Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

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!

They have pills for that now.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

 

[Pop23]

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!

They have pills for that now.

Sorry for the delayed response I just finished a breeding and about to mount the next one.......

What were you sayin again?

 

[Pop23]

. 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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.

 

[Syriusly]

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!

They have pills for that now.

Sorry for the delayed response I just finished a breeding and about to mount the next one.......

What were you sayin again?

Was it a mare or a filly?

And which pill did you take?

 

[Pop23]

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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

Except you two........

There I go, staying the obvious again

Gotta go lil fellas, there's more breeding to get done!

Where does the time fly?

 

[Pop23]

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!

They have pills for that now.

Sorry for the delayed response I just finished a breeding and about to mount the next one.......

What were you sayin again?

Was it a mare or a filly?

And which pill did you take?

Dude, do you know the rules this place has about accusing others of such naughty things?????

 

[Pop23]

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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.

Oh you are naive lil fella

 

[Syriusly]

How often do you breed?

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

They have pills for that now.

Sorry for the delayed response I just finished a breeding and about to mount the next one.......

What were you sayin again?

Was it a mare or a filly?

And which pill did you take?

Dude, do you know the rules this place has about accusing others of such naughty things?????

You were the one who brought up breeding- not me.

 

[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!

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!

Now you are changing the argument again. You can't argue that because SB377 "doesn't mention" something that it can't mean something...then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mention something but does mean it. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention gay marriages, marriages or state sanctioning of marriages. Obviously, it applies... I've not argued that it doesn't. But the same standard also applies to SB377, it doesn't have to say something specifically to mean something.

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:

Again, you seem to be wanting me to argue with you about something that can't be argued. I'm fully aware of the equal protection clause and nothing in my argument attempts to refute it. I'm fully aware of the Obergefell ruling and I am not arguing against that... it's settled law now. Those points no longer need to be debated.

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?

Well, if you think that it's irrelevant, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree that it's irrelevant and I think the proponents of the bill thought it was relevant. But if you think it's so irrelevant, why are you spending so much time on this? If it truly doesn't change anything regarding rights or recognition, then it shouldn't bother you... right?

But it seems like this really bugs the piss out of you. Here you have spent most of the day responding feverishly to every post I make, trying your best to downplay my points. What is your reasoning for that if none of this really means anything or matters?

 

[Boss]

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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

Wow... over 800 replies yet "no one gives a shit!"

I must be far more interesting than I imagined myself to be!

 

[Faun]

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?

What the fuck is wrong with your brain? Where do you see a complaint in there?

 

[Faun]

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?

marriage licenses were TRADITIONALLY tracked by health departments as a way to maintain healthy bloodlines.

So why now since same sex coupling can't produce children?

This has been explained a hundred times to you. It's no one else's fault you are incapable of understanding; and as a result of your own limitations, you keep asking this over and over.

They can't get married for the same reason a gay man can't marry his gay sister. Siblings can't marry, regardless of their gender or sexuality. And allowing some to marry but not others violates the equal protection of those siblings whom would not be allowed to marry.

 

[Skylar]

Now you are changing the argument again.

Nope. Same argument. You just don't know how to read.

You can't argue that because SB377 "doesn't mention" something that it can't mean something...then argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mention something but does mean it.

I said that the 14th amendment mandated equal protection in the law. And that's exactly what it does:

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.

See how that works? I say that the 14th amendment includes a particular passage. And then I quote the 14th amendment itself saying it.

You insist that SB377 mentions the 'sanctioning of marriage'. And then.....you just quote yourself. Notice in all of your pseudo-legal babble...in your entire reply, you never quoted SB377 once.

You've never even read SB377. Let alone quoted it. And have ignored actual citations from the bill repeatedly, instead making up whatever you can imagine about a bill you know nothing about.

Is there anything to your argument that *isn't* you just making shit up?

 

[Boss]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic partnership and leave that to the individual.

 

[Faun]

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.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

 

[Skylar]

. 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.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

Wow... over 800 replies yet "no one gives a shit!"

I must be far more interesting than I imagined myself to be!

No one has accepted you citing you as evidence of anything. That's the part you don't seem to get.

You've never cited SB377. Yuo've never read the law. You know nothing about it. Instead you've ignored every citation of SB377. And made up your own imaginary version of the bill.....that only you can see.

And I'm having a ball demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic partnership and leave that to the individual.

I haven't mentioned a thing about the Constitution regarding your desire to end legal marriage.

I have pointed out repeatedly that you want to take away the legal aspects of marriage that myself- and pretty much every married couple in the United States enjoys.

What your proposal would do would require my wife and I to set up specific contracts to replace what is already in place, to negotiate with employers, and of course you pooh pooh social security payments.

That will go over about as well as proposals to end the home owners interest deduction has.

I understand that you are willing to screw over all married Americans just so you can 'kill homosexual marriage'- that is quite clear.

But it isn't going to happen.