Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

You realize that SB377 requires that participants be...

Shut up, retard... SB377 doesn't require a goddamn thing because it didn't pass. It's irrelevant to the conversation. It doesn't mean anything and it won't ever mean anything because it is a failed bill. It doesn't require anything, it doesn't say anything, it doesn't do anything... it is dead.

It's quite pathetic that you are so desperate for something to win a point on that you are dragging up dead bills to argue against. You can't answer the questions flying at you from every direction, you don't have the capacity to comprehend anything about this issue other than what you've learned to bleat like the good little stupid sheep you are.

All you want to do is try to antagonize me and drag the discussion off into some meaningless opinion you have about a failed bill that doesn't matter anymore. Go fuck yourself, retard.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To undo gay marriage you'd have to undo the country. Good luck with that.

The OP did not state or imply anything that said "undoing gay marriage"...
Once again, a liberal attempts to create a narrative with a lie, fabrication or distortion of the facts.

The narrative was 'killing homosexual marriage'. Which is actually a tad more violent in its terminology.

Nothing "violent" whatsoever in the thread title terminology, you're just an illiterate retard. The word "killing" can only denote violence if it's being applied to a living organism. Homosexual marriage is not a living organism.

Likely because there is no such thing as 'homosexual marriage.'

Each state has only one marriage law, contract law written by the states and administered by state courts. Marriage in each of the 50 states is a union of two equal consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

 

[Boss]

Its a matter of comparison.

No, it's a matter of what I said, retard. "Killing" is only implying violence if you are talking about taking life. Even then, it's not necessarily implying "violence" because you don't consider abortion a violent act, do you? No... but then again, you are a complete and total hypocrite so it doesn't matter. Words just fucking take on the meaning you need them to at the moment. RETARD!

 

[Boss]

Likely because there is no such thing as 'homosexual marriage.'

Then there is no such thing as incest marriage and it's just a contract between two siblings.

 

[Faun]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

 

[Skylar]

You realize that SB377 requires that participants be...

Shut up, retard... SB377 doesn't require a goddamn thing because it didn't pass.

So when you said this, you were lying through your teeth? (bold added for emphasis)

It already happened in Alabama and it passed. Due to a really stupid Wallace-era law, the bill required a super majority because it wasn't on conservative governor Bentley's agenda. Rest assured, it will be on the governor's agenda next session and it will again pass and become state law.

Post 155
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So did it pass, or not? And if you're so sure its going to pass.....why are you suddenly abandoning any discussion of it? This after you made all sorts of pseudo-legal claims about SB377.

What a difference a couple of days makes, eh buddy?

It's irrelevant to the conversation. It doesn't mean anything and it won't ever mean anything because it is a failed bill. It doesn't require anything, it doesn't say anything, it doesn't do anything... it is dead.

Then all your claims about how it will pass and become state law, how other state legislatures will pass similar laws, how under SB377 that there will be no marriage, gay or straight....

....that was just ignorant bullshit?

Say it ain't so, B!

It's quite pathetic that you are so desperate for something to win a point on that you are dragging up dead bills to argue against.

And by 'dragging up dead bills' you mean the bills that you cited, insisted would pass, and made up all sorts of pseudo-legal gibberish about....

....and have now abandoned?

Just because you lost every debate on your every ignorant talking point about them doesn't mean they magically become 'irrelevant'. It merely means you don't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.

See how that works?

 

[Faun]

But what your argue is no different to a breakup of any corporate entities when the partners expressed an expectation of what those partners will bring to the corporation and they need a judge to complete the legal dissolution of the corp, because expectations were not met

The couple sets and expresses those expectations, not the State.

Sex is not a requirement or the state could set those requirements and could "audit" the couple for complience

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!

 

[Skylar]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Perhaps Pop could quote Obergefell saying that incest marriage is now legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Faun]

Chicken littles long winded comment might hold water, if large numbers of people over wide areas balked at the Supreme Court ruling. But as we all know, that didn't happen. As a matter of fact, the transition couldn't have gone better.

I was taught something very important back when I was younger and thinking of going into in the car business.

When you make the sale, stop selling the car.

Those simple words are not a rule, but a warning. You'd be surprised by the number of deals that quickly and permanently unraveled after the sale by failing to heed that warning.

I don't know to whom you are referring. In public most people will avoid the mess and just say they accept it or whatever. When discussed among family friends and neighbors, not happening.
I think the militant gay movement that pushed this agenda is realizing they may have made a huge mistake.
Months ago after the SCOTUS ruling, there were several stories published that had a common theme. That theme is that now that gay marriage is at least in the eyes of the law "normal", that gays no longer felt "special". That they no longer had a battle to fight. That they had to feel like everyone else. Just ordinary citizens. People that go through their days without fanfare, celebrity or the feeling that they have 'special' rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-gay-culture.html?_r=0
Perhaps the militant gay community can find a new purpose. Perhaps representatives of the gay community can travel abroad to nations where gays are severely oppressed and attempt to change THOSE societies.

So let me see if I have you speaking for gay people down correctly.

Gay people think that they made a *mistake* by convincing the USSC to protect them from discrimination in marriage?

It's even worse than that -- he thinks they think they made a mistake because now they feel like ordinary people.



Rightards say the dumbest shit. Honestly.

 

[Faun]

didn't your mother and your church teach you it was wrong to kill,
far worse than letting two people in love to take an oath to each other before some authority or notary.

Homosexuals have always had other means of publicly declaring their deviant affections for one another... but they were not interested in taking those other avenues, because the goal here is not to declare their deviant affections... it is to further undermine Marriage. This as a function of evil, wherein the further undermining of marriage, further erodes the bearing of marital responsibility, which pushes children further into the grips of the deviants who are interested in the legalization of using children for sexual gratification.

Day 108 of the Great Conservative Butthurt™

It's been 15,603 days (and counting) of conservative butthurt since Roe v. Wade. You better get to work, you've got some serious catching up to do!

 

[Pop23]

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Perhaps Pop could quote Obergefell saying that incest marriage is now legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

I won't hold my breath.

Don't hold your breath, that's what children do when they don't get what they want,

Oh, wait.

 

[Pop23]

I asked my parents one time when I was visiting why they felt like gay marriage was ok since they were supposedly Christians. They both said the same thing, "I just don't care. It doesn't effect me so why should I care?"

I think that says a lot about American society in general. We've become such a "me" society that if something doesn't effect "me" then it doesn't matter. I think it's a little narcissistic if you ask me.

I would like to point something out though. A marriage licence is a legally binding document. It has a definition. When heterosexual couples married 5 years ago, marriage had one definition. Now, it has 2. One could argue every single marriage licence is now void because the definition of marriage has changed and should one of the partners decide they don't want any contract with their name on it that uses the word "marriage" that now can mean two gay dudes, they should be able to walk away from it as a null and void contract. Any time you change the meaning of a contract retroactively you void the contract as it is written.

Before you say it doesn't matter, think about it like this. When they got married, if they were alone and told someone they were married, they automatically knew it was an opposite sex partner. Now they have to specify.

Food for thought.

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

 

[Pop23]

What the couple sets as expressions of their expectation is not compelling to the state setting the secular law. Sex and procreation may be part of the couple's expressed desires but not bind at all on the state.

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!

Quote to where is said I was wiling.

Even if I were, all those lovely ladies would probably hound me for it. They love them some hunky Pop.

Get in line Faun, but it's a very long line.

 

[Skylar]

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Perhaps Pop could quote Obergefell saying that incest marriage is now legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

I won't hold my breath.

Don't hold your breath, that's what children do when they don't get what they want,

Oh, wait.

Yeah, that's not a quote from Obergefell saying that incest marriage is legal. Or even mentioning sibling marriage.

That's just you babbling. Try again, this time quoting Obergefell. I'll even help:

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

Show me.

 

[Skylar]

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!

Quote to where is said I was wiling.

Even if I were, all those lovely ladies would probably hound me for it. They love them some hunky Pop.

Get in line Faun, but it's a very long line.

Quote where I said that sex is a requirement of marriage, Troll.

If I said it, it will be remarkably easy for you to cite. If I didn't.....then its gonna be slightly more difficult for you.

 

[Skylar]

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

And how is your obsession with incest and polygamy relevant to 'killing gay marriage'?

Or was that just another OT post?

 

[Faun]

BINGO!

The couple, not the State is allowed to set the expectations within the marriage.

Tradition may be that that the expectation within the partnership contain a sexual component, but the law requires none.

So what is the States compelling interest in denying same sex siblings the "right" to marry for the benefits afforded married couples?

It only took you a year or more to give up sex as a necessary element in marriage. But what you don't get is that is a false equivalency that you have used to set up same-sex and sibling marriage. When you come up with a compelling reason for the state to allow sibling marriage, let us know.

The loony right is willing and eager to give up much as they shake their collective cane at society for allowing same-sex marriage while they lay prostate from the bitch-slapping society handed them. Including, but not limited to:

- government benefits to all married couples.

- sex in marriage.

- marriage being a right.

- all marriages being performed by the states.

WHOA!

You found a statute requiring sex in marriage?

Hey dumbass, link to it!

Thanks for proving my point. I point out how, among others, imbeciles like you are willing to give up sex in marriage and there you go highlighting my point for me.

Thanks!

Quote to where is said I was wiling.

Even if I were, all those lovely ladies would probably hound me for it. They love them some hunky Pop.

Get in line Faun, but it's a very long line.

You can't stop talking about how sex is not a requirement for marriage.

I can tell you unquestionably, it's a requirement in mine, no matter how much you don't care of its required. The remainder of your delusions ... are well ... your delusions.

 

[Faun]

I don't see why they have to specify. For example, I get called a "dude" all the time on this board because it's for whatever reason assumed that I must be a guy. Am I obligated to "fix" the mistaken thinking of the poster in question? No. Sure I can if I wish, but I don't have to. More importantly though, does it change the "worth" of my post if I am a female and not a male?

Most folks figure this kind of shit it out through conversation or don't ever figure it out and it doesn't matter to the conversation at hand. When someone says they're married I don't stop to ponder if they're straight or gay, any more than I stop to ponder if their wife/husband has blond/brunet/brown/black haired. But then again, I tend to see folks as "equals," as it were, regardless because I don't have some odd need to sort them out into race, religion, and sexual orientation/identity to determine their "moral status" while talking to them.

----

That said, on the matter of polygamy, while I support it personally, I can see there being a legal interest in the complexities of divorce, child custody, inheritances, insurance, and tons of other family related law cases.

Though situations like that exist even without any intent of polygamy; in the example of my divorce for example, my second husband has raised my son as "dad" pretty much since before my youngest could crawl - if I were to have died, it could have been an emotional double wammy for my son if my exe wouldn't allow him to retain a relationship with dad 2 for whatever reason. (In my case that would not have happened because my ex and I, and our 'new' wife/husband, have the equivalent of an "open parenting" arrangement heh but I can see it happening.) As far as the law is concerned /only/ the biological parents have any say in anything, step-parents (which is the closest equivalent to a second wife/husband) are basically given zero consideration on the "positive" side of things (they are given consideration if they have negative traits or w/e in custody cases though) thus in a situation of multiple wives/husbands, the law would have to default to bio children's parents which could be devastating for children involved - losing their step brother/sisters, plus stepparents who they see as parents regardless of biology. (I believe that's the safety net they talk about?)

In any event, there is a huge legal mess that'd have to be sorted out before polygamy could be made "legal," so I don't think it's "morals" or "the definition of marriage" that restrict it. That said, I do think it will become legal in the future given the number of non-Christians in the country (and more coming in daily) who have a legit religious reason to practice it; we're just going to have to do some legal juggling to figure out the details of it all. Like will ACA demand that insurance companies cover second wives and shit like that.

----

Incest, I just don't see becoming legal, even if one or two couples can push their cases through the courts because of a non-compelling reason for state restriction, I do not see there being enough people interested to have enough cases to push it to the supreme. Even if the SCOTUS ruled that x brother and their brother can get married, there's not enough incest people in the country, or any one state, to push for any kind of national legalization. Typically incest occurs when a population is small and trapped, or it occurs through arranged marriages to maintain control of family wealth, these are not really things that relate in America, 99.9% of us are too mobile and too aware of our "rights" to not choose our own husband/wife outside the family. I think society would have to regress to an "ownership" status of people for this to be more than a blip of oddity (like the person who can squeeze milk through their eye glands; sure it happens, but it's rare.) I guess I look at it like if some guy wants to marry his sister then whatever, I find it odd, but w/e. I personally find following a religion "odd," anal sex is "odd" to me, breast play is "odd" to me, doesn't mean others can't enjoy/do it though.

I'm a "too each their own thing" kind of person and I have no need nor desire to tell others what's "right" or "wrong" in their personal relationships. Kind of like I don't particularly like my eldest boy's long time girlfriend, she's a snobby little bitch who I'm pretty sure is going to break his heart, but I support his decision to continue his long-standing relationship with her, even knowing that they'll probably get married, because in the long run, ultimately, as long as my son is happy then I will be happy for him/with him. Bottom line for me is that even as a parent, I do not have the "right" to tell my son who he can and cannot marry, why in the hell would I have the right to tell a stranger who they could and could not marry? I personally have to respect /his/ choice, and /their/ choice, as adult American's who have free will and their own opinions, feelings, and tastes. It's not my place to decide for someone else, and that's pretty much the basis of where I stand with the entire issue of marriage "restrictions." ~shrug~

Long post

As for incest, you mistake marriage with sex.

You imply that sex, an act that creates the crime, is a requirement of marriage. If it were you have an argument, yet no one yet has come up with a Statute requiring sex be a part of marriage.

Incest will remain illegal, but it is the states responsibility to prove a crime happened, they cannot presume a crime will happen within the partnership.

To make a claim otherwise, then the state would have the authority to define what qualifies as marital sex.

This has been proven idiotic sooo many times now. Also proven that you are determined to remain tenaciously committed to stupidity.

Again....

If what you are saying is true, and it's not, incestuous couples would have always been allowed to marry.

Prior to the qualification that marriage was between a man and a woman, it would have been impossible.

But you knew that, so you deflect.

You understand equal protection, equal application of the law, states requirement to prove a compelling interest and due process.

Our is it the thought that all people are created equal that pisses you off?

More idiocy. Nothing about Obergefell changed marriage between a man and a woman.

How could you not know that??

Correct, but according to Maryland, it may indeed have changed marriage between brothers.

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

 

[Boss]

See how that works?

You've now been added to my ignore list. See how that works?

 

[Boss]

So explain it then ... how did it change to allow two brothers to marry when a brother couldn't marry his sister.....

Which word are you having trouble with, same or sex?