Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints... Why are you complaining?

Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions.

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377.

Get it?

Hey, did the State define your marriage?

They didn't mine

Of course you're the type that requires the State to wipe your ass for you too.

And my yes, let's get lectured by folks who can't even figure out who they're supposed to breed with.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

• You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
• You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.

And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.

 

[Pop23]

Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

Back in reality, every State does recognize marriage. And they set the critiera for that marriage within the bounds of constitutional guarantees.

Again, nothing you've proposed is happening anywhere. Nor is there any significant public support for any of it. Even Alabama, your poster child, does *nothing* you propose. With SB377 having no relevance to your descriptions.

You have nothing. Not existing law. Not proposed law. Not public support. With doing nothing providing us with all the benefits that you propose. For free and instantly.

Notice how it changed from defining marriage to setting criteria?

Good God you're easy

 

[Syriusly]

It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints... Why are you complaining?

Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions.

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377.

Get it?

Hey, did the State define your marriage?
.

Pops can't keep on topic any more than a 3 year old with ADD.

 

[Skylar]

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

Back in reality, every State does recognize marriage. And they set the critiera for that marriage within the bounds of constitutional guarantees.

Again, nothing you've proposed is happening anywhere. Nor is there any significant public support for any of it. Even Alabama, your poster child, does *nothing* you propose. With SB377 having no relevance to your descriptions.

You have nothing. Not existing law. Not proposed law. Not public support. With doing nothing providing us with all the benefits that you propose. For free and instantly.

Notice how it changed from defining marriage to setting criteria?

Good God you're easy

Notice how you don't actually have an argument, nor disagree with a word I say.

Try again when you can manage either.

 

[Skylar]

It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints... Why are you complaining?

Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions.

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377.

Get it?

Hey, did the State define your marriage?
.

Pops can't keep on topic any more than a 3 year old with ADD.

Of course not. His purpose is to shut threads like this down with irrelevant babble. Its why I so enjoy trolling the troll. I call it 'uber trolling'.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

• You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
• You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.

And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.

Nope, the judges stating that incest will remain illegal does nothing in regards to the argument since, just like any other legally binding, State recognized, partnership document, marriage does not have a sex requirement. So incest is not any more an issue than an LLC comprised of family members.


You lose again

Of course you knew that when you hit the submit button

 

[Skylar]

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.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

• You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
• You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.

And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.

Nope, the judges stating that incest will remain illegal does nothing in regards to the argument since, just like any other legally binding, State recognized, partnership document, marriage does not have a sex requirement, so incest is not any more an issue than an LLC comprised of family members.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless babble.

IF you have an argument to make for incest marriage, make it. Present your case. But I'm not making the case for you, troll. You'll have to do it yourself.

 

[Pop23]

It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints... Why are you complaining?

Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions.

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377.

Get it?

Hey, did the State define your marriage?
.

Pops can't keep on topic any more than a 3 year old with ADD.

Of course not. His purpose is to shut threads like this down with irrelevant babble. Its why I so enjoy trolling the troll. I call it 'uber trolling'.

And your not very good at it, but how could you be? You can't even figure out who you're supposed to breed with.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

• You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
• You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.

And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.

Nope, the judges stating that incest will remain illegal does nothing in regards to the argument since, just like any other legally binding, State recognized, partnership document, marriage does not have a sex requirement, so incest is not any more an issue than an LLC comprised of family members.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless babble.

IF you have an argument to make for incest marriage, make it. Present your case. But I'm not making the case for you, troll. You'll have to do it yourself.

Sex is not a requirement in marriage, nor in an s-corp or and LLC.

Do you think that members of an LLC are bound to have sex with each other? If not, why the assumption with marriage?

 

[Skylar]

Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints... Why are you complaining?

Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions.

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377.

Get it?

Hey, did the State define your marriage?
.

Pops can't keep on topic any more than a 3 year old with ADD.

Of course not. His purpose is to shut threads like this down with irrelevant babble. Its why I so enjoy trolling the troll. I call it 'uber trolling'.

And your not very good at it, but how could you be? You can't even figure out who you're supposed to breed with.

Who mentioned anything about 'breeding'?

Um....awkward.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

• You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
• You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.

And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.

Nope, the judges stating that incest will remain illegal does nothing in regards to the argument since, just like any other legally binding, State recognized, partnership document, marriage does not have a sex requirement, so incest is not any more an issue than an LLC comprised of family members.

Says you, citing yourself. Which is meaningless babble.

IF you have an argument to make for incest marriage, make it. Present your case. But I'm not making the case for you, troll. You'll have to do it yourself.

Sex is not a requirement in marriage, nor in an s-corp or and LLC.

Do you think that members of an LLC are bound to have sex with each other? If not, why the assumption with marriage?

An 'S-corp' or LLC? Are you still trying to polish your little turd of an argument that a marriage treated the same way as an LLC?

Because I already demolished that, troll. It was easy.

 

[Boss]

Again, SB377 doesn't do this. Alabama isn't proposing this. And there's little support for this with the public. And of course, its moot....as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution will require Alabama (and every other State) to honor marriages from other states.

Again, you have a different opinion and you're entitled to that. I disagree with your opinion.

SB377 did end state sanctioning of marriage, that was the point of the bill and the reason it was proposed. It passed but failed to gain a super majority which was required by state law because the issue wasn't on the governor's agenda. That will be rectified next session and the bill will pass... so it obviously MUST have some support from the constituents who vote. Again, if you don't believe it does, you are entitled to your opinion.

You keep harping on this "honor marriages from other states" like that means something. I've not argued that point it's covered clearly by SCOTUS and the Constitution. However, if there is no state consideration of marriage in the laws then there is no need to "honor" anything. The State is bound to uphold statutory and contractual legal requirements and record vital statistics but they have been doing this for over 200 years and no one is proposing any change to that. That is not "honoring" your gay marriage, it's upholding statutory law. I'm not arguing the State doesn't have to uphold statutory law.

 

[Skylar]

Again, SB377 doesn't do this. Alabama isn't proposing this. And there's little support for this with the public. And of course, its moot....as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution will require Alabama (and every other State) to honor marriages from other states.

Again, you have a different opinion and you're entitled to that. I disagree with your opinion.

Obviously. But I'm not citing me. I'm citing SB377, the USSC and the Constitution. You're citing yourself.

Our sources are not equal. You can tell....because of all the gay marriage. And how nothing you've proposed is being done by anyone.

SB377 did end state sanctioning of marriage, that was the point of the bill and the reason it was proposed.

SB377 doesn't even mention the 'sanctioning of marriage'. You do. Citing you. Which is legally meaningless.

The bill changes nothing but the method of entering a marriage. Save that, all the same laws apply. And a contract of marriage is treated as the same legal record of marriage as a marriage license is.

Says who? Says SB377:

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.

With no marriage laws changing save the method of entering a marriage. 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.

All of which you ignore.....and then laughably cite yourself. Again, our sources are not equal. And you citing you isn't evidence. Especially when you have to ignore the very law you claim to be describing as you do it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

I've got another analogy besides the baby and bathwater... Cutting the head off the snake.

Remove state sanctioning of marriage, take away government benefits of marriage, and let culture take care of the rest. Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Homosexuals represent less than 10% of society, so without this "perception of inequity" you have no support from heterosexuals because there is nothing to support. The reasons for the "perception of inequity" have been removed and no longer exist. Your rights are not being violated, you have the same "equality" as traditional couples, the state is just not a party to your action anymore.

Hey are you the guy who said that you are not a bigot? Then you post this horrendous horseshit about "moral and religious couples"? Gay people can't be moral or religious? This is the stupidest shit yet.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bzzzz Wrong. It does not say anything about slaves .

LMAO... Bzzz... it also doesn't say anything about marriage, gays or gay marriages.

Very good!! You are right! It does not say anything about marriage, gays or gay marriages. However, it does say something about equal protection under the law.

 

[northpolarbear]

I find homosexuals mentally broken. I mean, they are not following the biologically designed urges but something from "not the work of the hormones". I don't believe in soul whatever. So, I consider it mentally broken. They are not functioning right or "biologically". Something mentally twisted overwrites & imposes them to be homosexuals. However, if that's the way they want to be, they have the right to do so. It's their call. I just find it mentally broken. Of course it is moral. They are being with who they want to be with as opposed to being with someone they don't want to be with. But for being religious, that would depend on the religion. I'm not sure if Christianity approves gay.

 

[Boss]

Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

I've got another analogy besides the baby and bathwater... Cutting the head off the snake.

Remove state sanctioning of marriage, take away government benefits of marriage, and let culture take care of the rest. Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Heterosexual couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. IN this environment marriage becomes obsolete- a curiousity of the past...something that pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Of course it would screw over every married couple in America.

Makes me more and more convinced that you are neither married, nor have ever been married.

Well, where I disagree with you is your OPINION that this would effect traditional hetero couples the same. I don't believe it would... now that is my opinion, but I base that on sound judgment.

We can agree that most marriages are traditional and between heterosexual couples. A substantial chunk of those marriages are based on a religious teaching and upbringing, a moral foundation of family and something vital to all Christian couples as a matter of their religious faith. It's not about government benefits or perks. Those couples are not effected by whether or not the state officially sanctions or endorses their marriage.

On the other hand, most homosexual couples are not strongly tied to religion... some may be, but we're already talking about a very small percentage of society who are even gay... now divide that small slice of pie even more... the number of religious gay couples is virtually non-existent. The main people who are gay and want to have a gay marriage are motivated by government benefits of marriage... tax breaks... perks... incentives... things that government offers to "married couples." But even then, the "Gay Marriage Movement" is not the result of this rather small and insignificant number in society who seek gay marriage, it is largely promoted by secular heterosexuals who have a 'perception of inequity' they are fighting, mostly for political reasons.

So when we remove this "perception of inequity" and render it irrelevant, there is no more issue. As we have seen in this thread, you have absolutely nothing you can object to other than my opinion. You're really left with what amounts to a hollow argument where you simply want to reject my opinion and force your opinion onto me against my will, and like I said, that ain't happening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I find homosexuals mentally broken. I mean, they are not following the biologically designed urges but something from "not the work of the hormones". I don't believe in soul whatever. So, I consider it mentally broken. They are not functioning right or "biologically". Something mentally twisted overwrites & imposes them to be homosexuals. However, if that's the way they want to be, they have the right to do so. It's their call. I just find it mentally broken. Of course it is moral. They are being with who they want to be with as opposed to being with someone they don't want to be. But for being religious, that would depend on the religion. I'm not sure if Christianity approves gay.

Brilliant! That really added to the level of intellectual inquiry on this subject. So what is your position on marriage Mr. Polar Bear?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

• You still believe I have any obligation to dance with your strawman
• You still believe I have some obligation to prove your theory.

And most importantly

You ignore when I do post actual judges saying why there is a compelling state reason to deny marriage to siblings.

You just keep saying no one has 'come up with a compelling state reason'- by ignoring every reason other than your straw man.

Nope, the judges stating that incest will remain illegal does nothing in regards to the argument since, just like any other legally binding, State recognized, partnership document, marriage does not have a sex requirement. So incest is not any more an issue than an LLC comprised of family members.


You lose again

Of course you knew that when you hit the submit button

And of course you are lying again. Which I knew would happen as soon as I hit the submit button replying to any post of yours.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net