Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Montrovant]

You can feel free to show where someone has claimed the bill was created for the sake of nothingness or because legislators were bored, have at it! I'll happily admit I am wrong. However, the only person I can remember making such statements is you.

Well that's all any of you pro-gay tards have been saying through over 900 posts now... suddenly it's NOT what you've been saying and what you are now saying is exactly what I said from Post #1.

You just posted: Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage.

Either the bill removes the state from officially sanctioning marriages or it doesn't. It can't do both.

You keep trying to interject all kinds of inflammatory claims that I have never made. I never said a damn thing about "divorcing the state from the institution of marriage" and I don't know where you derived such a thing. The State still has statutory requirements to uphold... I've given you that point... wayyyyy back, about 20 pages ago. I've explained the very clear difference between licensing an act and administering a contract to two individual parties. You don't seem to comprehend there is a difference. You went merrily skipping off into la-la-land on a serendipitous obsession with the word "recognize" like you're retarded and don't understand the context.

So this really comes down to you, with your infantile comprehension of context, trying to debate something intelligently and failing all over the place.. then, resorting to your usual myopic focus on some minutia that you think you've got nailed down. When that doesn't work out, you try to twist my argument around and pretend that your making MY argument to ME. That's the real gut buster!

No one but you has said the bill does nothing. You don't provide a quote to anyone saying such a thing because you cannot. It's just something else you've made up. You seem to think that the only possibilities here are that someone agrees with your interpretation of the proposed Alabama bill or they think it does nothing at all.

You have said that the bill ends state sanctioning of marriage. You have said the bill ends state recognition of marriage. You have said the bill ends association of the state with marriage. You have said the bill ends affiliation of the state with marriage. That is, quite obviously, where I get that you think the bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage. You've been talking over and over about getting the government out of marriage, did my phrasing somehow upset you?

The state has statutory requirements to uphold, somehow accomplished without sanction, recognition, association or affiliation. I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract. I've explained that while I understand there is a difference in the way marriage would be obtained under the bill, that does not mean the state no longer sanctions or recognizes or is affiliated with or associated with marriage. I have provided examples of unlicensed marriages recognized by the state of Alabama as well as forms of government authorization and recognition other than license. You have had various portions of the bill in question quoted to you, by multiple posters on multiple occasions, to show you where you are in error in your interpretation. You, on the other hand, have refused to quote anything but yourself in trying to show why your claims are true. You provide zero evidence and in fact complain when asked for such. You claim not to care at all about my opinion yet respond to my posts again and again. You complain about me twisting your argument in the very post you claim that others have been making an argument they have never made.

Yes, I am the one with comprehension issues.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

Still no one has explained how we can kill fag marriage.

The answer is apparent. Let nature run its course and it will solve itself

 

[Boss]

No one but you has said the bill does nothing.

Huh? Why in the hell would I say such a thing? You have a quote of me saying the bill does nothing? I doubt that, since I have been arguing with you since page 1 about how the bill ends state sanctioning of marriages.

But I went back and looked to see how many times someone tried to argue that the bill essentially does nothing. Here is a fairly comprehensive list through page 13:

It was a stupid idea that would solve nothing and result in a myriad of problems and unintended consequences.

What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?

Its a moot point.

It doesn't matter.

And it doesn't matter if Alabama calls marriage a 'contract' or an 'agreement' or a 'license', 'compact' or a turkey sandwich. Whatever they call it gays are afforded the same terms.

Making Alabama's entire little tantrum gloriously irrelevant.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same... Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same..

It doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage or how they record it.

This has already been answered by Syriusly and skylar, but I'll reply as well.

Civil marriage is already a type of contract. Getting a license does not change that. Filling out forms for a government office rather than obtaining a license does not change the state's recognition of marriage. The bill states, over and over, that marriage will continue to exist in and be recognized by the state of Alabama.

Again.....nothing would change with the proposed bill other than the method by which state sanctioned civil marriages are obtained. Nothing.

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage

What you call eliminating state-issued marriage licenses for all ... unless you get it done in all 50 states, it's pointless...

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

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

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

So we see by this, the main "argument" has been that the Alabama proposal would have basically changed nothing but a minor administrative thing that didn't matter. By the way, as of page 13, I did not find a quote from me that nothing is changed. Could be, I made a sarcastic reply to someone and your Forrest Gump mind interpreted it that way.

 

[Boss]

I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.

Yep... and a gun is still a form of weapon even if it's not registered to a licensed user.

It is the license which associates the State with the action being licensed.

li·cense
noun
1. a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages).
"a gun license"
synonyms: permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant

So we are clear on this... The State of Alabama issuing a LICENSE to marry, is officially sanctioning, endorsing, condoning, permitting, authorizing the act of marriage. There is no ambiguity, this is clearly state sanctioning of marriage, plain and simple.

con·tract
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

The State of Alabama administering a contract between two parties is not sanctioning anything. The State is not a party to the contract. They are not permitting, authorizing, sanctioning, endorsing, condoning or even recognizing the nature or reason for the contract. The only reason they are required by statutory law to record the contract is to prevent multiple contracts from the same parties and for vital statistics.

They still have to administer statutory law regarding the contract, they still have to uphold contract law with regard to the contract. The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license. If those benefits should ever cease for married couples, they would also cease for those with contracts. In other words, from a legal standpoint, there is no difference. But there CAN'T be a difference or it would violate the SCOTUS ruling and the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional rule of law. That's important to note, as you all parade through and lament how this law changes virtually nothing... it's not supposed to change much... that's the point.

The thing it changes fundamentally is the state's complicity or association with the act of marriage.

This is what I mean by "sanctioning."

sanc·tion
verb
1. give official permission or approval for (an action).

AKA: WHAT ALABAMA WILL NO LONGER BE DOING WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE!

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have a right to what you thin, Boss.

You are wrong is the point, and why has been clearly pointed out and why.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.

Yep... and a gun is still a form of weapon even if it's not registered to a licensed user.

It is the license which associates the State with the action being licensed.

li·cense
noun
1. a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages).
"a gun license"
synonyms: permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant

So we are clear on this... The State of Alabama issuing a LICENSE to marry, is officially sanctioning, endorsing, condoning, permitting, authorizing the act of marriage. There is no ambiguity, this is clearly state sanctioning of marriage, plain and simple.

con·tract
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

The State of Alabama administering a contract between two parties is not sanctioning anything. The State is not a party to the contract. They are not permitting, authorizing, sanctioning, endorsing, condoning or even recognizing the nature or reason for the contract. The only reason they are required by statutory law to record the contract is to prevent multiple contracts from the same parties and for vital statistics.

They still have to administer statutory law regarding the contract, they still have to uphold contract law with regard to the contract. The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license. If those benefits should ever cease for married couples, they would also cease for those with contracts. In other words, from a legal standpoint, there is no difference. But there CAN'T be a difference or it would violate the SCOTUS ruling and the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional rule of law. That's important to note, as you all parade through and lament how this law changes virtually nothing... it's not supposed to change much... that's the point.

The thing it changes fundamentally is the state's complicity or association with the act of marriage.

This is what I mean by "sanctioning."

sanc·tion
verb
1. give official permission or approval for (an action).

AKA: WHAT ALABAMA WILL NO LONGER BE DOING WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE!

The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license

.

And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.

 

[Montrovant]

No one but you has said the bill does nothing.

Huh? Why in the hell would I say such a thing? You have a quote of me saying the bill does nothing? I doubt that, since I have been arguing with you since page 1 about how the bill ends state sanctioning of marriages.

But I went back and looked to see how many times someone tried to argue that the bill essentially does nothing. Here is a fairly comprehensive list through page 13:

It was a stupid idea that would solve nothing and result in a myriad of problems and unintended consequences.

What does it matter if states issue a marriage license or if couples file a form?

Its a moot point.

It doesn't matter.

And it doesn't matter if Alabama calls marriage a 'contract' or an 'agreement' or a 'license', 'compact' or a turkey sandwich. Whatever they call it gays are afforded the same terms.

Making Alabama's entire little tantrum gloriously irrelevant.

All of the legal recognition of marriage in Alabama will continue exactly the same... Legal marriage in Alabama would remain exactly the same..

It doesn't matter what Alabama calls marriage or how they record it.

This has already been answered by Syriusly and skylar, but I'll reply as well.

Civil marriage is already a type of contract. Getting a license does not change that. Filling out forms for a government office rather than obtaining a license does not change the state's recognition of marriage. The bill states, over and over, that marriage will continue to exist in and be recognized by the state of Alabama.

Again.....nothing would change with the proposed bill other than the method by which state sanctioned civil marriages are obtained. Nothing.

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage

What you call eliminating state-issued marriage licenses for all ... unless you get it done in all 50 states, it's pointless...

And Alabama will still recognize same-sex marriages.

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

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

So we see by this, the main "argument" has been that the Alabama proposal would have basically changed nothing but a minor administrative thing that didn't matter. By the way, as of page 13, I did not find a quote from me that nothing is changed. Could be, I made a sarcastic reply to someone and your Forrest Gump mind interpreted it that way.

Would have changed nothing but a minor administrative thing. That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does not do what you claim it does.

When I said you are the only one who said the bill is going to do nothing, I did not mean you made the claim it would do nothing. I meant you are the only one who has said that such a claim was made. I should have been clearer, apparently. You are the only one who has posted the statements that the bill does nothing or that legislators created it because they were bored. You were attributing those things to others who had not said those things.

You are correct, the bill would change nothing but a minor administrative matter. That means it is changing something, not nothing.

 

[Montrovant]

I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.

Yep... and a gun is still a form of weapon even if it's not registered to a licensed user.

It is the license which associates the State with the action being licensed.

li·cense
noun
1. a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages).
"a gun license"
synonyms: permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant

So we are clear on this... The State of Alabama issuing a LICENSE to marry, is officially sanctioning, endorsing, condoning, permitting, authorizing the act of marriage. There is no ambiguity, this is clearly state sanctioning of marriage, plain and simple.

con·tract
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

The State of Alabama administering a contract between two parties is not sanctioning anything. The State is not a party to the contract. They are not permitting, authorizing, sanctioning, endorsing, condoning or even recognizing the nature or reason for the contract. The only reason they are required by statutory law to record the contract is to prevent multiple contracts from the same parties and for vital statistics.

They still have to administer statutory law regarding the contract, they still have to uphold contract law with regard to the contract. The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license. If those benefits should ever cease for married couples, they would also cease for those with contracts. In other words, from a legal standpoint, there is no difference. But there CAN'T be a difference or it would violate the SCOTUS ruling and the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional rule of law. That's important to note, as you all parade through and lament how this law changes virtually nothing... it's not supposed to change much... that's the point.

The thing it changes fundamentally is the state's complicity or association with the act of marriage.

This is what I mean by "sanctioning."

sanc·tion
verb
1. give official permission or approval for (an action).

AKA: WHAT ALABAMA WILL NO LONGER BE DOING WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE!

That state of Alabama must give permission or approval for persons to be married. Marriage contracts will not be whatever the parties desire them to be, they must still follow the same rules as before the bill. The state will still provide the same benefits to married couples as before the bill. The state absolutely recognizes the reason for the marriage, as every aspect of marriage law would remain the same other than the method of entering into marriage. The nature of marriage does not change under the bill.

The state of Alabama already recognizes unlicensed marriages with civil marriages. How is that possible if, as you claim, marriages without the issuance of a license are unrecognised by the state?

Look, how's this : you can have the word sanction. It's yours. The state doesn't sanction marriages under the bill if you say so. However, the state does continue to recognize marriage under the bill. Would that make you happy?

 

[Boss]

And there you have it! End of story. You're fantasy about killing gay marriage by doing away with benefits is dead. Not happening. Over. This was an exercise in futility for Alabama-and for you. And by the way, the bill itself is now dead. Have a good day.

It's not over 'til the fat tranny sings. Alabama will pass a bill next session and it will probably not be the first state to do so. Our financial situation requires that we cut benefits at some point soon, that is inevitably going to happen regardless of gay marriage. And I think, as people begin to realize what a problem gay marriage has caused in terms of affording equal rights to other sexually-oriented groups who will challenge the law the same as homosexuals, we will see more and more support for this approach.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. Most pro-gay marriage supporters, when asked why they support gay marriage, reply instantly... it's because they think gay couples deserve the same rights and benefits as straight couples. Well, the matter of equal rights has been settled by SCOTUS. Remove "benefits" for all marriage and the support for gay marriage evaporates.

We also have to remember, societal and cultural views don't exist in a never-changing vacuum. We can look at our own history and see the "progressive" movement actually ratify an amendment to the constitution to ban alcohol. This resulted in a decade of promiscuity we call "the roaring 20s" where people basically "broke wild" and it's probably a wonder we didn't adopt gay marriage then. However, the next generation was more reserved and refined, society became more conservative. Through WWII and the 50s, we remained conservative until the 60s counterculture. So for a decade, again we're a liberal society. Then what happened? Through the mid 70's to the 80s, we became conservative again. We're currently in a liberal phase but this is bound to change as it always does.

You see, kids grow up. They look at what their parents did, the things that were important to their parents, the things their parents were into or supported... and they do as kids always have, they rebel. They seek to be the total opposite of who their parents were because that's no longer 'cool' anymore. As liberal as the current generation is, the next generation will be just as conservative. It's like an ever-moving pendulum that swings back and forth.

So this is not over by a long shot. Eventually, government will be removed from all aspects of marriage and the motivations for gays to marry will vanish as fast as they came. Will there still be married gays? Of course! We'll never kill this entirely. But it will be such a rare and obscure thing we'll hardly notice it.

 

[Boss]

Would have changed nothing but a minor administrative thing. That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does not do what you claim it does.

Well sure it does, you're just trying to interject a bunch of things I never claimed it would do and form an argument around that. As I said, this is not a "stand in the schoolhouse door" moment. Alabama is not going to try and pass some law that defies the SCOTUS or the ruling in this case. This is why it changes nothing with regard to legality and makes very little difference in terms of what "still can" be done. What it changes is the nature of the relationship between government and marriage. It removes government from whatever society has defined as marriage and makes that an individual choice not associated with the government. Yes, it does remedy the Kim Davis problem but it does far more.

It's the first step in "cutting off the head of the snake" so to speak. Once government is out of the marrying business, legislators will methodically begin to remove state and government "benefits" whenever they can. The tax deduction for married couples will likely be the first thing to go. Some GOP candidates are already proposing Flat tax and Fair tax plans... others, even on the left, are screaming and hollering about "loopholes" being closed... well, the tax break for married couples IS a loophole. And it's when all of this transpires that we begin to see less and less reason for gays to go through the formalities. Some will-- most won't bother. Now you are down to a fraction of a fraction. Gay marriage eventually becomes so obscure it's almost unheard of. I estimate 15-20 years for all of this to transpire.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.

Yep... and a gun is still a form of weapon even if it's not registered to a licensed user.

It is the license which associates the State with the action being licensed.

li·cense
noun
1. a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages).
"a gun license"
synonyms: permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant

So we are clear on this... The State of Alabama issuing a LICENSE to marry, is officially sanctioning, endorsing, condoning, permitting, authorizing the act of marriage. There is no ambiguity, this is clearly state sanctioning of marriage, plain and simple.

con·tract
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

The State of Alabama administering a contract between two parties is not sanctioning anything. The State is not a party to the contract. They are not permitting, authorizing, sanctioning, endorsing, condoning or even recognizing the nature or reason for the contract. The only reason they are required by statutory law to record the contract is to prevent multiple contracts from the same parties and for vital statistics.

They still have to administer statutory law regarding the contract, they still have to uphold contract law with regard to the contract. The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license. If those benefits should ever cease for married couples, they would also cease for those with contracts. In other words, from a legal standpoint, there is no difference. But there CAN'T be a difference or it would violate the SCOTUS ruling and the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional rule of law. That's important to note, as you all parade through and lament how this law changes virtually nothing... it's not supposed to change much... that's the point.

The thing it changes fundamentally is the state's complicity or association with the act of marriage.

This is what I mean by "sanctioning."

sanc·tion
verb
1. give official permission or approval for (an action).

AKA: WHAT ALABAMA WILL NO LONGER BE DOING WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE!

That state of Alabama must give permission or approval for persons to be married.

Not if the state of Alabama decides to not license marriages any more, dude.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Would have changed nothing but a minor administrative thing. That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does not do what you claim it does.

Well sure it does, you're just trying to interject a bunch of things I never claimed it would do and form an argument around that. As I said, this is not a "stand in the schoolhouse door" moment. Alabama is not going to try and pass some law that defies the SCOTUS or the ruling in this case. This is why it changes nothing with regard to legality and makes very little difference in terms of what "still can" be done. What it changes is the nature of the relationship between government and marriage. It removes government from whatever society has defined as marriage and makes that an individual choice not associated with the government. Yes, it does remedy the Kim Davis problem but it does far more.

It's the first step in "cutting off the head of the snake" so to speak. Once government is out of the marrying business, legislators will methodically begin to remove state and government "benefits" whenever they can. The tax deduction for married couples will likely be the first thing to go. Some GOP candidates are already proposing Flat tax and Fair tax plans... others, even on the left, are screaming and hollering about "loopholes" being closed... well, the tax break for married couples IS a loophole. And it's when all of this transpires that we begin to see less and less reason for gays to go through the formalities. Some will-- most won't bother. Now you are down to a fraction of a fraction. Gay marriage eventually becomes so obscure it's almost unheard of. I estimate 15-20 years for all of this to transpire.

Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?

 

[Montrovant]

I've explained to you that even with a license, marriage is a form of contract.

Yep... and a gun is still a form of weapon even if it's not registered to a licensed user.

It is the license which associates the State with the action being licensed.

li·cense
noun
1. a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade (especially in alcoholic beverages).
"a gun license"
synonyms: permit, certificate, document, documentation, authorization, warrant

So we are clear on this... The State of Alabama issuing a LICENSE to marry, is officially sanctioning, endorsing, condoning, permitting, authorizing the act of marriage. There is no ambiguity, this is clearly state sanctioning of marriage, plain and simple.

con·tract
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

The State of Alabama administering a contract between two parties is not sanctioning anything. The State is not a party to the contract. They are not permitting, authorizing, sanctioning, endorsing, condoning or even recognizing the nature or reason for the contract. The only reason they are required by statutory law to record the contract is to prevent multiple contracts from the same parties and for vital statistics.

They still have to administer statutory law regarding the contract, they still have to uphold contract law with regard to the contract. The parties with the contract, for now, are afforded the same benefits and tax breaks as parties with a marriage license. If those benefits should ever cease for married couples, they would also cease for those with contracts. In other words, from a legal standpoint, there is no difference. But there CAN'T be a difference or it would violate the SCOTUS ruling and the 14th Amendment and the Constitutional rule of law. That's important to note, as you all parade through and lament how this law changes virtually nothing... it's not supposed to change much... that's the point.

The thing it changes fundamentally is the state's complicity or association with the act of marriage.

This is what I mean by "sanctioning."

sanc·tion
verb
1. give official permission or approval for (an action).

AKA: WHAT ALABAMA WILL NO LONGER BE DOING WITH REGARD TO MARRIAGE!

That state of Alabama must give permission or approval for persons to be married.

Not if the state of Alabama decides to not license marriages any more, dude.

Clearly you did not read the proposed bill which has been linked and quoted over and over again. Based on that bill, yes, the state would still have to approve marriages. Even without a licensing requirement the rules surrounding marriage would remain in place. Further, Alabama already recognizes and permits common law marriages which are entered into without license.

 

[Montrovant]

Would have changed nothing but a minor administrative thing. That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does not do what you claim it does.

Well sure it does, you're just trying to interject a bunch of things I never claimed it would do and form an argument around that. As I said, this is not a "stand in the schoolhouse door" moment. Alabama is not going to try and pass some law that defies the SCOTUS or the ruling in this case. This is why it changes nothing with regard to legality and makes very little difference in terms of what "still can" be done. What it changes is the nature of the relationship between government and marriage. It removes government from whatever society has defined as marriage and makes that an individual choice not associated with the government. Yes, it does remedy the Kim Davis problem but it does far more.

It's the first step in "cutting off the head of the snake" so to speak. Once government is out of the marrying business, legislators will methodically begin to remove state and government "benefits" whenever they can. The tax deduction for married couples will likely be the first thing to go. Some GOP candidates are already proposing Flat tax and Fair tax plans... others, even on the left, are screaming and hollering about "loopholes" being closed... well, the tax break for married couples IS a loophole. And it's when all of this transpires that we begin to see less and less reason for gays to go through the formalities. Some will-- most won't bother. Now you are down to a fraction of a fraction. Gay marriage eventually becomes so obscure it's almost unheard of. I estimate 15-20 years for all of this to transpire.

Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?

Not only am I not a liberal, you have already shown yourself unwilling or unable to follow the conversation you've decided to interject yourself into.

 

[Syriusly]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

There are several problems with you post.

• You keep saying that I am saying "I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" - but that of course is to be charitable- false. I haven't said that at all.
  
• I have explained repeatedly why a constitutional right can be denied to one couple and not to another- for the same reason a state can deny the right to legally own a gun to one person- but not another. Why should I explain it again- when you will ignore it again?
• But I will anyway- the State can deny a right when there is a compelling benefit- a legitimate interest- to the State- quoting from Wisconsin again:.

but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo
...
Accordingly, this interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.

• And what is that 'compelling state interest'? Well an interest most people can figure out- but not you?
  
• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

LMFAooo... A-GAIN.... you tear off on a long-winded rant that simply dodges the question!

"Most people can figure out why it's wrong" is NOT answering the question!

In fact, it is the very SAME ARGUMENT made by those who once opposed gay marriages.

SUDDENLY... it seems to be a valid argument!

You just ignored everything in my post.

Let me repeat.

First I pointed out that you lied about what I said.
Then I pointed out how you ignored what i had said.
Then I answered one of your questions- which you ignored again.
And then I asked you a question- which you dodged- so once again:

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

Not surprised that Boss doesn't want to answer the question

You just ignored everything in my post.

Let me repeat.

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

 

[Syriusly]

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

As he said- gender is no longer a roadblock.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

And up until a few weeks ago, neither could same sex.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

I do object, but objecting and.........

Finding a compelling state interest to deny these individuals the rights and benefits to of the licence, one that does not have sex as a requirement are, once again........

Two different things entirely

You object- but you can't think of any compelling reason why a son should not marry his infertile mother?

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son should marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son should marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

 

[Boss]

Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?

The real problem here is the dishonesty. If you go back and read the replies from the start of this thread, you see a pattern of dishonesty in discourse from page 1. Over and over, I have to correct someone who is either misquoting me or taking me out of context, or even interjecting totally crazy shit that I never said but implying I said it. They try to morph your arguments into something crazy they can attack and a lot of people don't know how to deal with it, so they get away with this and feel emboldened.

The other thing that is prevalent is their bigotry and hypocrisy. They assume because I am a conservative, I must fit this 'stereotype' they've concocted for all things conservative. They don't judge me by what I say, it doesn't matter what I say, it's all about their perception based on a bigoted stereotype and I guarantee that attribute transfers to their personal relationships.

 

[Montrovant]

Would have changed nothing but a minor administrative thing. That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does not do what you claim it does.

Well sure it does, you're just trying to interject a bunch of things I never claimed it would do and form an argument around that. As I said, this is not a "stand in the schoolhouse door" moment. Alabama is not going to try and pass some law that defies the SCOTUS or the ruling in this case. This is why it changes nothing with regard to legality and makes very little difference in terms of what "still can" be done. What it changes is the nature of the relationship between government and marriage. It removes government from whatever society has defined as marriage and makes that an individual choice not associated with the government. Yes, it does remedy the Kim Davis problem but it does far more.

It's the first step in "cutting off the head of the snake" so to speak. Once government is out of the marrying business, legislators will methodically begin to remove state and government "benefits" whenever they can. The tax deduction for married couples will likely be the first thing to go. Some GOP candidates are already proposing Flat tax and Fair tax plans... others, even on the left, are screaming and hollering about "loopholes" being closed... well, the tax break for married couples IS a loophole. And it's when all of this transpires that we begin to see less and less reason for gays to go through the formalities. Some will-- most won't bother. Now you are down to a fraction of a fraction. Gay marriage eventually becomes so obscure it's almost unheard of. I estimate 15-20 years for all of this to transpire.

But government would not be out of the marrying business. It would only be out of the marriage license business. It would still approve, regulate, and adjudicate marriage. Marriages would be treated the same by the state as they were previous to the bill.

Political calls for changes to the tax code have next to nothing to do with marriage. I have never heard a politician mention tax breaks for marriage when discussing problems with the tax code. In fact, I would guess that any tax breaks for marriage would be about the last thing any politician would want to bring up when pushing changes to tax law.

You still have not answered whether you think someone can create a new immediate family relationship where none existed before in a non-marital contract. If marriage would become just another contract, why would government require marriage (or adoption, but that isn't relevant to this discussion) to create a new family relationship? If government does require marriage, would that mean that this new, non-government associated joining would no longer be recognized by government as a new family?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Would have changed nothing but a minor administrative thing. That minor administrative thing is the whole point. As I have said, multiple times, the bill is an attempt to appease the Kim Davis's of the state. What people have been telling you is that the minor administrative thing is the point and the bill does not do what you claim it does.

Well sure it does, you're just trying to interject a bunch of things I never claimed it would do and form an argument around that. As I said, this is not a "stand in the schoolhouse door" moment. Alabama is not going to try and pass some law that defies the SCOTUS or the ruling in this case. This is why it changes nothing with regard to legality and makes very little difference in terms of what "still can" be done. What it changes is the nature of the relationship between government and marriage. It removes government from whatever society has defined as marriage and makes that an individual choice not associated with the government. Yes, it does remedy the Kim Davis problem but it does far more.

It's the first step in "cutting off the head of the snake" so to speak. Once government is out of the marrying business, legislators will methodically begin to remove state and government "benefits" whenever they can. The tax deduction for married couples will likely be the first thing to go. Some GOP candidates are already proposing Flat tax and Fair tax plans... others, even on the left, are screaming and hollering about "loopholes" being closed... well, the tax break for married couples IS a loophole. And it's when all of this transpires that we begin to see less and less reason for gays to go through the formalities. Some will-- most won't bother. Now you are down to a fraction of a fraction. Gay marriage eventually becomes so obscure it's almost unheard of. I estimate 15-20 years for all of this to transpire.

Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?

What is it the we don't understand Bubba? let's talk about what you guys don't understand or don't want to understand

Same sex marriage is LEGAL nationwide and is here to stay

Every American who is married gets all of the government benefits and rights that go with marriage and that is not changing

Alabama is not the first state to try to squirm out of it and may not be the last, but all have been pathetic and comical failures and will continue to be.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you ever feel like when you are discussing something with these libtards that they cant hold a point for more than five minutes?

The real problem here is the dishonesty. If you go back and read the replies from the start of this thread, you see a pattern of dishonesty in discourse from page 1. Over and over, I have to correct someone who is either misquoting me or taking me out of context, or even interjecting totally crazy shit that I never said but implying I said it. They try to morph your arguments into something crazy they can attack and a lot of people don't know how to deal with it, so they get away with this and feel emboldened.

The other thing that is prevalent is their bigotry and hypocrisy. They assume because I am a conservative, I must fit this 'stereotype' they've concocted for all things conservative. They don't judge me by what I say, it doesn't matter what I say, it's all about their perception based on a bigoted stereotype and I guarantee that attribute transfers to their personal relationships.

It's true, their is a pattern of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Unfortunately it's mostly from you. You've had your lies and hypocrisy shown to you through quotes of your own words on multiple occasions. That you choose to ignore them doesn't make them not exist. You've 'interjected totally crazy shit that someone never said' when you claimed people were arguing that the proposed bill did nothing. You have shown your hypocrisy when telling others to 'shut the fuck up' after complaining that you cannot be made to 'sit down and shut up'. Have you forgotten these and the various other instances in this and your 'better to have condemned homosexuality' thread?

As far as bigotry and assumption, wow! You are the person who's said you expect gays to push legislation allowing them to rape you on the streets. You've claimed gays know that what they do is wrong and they can never accept themselves. You've made statements that many people arguing with you are in homosexual relationships because you seem to assume anyone who disagrees with you must themselves be gay.....odd, considering your statements that heterosexuals are the real force behind the gay rights movement.

I won't speak for anyone else, by my perception of you is not based on some bigoted stereotype. It's based entirely on interacting with you on this board. I don't need stereotypes, I can just read the things you post.