just blathering idiocy.

He is showing as much respect for your 'opinion' as you show for anyone else's- including his.

 

[Skylar]

This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage.

You're going to need to post my quote on this because I never said it. As usual, you are playing word salad, popping in words in place of other words, as you construct your objections. We can't have civil conversations like that.

Oh, I've posted it repeatedly, once this morning alone. And I'll happily post your silly batshit again:

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Deny saying it. I would amuse me.

Thank you. I used a poor choice of words. Accommodating and sanctioning are two different things. I should have been paying closer attention. My apologies.

No worries. If you recant a particular phrase, I won't cite it again when refuting your claims. As its no longer your claim.

Alabama would still recognize marriage under SB377. With the lone exception of how a marriage is entered into, no marriage laws change. A contract of marriage is held as a legal record of marriage with the Health Department of Alabama exactly as a marriage licenses is now. And there's no mention in SB377 of any change of the way Alabama would view marriages from other States.

So how would this be '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 HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

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

The links in the OP of the Prince's Trust thread linked here can be read by anyone and anyone will see that the deductions of that survey are correct. Boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers are around 65% more likely than their peers to wind up depressed, on drugs and indigent...ie: burdens to society.

 

[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..

You really don't.

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.

Same false premise as the last time you spammed this block post:

The State does have control over its marriage laws....within the bounds of constitutional guarantees. Same sex marriages in the States that have long since legalized them make up about 5% or 6% of marriages each year. If a State wants to spite 95% of all marriages just to get back at 5%.....they're idiots.

And of course, there's no State indicating that's what they want to do.

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 HIV Among Youth | Age | HIV by Group | HIV/AIDS | CDC

Same problem as always. The Prince Trust Study doesn't measure the effects of any kind of parenting, by your own admission. It makes no mentions of gays, homosexuality, same sex marriage, nor same sex parenting.

Worse for you, it cites mentoring groups it offers as providing a positive same sex role model. Explicitly contradicting your claim that only a mother or father can do this.

And of course, you already know this. You just really hope we don't.

 

[Boss]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

 

[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.. .

I see where this is going- Silhouette just copying and pasting the same crap again.

Just to point out- Prince's Study doesn't say anything about gay parents, or parents- at all.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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

The links in the OP of the Prince's Trust thread linked here can be read by anyone and anyone will see that the deductions of that survey are correct. Boys raised without fathers and girls raised without mothers are around 65% more likely than their peers to wind up depressed, on drugs and indigent...ie: burdens to society.

The Prince's Trust study does not even mention fathers or mothers.

You are just lying again.

 

[Syriusly]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

Your solution will 'kill marriage' equally for all Alabaman's which to be fair- is equitable. Some heterosexual couples may still wish to go through with it, but most will not bother. Just like most gay couples will not bother.

Of course your solution screws all Americans who want to be legally married- like my wife and myself.

But that is okay to you- because it would 'kill homosexual marriage'

It is also the reason why your 'proposal' will go nowhere.

 

[Skylar]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change.

You may want to go back and read the OP. As you don't make a single mention of 'cultural change'. You make dozens of references to changes in the law. And in post 10, on the same page as the OP.....specifically cite the Alabama law as an example of the changes you've proposed. With the changes, again, being a legal one.

And the Alabama bill does nothing you've proposed. See my previous points for specific legal points that you've misinterpreted.

We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed.

Agreed. Technically possible. Snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.

So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage.

Do you acknowledge that SB777 doesn't do this? That the 'contracts of marriage' are used identically by the State as licenses of marriage are? That they are both legal records of marriage, both held by the Health Department of Alabama as such? With all the same marriage laws in place save the lone change of how you enter marriage?

As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

Why would married people want to remove the perks of being married? Even in Alabama, a state whose motto is 'Always on the Wrong Side of History', they're merely proposing removing the judges from the process. All the same perks apply.

SB377 doesn't do any of what you're proposing. Nor is there any significant support for in any State legislature. You're offering us a vast wish list. Not the summary of any law or even a seriously proposed possible law. Nor anything that there is much public support for.

Worse, the Full Faith and Credit clause would still require Alabama to honor the marriages of other States. So even hypothetically.....your argument is moot. There's no angle where your claims work. There's no match with any State bill. There's no policy that matches your description.

Your OP might as well begin with 'Once Upon A Time". Or "Mukashi, Mukashi' if you prefer the Japanese.

 

[Faun]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

You're fucking deranged.

The vast majority of people, straight and gay, marry to make a life long commitment to the person they love, not for government benefits.

Eliminating those benefits, even if you could, would not dissuade many from getting married.

But you do reveal how enormously butthurt you are over same-sex marriage; and dayam! Those fags sure kicked your ass, huh? There was a time folks like you were suggesting straight folks get to marry but gays would have to settle for civil unions.... they fucked you so hard, you're now eager to take away marriage from straight folks.