Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Skylar]

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.

Nothing you're proposing is actually happening. That's not an 'opinion'. That's the laws themselves explicitly contradicting your assertions. And a complete lack of any such laws.....anywhere in the country.

You making up shit about SB377 that it never even mentions isn't a 'difference of opinion'. Its you literally ignoring the bill and making up whatever you'd like.

Notice you've never once cited any portion of SB377 backing any of your claims. Nor have you even bothered to read it. Making your assessment of its impact meaningless. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Boss]

SB377 doesn't even mention the 'sanctioning of marriage'.

LOL... Again, because you seem to be slow... It doesn't HAVE to mention it! The 14th Amendment doesn't mention slavery! It doesn't mention homosexuals! It doesn't mention gay marriage! It doesn't mention marriage at all!

So if the criteria is only things that are specifically mentioned, then there is no such thing as gay marriage or any constitutional right regarding marriage of any kind. You've sort of shot yourself in the head with that stupidity.

 

[northpolarbear]

I find that gay marriage should be allowed as their right although I don't understand them. I shouldn't have to understand them. They have the right to live how they want regardless of me understanding them.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

You have provided no evidence that your 'opinion' is based upon sound judgement- or even that any of your posts are.

Frankly you are willing to gamble that your 'proposal' would kill 'homosexual' marriage- and not 'kill straight marriage'.

Why would you be willing to gamble with something that is obviously so important to you- heterosexual marriage?

In my opinion- based upon my sound judgement- it is clear that killing homosexual marriage is more important to you than preserving marriage for heterosexuals.

My sound judgement says that is the only logical conclusion.

 

[Boss]

Nothing you're proposing is actually happening.

LMAO... Well, things don't happen between Oct 2 and Oct 7 or else not happen at all. That's the problem with your analysis. Sometimes things take time to happen. Maybe a few months, maybe a few years... Nothing gay marriage proponents wanted to happen was happening for a long time... until you got a SCOTUS ruling in your favor.

The fact that something hasn't transpired in a week is a really weak argument to make.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

. 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.

I have been legally married for over 20 years.

You want to reject my legal marriage- against my will- and force me to end my legal marriage.

And like I said- that ain't happening.

Not even the rubes of Alabama are going to vote to end their own legal marriages.

 

[Boss]

You have provided no evidence that your 'opinion' is based upon sound judgement

Well, I went on to explain my sound judgement. You just want to ignore it because you disagree with my opinion. That's fine but you can't say that I haven't explained this.

 

[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.

. 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.

I have been legally married for over 20 years.

You want to reject my legal marriage- against my will- and force me to end my legal marriage.

And like I said- that ain't happening.

Not even the rubes of Alabama are going to vote to end their own legal marriages.

LOL... I said nothing about rejecting your marriage or ending anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing you're proposing is actually happening.

LMAO... Well, things don't happen between Oct 2 and Oct 7 or else not happen at all. That's the problem with your analysis. Sometimes things take time to happen. Maybe a few months, maybe a few years... Nothing gay marriage proponents wanted to happen was happening for a long time... until you got a SCOTUS ruling in your favor.

The fact that something hasn't transpired in a week is a really weak argument to make.

On the other hand- you proposing something that is not a serious proposal by anyone- anywhere- i.e. to end legal marriage- is really weak sauce.

 

[Syriusly]

You have provided no evidence that your 'opinion' is based upon sound judgement

Well, I went on to explain my sound judgement. You just want to ignore it because you disagree with my opinion. That's fine but you can't say that I haven't explained this.

No- you went on to explain your opinion- based upon your bias.

There was nothing in that post that was close to sound judgement.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I find that gay marriage should be allowed as their right although I don't understand them. I shouldn't have to understand them. They have the right to live how they want regardless of me understanding them.

Thank you. There is really not a lot to understand. They are just people who have a different kind of sexual attraction than you. I don't understand heterosexuals who are into S &M or foot fetishes but no one questions their right to get married .

 

[Syriusly]

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.

. 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.

I have been legally married for over 20 years.

You want to reject my legal marriage- against my will- and force me to end my legal marriage.

And like I said- that ain't happening.

Not even the rubes of Alabama are going to vote to end their own legal marriages.

LOL... I said nothing about rejecting your marriage or ending anything.

You have advocated ending the legal form of marriage that I and millions of Americans enjoy.

You have advocated eliminating every 'government benefit' associated with marriage- and yeah- that is ending a lot for my wife and I.

Social Security survivors benefits: gone
Inheritance tax exemption for surviving spouse: gone
Automatic legal assumption of a spouse being a legal guardian: gone

You are willing to end legal marriage for all Americans- just to kill legal marriage for homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

Nothing you're proposing is actually happening.

LMAO... Well, things don't happen between Oct 2 and Oct 7 or else not happen at all. That's the problem with your analysis.

Oh, I've looked at your evidence. SB377 doesn't say anything you do. It doesn't eliminate Alabama's 'recognition of marriage'. It doesn't even mention of the 'sanctioning of marriage'. And it doesn't change any law save how marriage is entered. With the contracts of marriage

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.

And your only source for all the pseudo-legal gibberish you've offered? Just you. Citing you. Which is meaningless.

So is there any part of your argument that isn't you just making shit up?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Probably, you however should try it sometime, but I doubt anyone of the opposite sex (the correct ones to breed with) would allow you that close.

But you can take my word for it

It's a friggin blast!

 

[Pop23]

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.

You probably couldn't even demolish a turd, you admire where turds come from!

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Probably, you however should try it sometime, but I doubt anyone of the opposite sex (the correct ones to breed with) would allow you that close.

But you can take my word for it

It's a friggin blast!

How often do you breed?

 

[Skylar]

SB377 doesn't even mention the 'sanctioning of marriage'.

LOL... Again, because you seem to be slow... It doesn't HAVE to mention it! The 14th Amendment doesn't mention slavery! It doesn't mention homosexuals! It doesn't mention gay marriage! It doesn't mention marriage at all!

Which might have some relevance if it was the 14th amendment that outlawed slavery. Alas, that was the 13th amendment. Remember: you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

As for the 14th amendment, it does call for equal protection of the law. Which is the *actual* basis of the Obergefell decision (well, one of them). Not 'homosexual'.

Says who? Why the 14th amendment of course!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And who cited the 14th amendment's equal protection of the law as one of the bases of the Obergefell decision? Why the USSC itself:

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal
protection.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

See how that works? I cite the actual amendments and the actual caselaw. And you just quote yourself. And apparently you haven't quite caught on yet that you citing yourself isn't actually evidence of anything.

Now, its your turn. Here's SB377 in its most current form:

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

Show us where in SB377 they mention the 'sanctioning of marriage'. And where they insist they will no longer recognize marriage. And where SB377 states that it will no longer recognize marriages from other States. And where it SB377 states that it is eliminating any of the benefits of marriage.

Laughing....or you can keep refusing to read it and continue to quote yourself and your imagination. Either is worth a giggle.

So if the criteria is only things that are specifically mentioned, then there is no such thing as gay marriage or any constitutional right regarding marriage of any kind.

The criteria don't exclude same sex couples. .....now. They did before Obergefell. Now any same sex couple can qualify for the 'contract of marriage' as easily as they can the 'license of marriage'. This is why your distinction between 'contract' and 'license' is so wonderfully irrelevant.

See how that works?

 

[Syriusly]

• 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.

You probably couldn't even demolish a turd, you admire where turds come from!

LOL- Pops is literally pulling crap out of his ass now.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Probably, you however should try it sometime, but I doubt anyone of the opposite sex (the correct ones to breed with) would allow you that close.

But you can take my word for it

It's a friggin blast!

How often do you breed?

Only about 10% as often as all those lovely ladies wish I would!

 

[Pop23]

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.

You probably couldn't even demolish a turd, you admire where turds come from!

LOL- Pops is literally pulling crap out of his ass now.

I dump things out of my ass

Syriously shoves shit up his.....

True Story