Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

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.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. .

You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong.

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple.

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'?

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.

Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?

Well Skylar... since Alabama legislators don't generally construct legislation just for the sake of nothingness... I have to assume they had some justification and reasoning behind this. Unless they all just went bat-shit crazy one day and decided to start writing up absolute meaningless bills for no reason. Since most of them are up for re-election, I can't see them doing such a stupid thing.

I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to think they crafted this rather long and arduous bill because they were bored and didn't have anything else to do... so be it! I don't care what you think to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. You keep acting like it should, but I don't know why... it's like a riddle or something.

If you don't think this bill does anything to violate the rights of gay couples or interfere with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage... I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I agree... I don't see anything wrong with the bill whatsoever. If you don't think it changes the nature of the state's association with marriage, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.. I disagree. But if you want to believe that, it's fine with me too. I don't have a problem with you having a wrong opinion.

It's been brought up to you multiple times that the bill would avoid problems of same sex marriage opponents having to put their name to marriage licenses ala Kim Davis. No one has said the bill had no purpose but you.

Except you retards... who just seem to want to be in perpetual fight mode.

The only idiot who perpetually is coming to the boards to fight is you.

Look at your threads- this one- about your 'plan' to 'kill homosexual marriage' and then your previous thread with your cry for America to reject homosexuals.

No one is forcing you to come here and post your opinions- no one is forcing you to reply when you try to support your bigoted views.

Stop posting crap attacking Americans who happen to be homosexuals- and no one will be 'fighting' with you.

 

[Faun]

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.

You're fucking deranged.

I never said the bill does nothing and my quotes you included don't say that either.

I said.the bill doesn't do what you claim it does. That is not me saying the bill does nothing.

I also said Alabama would still recognize marriages if they passed that bill. That too is not me saying the bill does nothing.

There is something seriously deformed with your brain. It doesn't function like a normal brain. You can't understand what people say and you often deny what you yourself said earlier.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

In the very unlikely event that government is ever removed from all aspects of marriage- and married couples are screwed over, then the motivation for couples to marry will vanish.

Will there still be married couples? Of course- you will never kill marriage entirely. But it will become a rare, quaint religious ceremony. Already more and more couples are deciding not to marry- your proposal to kill marriage will just encourage more couples not to marry.

 

[Faun]

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!

By that definition, Alabama would still sanction marriages. Just like my state sanctions my car to be on public roads by me registering it with my state.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

 

[Syriusly]

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

. 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.

Oh I do judge you by what you say- here is one of your OP's:

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot!

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU...

start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

I call you a homophobe based upon the remarks you have made about- and regarding homosexuals

 

[Boss]

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?

When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it.

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will.

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship. It's none of your business.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Because someone must, or family marriage could become reality.

Has anyone been keeping this a secret Sally?

 

[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.

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it.

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will.

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship. It's none of your business.

So- the only reason why you can think of objecting to it is based upon 'morality'

As Pop's has pointed out repeatedly- why do you assume that there would be sex in the marriage?

Secondly- the courts have always rejected 'morality' as a reason for a law- look to Loving v. Virginia- in which the State claimed that among the reasons the State had a ban on mixed race marriages was 'morality' or 'evils'

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages

And of course the courts rejected the 'morality' claims in cases against same gender marriage:

(“The issue before the Court . . . does not turn on the religious or moral debate over intimate
same-sex relationships, but rather on the statutory and constitutional basis for the exclusion
of same-sex couples from the secular benefits and protections offered married couples.”).


Unlike yourself- I can think of other reasons- other than 'morality' - which is of course nothing more than a subjective feeling that varies from individual to individual- to oppose a mother marrying her son.

And so do the courts

Wisconsin:
For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

I don't have to convince you that there is a valid legal reason to oppose incestuous marriages. The courts already recognize that there are.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Oh I just love to point out- when you bring up 'dishonesty' one of your more blatant lies- glad to do so again- since you want to speak about dishonest pricks- here is you being a dishonest prick

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

 

[Pop23]

Boss

The marketing aspect of gay marriage is the most interesting part of this whole equation.

I give credit where credit is due, it was the greatest marketing campaign in history.

Pepsi and McDonalds would be well served by hiring these folks.

First, the issue is not gay marriage.

What the courts ordered was the abolishing of marriage being between one man and one woman as the only legal pairing.

Marriage is now open to any two people regardless of gender. That is not gay marriage,

Prior to Obergfell, the assumption that sex was a part of marriage was clear as it excluded those that could procreate and whose procreation could cause great societal damage through incest, by making those relationship banned from a licence.

If this could have been civilly discussed the obvious would have come to light, and the result would have come to a disgusting conclussion........

Removing the qualification of the contract that one participant be male and the other be female, the next qualification that they be not too closely related a non starter. Remember, Sex is not a requirement to enter into marriage. Marriage became no different than any other partnership agreement, a simple financial tool.

This is where the marketing really kicked in.

Just like the pick pocket that requires a distraction to get into your wallet, their side created that distraction whenever pressed on what would happen after a Obergfell type decision was made.

The distraction?

Homophobia.

Disagree with them and they attact you like fire ants on a goat that wandered into their path with that made up phobia.

Homophobes became the enemy they desperately required.

Interesting how, using their basic arguments, they look like the homophobes now.

Willing to deny groups of people the right to marry, even though sex nor procreation are requirements to enter a marriage contract. And the reason they would deny?

Procreation.

Ironic, isn't it.

 

[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.

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Out of context? What is the context needed to understand that when you said, "I have not brought up pedophiles marrying children" it was untrue?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

When we remove the aspect of morality and apply the exact same "equality rights" argument presented for homosexual marriage, there is not a compelling reason. That is why you are being asked for one... you don't have one. You can't make a rational, non-moralistic, equality-based argument for why we don't allow it.

I can explain to you how I justify not allowing it... I am a moral-based person who doesn't believe that behavior is appropriate. The same reason I oppose homosexual behavior or any number of other deviant sexual behaviors. I think a moral society has the responsibility of restricting our liberty to maintain decency. We aren't allowed to run around naked in public or masturbate in the public pool. These are immoral acts and we don't allow them. But the liberal secular left doesn't have that same moral constraint, they don't believe in God, they don't subscribe to moral decency. That's those God-believers forcing their morals upon you against your will.

Remove the moral aspects, apply the same "equality" argument used for gay marriage, and voila... you have no compelling reason to disallow ANY sort of relationship. It's none of your business.

And here we go again with the 'God = morality' argument. Of course only believers can be moral.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. .

You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong.

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple.

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'?

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.

At least to some extent I agree with Boss on this.

Homosexuals make up a small enough portion of the population that it's almost certain no legislation or referendum would pass if only homosexuals agreed with it. If enough heterosexuals agree, there is almost sure to be a decent portion of those who will feel the desire to push for what they consider equality for homosexuals. Just from a numbers perspective, considering the growth of acceptance of homosexuals, there are likely many heterosexuals involved in various gay rights movements.

I disagree with the idea that the push for equality for homosexuals is based on some desire to destroy Christianity or American society, that is conspiracy theory silliness.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. .

You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong.

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple.

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'?

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.

At least to some extent I agree with Boss on this.

Homosexuals make up a small enough portion of the population that it's almost certain no legislation or referendum would pass if only homosexuals agreed with it. If enough heterosexuals agree, there is almost sure to be a decent portion of those who will feel the desire to push for what they consider equality for homosexuals. Just from a numbers perspective, considering the growth of acceptance of homosexuals, there are likely many heterosexuals involved in various gay rights movements.

I disagree with the idea that the push for equality for homosexuals is based on some desire to destroy Christianity or American society, that is conspiracy theory silliness.

'Normal' homosexuals are not trying to attack Christianity, but the militant leadership is. The mouth-breathing Gay Mafioso types that demand everything for them and fuck you are giving the entire gay community a bad name and losing a great deal of sympathy ac ross the board.

And of course you will predictably deny all this, which is fine by me as you guys are making the case for me with little effort on my part.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Again, the gay marriage initiative is being pushed largely by heterosexuals who perceive inequity. .

You keep making that claim- while ignoring that the evidence shows you are wrong.

There were dozens of couples and individuals across the United States who filed suit to challenge the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans in the United States. Every lawsuit I am familiar with was initiated by gay individuals or couples- including the hallmark cases:
Massachusetts- First state to legally recognize same gender marriage after the State Supreme Court ruled that bans on same gender marriage violated Massachusett's Constitution.
On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. All the plaintiffs had been in long-term relationships with their partners and four of the couples were raising a total of five children. The Department's responsibilities included setting policies under which city and town clerks issue marriage licenses.[1]

Then there was DOMA- where the surviving spouse Edith Windsor (and others) filed suite claiming that Federal laws which would not recognize same gender marriages legally made in states- another gay couple.

Then there was California- where several gay couples sued against California's law- and won in court- refused by the Supreme Court- and thereby legalizing same gender marriage in California.

And of course Obergefel- where a gay couple sued for their constitutional right to marry- and the Supreme Court overturned bans on same gender marriage across the United States.

So who are these 'mythical heterosexuals' that are pushing the 'gay marriage initiative'?

So far they appear to be entirely in your mind.

Like your proposals regarding ending legal marriage.

At least to some extent I agree with Boss on this.

Homosexuals make up a small enough portion of the population that it's almost certain no legislation or referendum would pass if only homosexuals agreed with it. If enough heterosexuals agree, there is almost sure to be a decent portion of those who will feel the desire to push for what they consider equality for homosexuals. Just from a numbers perspective, considering the growth of acceptance of homosexuals, there are likely many heterosexuals involved in various gay rights movements.

I disagree with the idea that the push for equality for homosexuals is based on some desire to destroy Christianity or American society, that is conspiracy theory silliness.

And the marketing continues:

If you disagree with any of this nonsense, you're homophobic. And who wants to be accused of a phobia in this time?

See how this works.

Homophobia implies an irrational fear of homosexuals. You can't rationally think that, by doing away with the qualification that marriage be between a man and a woman could lead to the requirement that married couples be not be too closely related be the fear, you're simply a homophobe, a hater.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Oh I just love to point out- when you bring up 'dishonesty' one of your more blatant lies- glad to do so again- since you want to speak about dishonest pricks- here is you being a dishonest prick

You really want to go into that Boss?

We have caught you lying quite a few times in this thread and the previous thread. Frankly the problem with both of your threads was your dishonesty.

Here is my particular favorite blatant lie- I invite others to post their own favorite Boss lies:

Boss: "I have NOT brought up pedophiles marrying children"

Boss bringing up pedophiles marrying children:

Post #50
We don't allow pedophiles to call child molesting "marriage" and allow them some kind of "right" they aren't entitled to.

Post #111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?
Shouldn't pedophiles be afforded the same rights as homosexuals?

Post #143
The same as not allowing a pedophile to "marry" children because he wants to have sex with children.

Post #197
Now that you've legitimized one group's sexuality through marriage, it has to be equal for all groups. So now, the polygamists will be next, incest partners next, followed by the pedophiles

#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

Post #204
After the polygamists, it will be the pedophiles and hebephiles and zoophiles.

Post #244
Gay people were not being denied equal access to the law any more than pedophiles,

post #246
Now that marriage has been established as a right on the basis of sexuality, you have to afford that right to all similar sexuality and that includes zoophiles, pedophiles, hebephiles, etc

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.

He is simply exposing your bullshit before you have enough Madison Avenue advertising campaigns ready for it.

Too bad for you as he speaks Truth.

 

[Montrovant]

Thank you but I don't think Jim needed an example of you dishonestly taking things I've said out of context. I appreciate you making the effort but I think he probably already knew you were one of the dishonest pricks I was talking about.

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

I didn't say it would be easier for society to reject gays. I said: It would have been easier to condemned homosexuality.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it.