Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[P@triot]

That's how the SCOTUS interpreted it, as a tax. Who am I to disagree? Why did you ignore this?

You are either the most ignorant, misinformed moron on USMB or you are a liar. Please decide which it is and let the rest of us know.

It was NOT the Supreme Court who decided it was a "tax". It was the Obama Administration that presented their case to the Supreme Court as a tax. And that was after screaming for nearly 4 years that it was not a tax. I know you hate facts (because they prove you are on the wrong side of them), but these are the undeniable, indisputable FACTS.

You are simply incapable of acknowledging any lie, scandal, mistake, or bad policy by a liberal. For a self-described "lesbian", you sure love sucking Barack Obama off for all you are worth.

No, the administration argued that it was a penalty, Justice Roberts decided it was a tax.

Why do you insist on speaking from a position of ignorance? I either know what I'm talking about, or I refuse to talk about it. You, however, for some reason prefer to not know what you're talking about but still talking about it.

The Administration screamed "this is not a tax" for 4 years. When it got to the Supreme Court, their official argument before the Supreme Court was "this is a tax and the federal government has the power to tax people".

There’s been a big dust-up in the media this week as to whether or not Republicans agree with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a tax. What the media didn’t tell you is that John Roberts didn’t invent this argument. Indeed, he learned it from…President Obama, whose lawyers have argued all along, in court, that the individual mandate is a tax. It’s particularly notable, given the fact that candidate Obama, in 2008, swore up and down that he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-class Americans.

Obama Administration: Obamacare's Individual Mandate 'Is a Tax' - Forbes

And for the record, the media DID report on this - over and over and over. The hypocrisy of Obama claiming before the Supreme Court that the AHCA was a "tax" so it would be found Constitutional was and is appalling after he screamed for 4 years that it was not a tax.

I'll tell you Seawytch, it's getting really old discussing anything with you because you are so profoundly uninformed and ignorant about nearly every topic. Either get informed, or shut the fuck up. It's absurd that there are Americans like you who rant like lunatics from a position of pure ignorance.

 

[P@triot]

Before his inauguration, John F. Kennedy was briefed on a plan by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) developed during the Eisenhower administration to train Cuban exiles for an invasion of their homeland. The plan anticipated that the Cuban people and elements of the Cuban military would support the invasion. The ultimate goal was the overthrow of Castro and the establishment of a non-communist government friendly to the United States.

Bay of Pigs

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your rantings. This is too much fun.

Even in the face of DATES that are verifiable and indisputable, you still can't accept reality. It doesn't matter when the C.I.A. started planning anything. JFK was the president. He made the decisions. It was his choice to invade. Period. God almighty are you an ignorant partisan hack and you are seriously embarrassing yourself right now. Here are the dates again, I can post them as many times as you can deny the earth is round and that Kennedy was completely and fully in charge and giving the orders...

Kennedy officiallly took office at noon on January 20, 1961.

The Opertaions Northwoods memo is dated March 13, 1962

And the Bay of Pigs operation was April 17, 1961

Hey, I know! Why don't you tell us now how Kennedy and Clinton didn't cheat on their wives 24x7....[/QUOTE]

 

[P@triot]

Hey Rotty, I notice you've completely abandoned the original premise of your thread. Care to return to it and tell us what YOU think the consequences are of "redefining" marriage?

I didn't "abandoned" anything - I just chased you libtards around the room with facts as you continued to run from them.

The consequences of redefining marriage are VERY clear - once you do it, you don't have a leg to stand on for any other form of marriage. Period. You, yourself, practice a very strange form of love. So who are you, after advocating for your homosexual relationship to be recognized, to tell someone else they can't marry a dog or a goat? You can't - you'll just be a typical liberal hypocrite.

By the way, before you pretend (as you always do) that "slippery slope" doesn't exist, just remember that 100 years ago, killing a fetus would have been unthinkable by anyone's standards. Today, not only do we have millions of abortions a year, but we now have "academics" making the case in a medical journal that we should have the right to KILL children up to 4 years old because of "buyers remorse" and the fact that they don't have a right to life at that age

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Rotty, I notice you've completely abandoned the original premise of your thread. Care to return to it and tell us what YOU think the consequences are of "redefining" marriage?

I didn't "abandoned" anything - I just chased you libtards around the room with facts as you continued to run from them.

The consequences of redefining marriage are VERY clear - once you do it, you don't have a leg to stand on for any other form of marriage. Period. You, yourself, practice a very strange form of love. So who are you, after advocating for your homosexual relationship to be recognized, to tell someone else they can't marry a dog or a goat? You can't - you'll just be a typical liberal hypocrite.

By the way, before you pretend (as you always do) that "slippery slope" doesn't exist, just remember that 100 years ago, killing a fetus would have been unthinkable by anyone's standards. Today, not only do we have millions of abortions a year, but we now have "academics" making the case in a medical journal that we should have the right to KILL children up to 4 years old because of "buyers remorse" and the fact that they don't have a right to life at that age

It's been almost 10 years now in Massachusetts even more for some countries. How's that slippery slope fallacy going for you?

Dogs and goats cannot enter into a legal contract. Why is that such a difficult concept for you? Now, if your church wanted to perform a ceremony for you and your dog, they could, but it wouldn't be a legal marriage contract.

There is no slippery slope, Puppy. Allowing non familial consenting adult couples to legally marry and care for each other isn't going to lead to people marrying children, animals, dead people or inanimate objects just as abortion has not led to infanticide no matter the opinion of a small handful of quacks.

Seriously Puppy, are you trying to contend that abortion is a new phenomenon that wasn't performed 100 years ago? Abortions have been performed since the first unwanted pregnancy. Thankfully, they are NOT performed the way they were 100 years ago, but are done safely under the care of a doctor.

Little Puppy, the only way you're going to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancies.

You can't stop gay marriage. Minnesota is likely to be the 12th state to pass a gay marriage bill with Delaware hot on their tail. It's done and just a matter of time. Get ready for the sky to fall, Chicken Little.

 

[Seawytch]

Correction, Delaware was the 11th state to pass a gay marriage bill. Looks like Minnesota will likely be 12th and a handful are vying for lucky 13. Place your bets!

I'm thinking Alabama or Mississippi will be last if we do this the state by state way.

 

[JoeB131]

Correction, Delaware was the 11th state to pass a gay marriage bill. Looks like Minnesota will likely be 12th and a handful are vying for lucky 13. Place your bets!

I'm thinking Alabama or Mississippi will be last if we do this the state by state way.

TRue,

BUt if DOMA is struck down, these states will have to recognize other state's marriage licenses, and frankly, I can't see states forfeiting money for very long.

 

[Redfish]

I will always believe that your beliefs don't matter when it comes to being treated equally under the law.

I will always believe that red hair, being left handed and picking your nose are all aberrations, but I would never deny them the right to legally marry because of it.

Time has already told this story. We know how it ends. Rejoice!

butch or fem, twychy? you never did tell us which role you play.

hair color or which hand you write with are not comparable to an aberration that places two mammals of the same sex in a sexual relationship. nose picking ? really? you equate nose picking to gay sex------what exactly do you and your partner do? no, never mind, I don't want to know.

spin all you want, biology says you are an aberration of the human animal.

Not very kind. If I was a neg rep kinda person I would give you one.

Thing is, you're entitled to your opinion in hating gay people - that's America and the first Amendment.

But what I can't understand is why you want to make everyone else around you behave just like you (with strictly defined rules).

I'm a supporter of small gov't and think that folks should be able to do what they like so long as no harm is being done to anyone else.

What about you?


.

why is it that liberals never read a post before responding to it? I do not hate gay people, I have gay friends and family members. I fully support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

the only thing I object to is gay "marriage". A marriage is one man and one woman, it has been so for thousands of years.

I support civil unions or mutual support contracts for gays, those instuments give them equal rights to insurance, inheritance, ownership of property etc.

But when you listen to people like wytchy, its not really about equality, its all about forcing the rest of us to accept their "marriage".

equality---yes
marriage---no

 

[Redfish]

Correction, Delaware was the 11th state to pass a gay marriage bill. Looks like Minnesota will likely be 12th and a handful are vying for lucky 13. Place your bets!

I'm thinking Alabama or Mississippi will be last if we do this the state by state way.

funny fact about Alabama and Mississippi. Both states have high percentages of blacks. Those black populations overwhelmingly vote against gay marriage and are opposed to it on religious grounds.

But they vote for democrats.

 

[Seawytch]

butch or fem, twychy? you never did tell us which role you play.

hair color or which hand you write with are not comparable to an aberration that places two mammals of the same sex in a sexual relationship. nose picking ? really? you equate nose picking to gay sex------what exactly do you and your partner do? no, never mind, I don't want to know.

spin all you want, biology says you are an aberration of the human animal.

Not very kind. If I was a neg rep kinda person I would give you one.

Thing is, you're entitled to your opinion in hating gay people - that's America and the first Amendment.

But what I can't understand is why you want to make everyone else around you behave just like you (with strictly defined rules).

I'm a supporter of small gov't and think that folks should be able to do what they like so long as no harm is being done to anyone else.

What about you?


.

why is it that liberals never read a post before responding to it? I do not hate gay people, I have gay friends and family members. I fully support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

the only thing I object to is gay "marriage". A marriage is one man and one woman, it has been so for thousands of years.

I support civil unions or mutual support contracts for gays, those instuments give them equal rights to insurance, inheritance, ownership of property etc.

But when you listen to people like wytchy, its not really about equality, its all about forcing the rest of us to accept their "marriage".

equality---yes
marriage---no

Actually, if you listen to "people like me" you do realize it is about equality. If you listen to "people like Fishy" you are led to believe it is about "forcing" something on you. It isn't. It really is about equality as has been explained to Fishy from the get-go.

We even told Fishy we don't care what you call it, as long as it is exactly the same for all couples. Having one thing for one group of people and something else for the rest of the people isn't equal. They even have a term for it, Fishy. Ya ready? It was called "Separate but equal". How did that turn out historically?

Fishy, your church will be free to deny marrying any couple it likes, the government does not have that "luxury". It has to treat all of its tax paying citizens equally under the law. If you get a marriage license, I get a marriage license. If you want to change it to another name, I give you 100% latitude to do it. Call it any damn thing you want from civil union to dirty socks...just make it EXACTLY the same for all non familial consenting adult couples.

But you don't really want equality, you just realize that trying to go against it makes you sound like a dick so you try a different tact "just don't call it marriage". Riiiiight, it's just about the word.

 

[Seawytch]

Correction, Delaware was the 11th state to pass a gay marriage bill. Looks like Minnesota will likely be 12th and a handful are vying for lucky 13. Place your bets!

I'm thinking Alabama or Mississippi will be last if we do this the state by state way.

funny fact about Alabama and Mississippi. Both states have high percentages of blacks. Those black populations overwhelmingly vote against gay marriage and are opposed to it on religious grounds.

But they vote for democrats.

It won't be blacks keeping marriage equality from those states. Oh, and you better check the rapidly changing demographics...

Black Support for Gay Marriage Growing

A Strong Black Voice for Gay Marriage

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correction, Delaware was the 11th state to pass a gay marriage bill. Looks like Minnesota will likely be 12th and a handful are vying for lucky 13. Place your bets!

I'm thinking Alabama or Mississippi will be last if we do this the state by state way.

TRue,

BUt if DOMA is struck down, these states will have to recognize other state's marriage licenses, and frankly, I can't see states forfeiting money for very long.

DOMA is only partially before the courts. Section 3, that section currently befoe the SCOTUS only deals with federal recognition of lawful Civil Marriages. It's Section 2 that provides state recognition except based on the gender composition of the couple, that section is not before the courts.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Not very kind. If I was a neg rep kinda person I would give you one.

Thing is, you're entitled to your opinion in hating gay people - that's America and the first Amendment.

But what I can't understand is why you want to make everyone else around you behave just like you (with strictly defined rules).

I'm a supporter of small gov't and think that folks should be able to do what they like so long as no harm is being done to anyone else.

What about you?


.

why is it that liberals never read a post before responding to it? I do not hate gay people, I have gay friends and family members. I fully support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

the only thing I object to is gay "marriage". A marriage is one man and one woman, it has been so for thousands of years.

I support civil unions or mutual support contracts for gays, those instuments give them equal rights to insurance, inheritance, ownership of property etc.

But when you listen to people like wytchy, its not really about equality, its all about forcing the rest of us to accept their "marriage".

equality---yes
marriage---no

Actually, if you listen to "people like me" you do realize it is about equality. If you listen to "people like Fishy" you are led to believe it is about "forcing" something on you. It isn't. It really is about equality as has been explained to Fishy from the get-go.

We even told Fishy we don't care what you call it, as long as it is exactly the same for all couples. Having one thing for one group of people and something else for the rest of the people isn't equal. They even have a term for it, Fishy. Ya ready? It was called "Separate but equal". How did that turn out historically?

Fishy, your church will be free to deny marrying any couple it likes, the government does not have that "luxury". It has to treat all of its tax paying citizens equally under the law. If you get a marriage license, I get a marriage license. If you want to change it to another name, I give you 100% latitude to do it. Call it any damn thing you want from civil union to dirty socks...just make it EXACTLY the same for all non familial consenting adult couples.

But you don't really want equality, you just realize that trying to go against it makes you sound like a dick so you try a different tact "just don't call it marriage". Riiiiight, it's just about the word.

Yes, it is just about the word. are men and women equal in the eyes of the law? why not call us all humans instead? We have different names because we are different.

your argument is flawed in so many ways and yet you persist with it. your post above verfies that to you it is all about the word.

a marriage is a civil union of one man and one woman. a gay partnership is a civil union of two women or two men. Equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[Seawytch]

why is it that liberals never read a post before responding to it? I do not hate gay people, I have gay friends and family members. I fully support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

the only thing I object to is gay "marriage". A marriage is one man and one woman, it has been so for thousands of years.

I support civil unions or mutual support contracts for gays, those instuments give them equal rights to insurance, inheritance, ownership of property etc.

But when you listen to people like wytchy, its not really about equality, its all about forcing the rest of us to accept their "marriage".

equality---yes
marriage---no

Actually, if you listen to "people like me" you do realize it is about equality. If you listen to "people like Fishy" you are led to believe it is about "forcing" something on you. It isn't. It really is about equality as has been explained to Fishy from the get-go.

We even told Fishy we don't care what you call it, as long as it is exactly the same for all couples. Having one thing for one group of people and something else for the rest of the people isn't equal. They even have a term for it, Fishy. Ya ready? It was called "Separate but equal". How did that turn out historically?

Fishy, your church will be free to deny marrying any couple it likes, the government does not have that "luxury". It has to treat all of its tax paying citizens equally under the law. If you get a marriage license, I get a marriage license. If you want to change it to another name, I give you 100% latitude to do it. Call it any damn thing you want from civil union to dirty socks...just make it EXACTLY the same for all non familial consenting adult couples.

But you don't really want equality, you just realize that trying to go against it makes you sound like a dick so you try a different tact "just don't call it marriage". Riiiiight, it's just about the word.

Yes, it is just about the word. are men and women equal in the eyes of the law? why not call us all humans instead? We have different names because we are different.

your argument is flawed in so many ways and yet you persist with it. your post above verfies that to you it is all about the word.

a marriage is a civil union of one man and one woman. a gay partnership is a civil union of two women or two men. Equal in the eyes of the law.

Right...it's all about the word for YOU, not for us, despite your insistence it "all the gheys fault".

If you don't want us to use the word marriage, change the civil marriage laws. Change ALL civil marriages to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions where they belong.

Making a whole different class of "marriage" just for us, is ludicrous AND discrimination.

Marriage hasn't been between only a man and a woman in this country since 2004. Wake up and smell the wedding flowers, Fishy!

 

[Seawytch]

Correction, Delaware was the 11th state to pass a gay marriage bill. Looks like Minnesota will likely be 12th and a handful are vying for lucky 13. Place your bets!

I'm thinking Alabama or Mississippi will be last if we do this the state by state way.

TRue,

BUt if DOMA is struck down, these states will have to recognize other state's marriage licenses, and frankly, I can't see states forfeiting money for very long.

DOMA is only partially before the courts. Section 3, that section currently befoe the SCOTUS only deals with federal recognition of lawful Civil Marriages. It's Section 2 that provides state recognition except based on the gender composition of the couple, that section is not before the courts.


>>>>

But, when the SCOTUS strikes down Section 3, if I move to Alabama, the Federal government will still recognize my legal California marriage opening up a whole new host of potential lawsuits. Section 2 is next!

 

[Redfish]

Actually, if you listen to "people like me" you do realize it is about equality. If you listen to "people like Fishy" you are led to believe it is about "forcing" something on you. It isn't. It really is about equality as has been explained to Fishy from the get-go.

We even told Fishy we don't care what you call it, as long as it is exactly the same for all couples. Having one thing for one group of people and something else for the rest of the people isn't equal. They even have a term for it, Fishy. Ya ready? It was called "Separate but equal". How did that turn out historically?

Fishy, your church will be free to deny marrying any couple it likes, the government does not have that "luxury". It has to treat all of its tax paying citizens equally under the law. If you get a marriage license, I get a marriage license. If you want to change it to another name, I give you 100% latitude to do it. Call it any damn thing you want from civil union to dirty socks...just make it EXACTLY the same for all non familial consenting adult couples.

But you don't really want equality, you just realize that trying to go against it makes you sound like a dick so you try a different tact "just don't call it marriage". Riiiiight, it's just about the word.

Yes, it is just about the word. are men and women equal in the eyes of the law? why not call us all humans instead? We have different names because we are different.

your argument is flawed in so many ways and yet you persist with it. your post above verfies that to you it is all about the word.

a marriage is a civil union of one man and one woman. a gay partnership is a civil union of two women or two men. Equal in the eyes of the law.

Right...it's all about the word for YOU, not for us, despite your insistence it "all the gheys fault".

If you don't want us to use the word marriage, change the civil marriage laws. Change ALL civil marriages to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions where they belong.

Making a whole different class of "marriage" just for us, is ludicrous AND discrimination.

Marriage hasn't been between only a man and a woman in this country since 2004. Wake up and smell the wedding flowers, Fishy!

seems like the name fishy would be more applicable to a lesbian couple

marriage has been one man and one woman for all of recorded human history. the Bible, Koran, Torah, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and even wicken verify that.

its not a different category of two person committment, its just a different word.

Until you face up to the fact that the word is your issue, you will never have peace on this.

 

[Seawytch]

[/COLOR]


Yes, it is just about the word. are men and women equal in the eyes of the law? why not call us all humans instead? We have different names because we are different.

your argument is flawed in so many ways and yet you persist with it. your post above verfies that to you it is all about the word.

a marriage is a civil union of one man and one woman. a gay partnership is a civil union of two women or two men. Equal in the eyes of the law.

Right...it's all about the word for YOU, not for us, despite your insistence it "all the gheys fault".

If you don't want us to use the word marriage, change the civil marriage laws. Change ALL civil marriages to civil unions and leave "marriage" to the religious institutions where they belong.

Making a whole different class of "marriage" just for us, is ludicrous AND discrimination.

Marriage hasn't been between only a man and a woman in this country since 2004. Wake up and smell the wedding flowers, Fishy!

seems like the name fishy would be more applicable to a lesbian couple

marriage has been one man and one woman for all of recorded human history. the Bible, Koran, Torah, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and even wicken verify that.

its not a different category of two person committment, its just a different word.

Until you face up to the fact that the word is your issue, you will never have peace on this.

You better recheck your history because same sex marriages aren't new. Marriage predates all the Abrahamic religions by centuries, including same sex unions. Native American cultures have certainly been performing them.

YOU might define it that way and so can your church Fishy, but the government has to treat us all equally. Would you support gay only drivers licenses? Gay only water fountains?

A dozen states, Fishy and even more countries. Marriage is no longer "only" between a man and a woman...of course it never was.

http://www.geni.com/projects/History-of-Same-Sex-Marriage/3561

BTW, it's Wiccan which is a compilation of religions, mostly pagan.

 

[P@triot]

No matter how many times you regurgitate your same insanity that have already been proven wrong, it won't make them right...

It's been almost 10 years now in Massachusetts even more for some countries. How's that slippery slope fallacy going for you?

Dogs and goats cannot enter into a legal contract. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Neither could gay people just 20 years ago . How dumb are you exactly? You have zero comprehension of how radically this nation (and this world for that matter) has changed in just the past 100 years. An abortion was unthinkable and a criminal act when our Constitution was written. Now, it's not only legal, it's actually celebrated by animals just like you.

Dogs and Goats can't enter into a legal contract today. But that will change after someone who want to marry them points out your hypocrisy and how you screamed about your "rights" to live your life your way and have a marriage you want.

There is no slippery slope, Puppy. Allowing non familial consenting adult couples to legally marry and care for each other isn't going to lead to people marrying children, animals, dead people or inanimate objects just as abortion has not led to infanticide no matter the opinion of a small handful of quacks.

By the way, before you pretend (as you always do) that "slippery slope" doesn't exist, just remember that 100 years ago, killing a fetus would have been unthinkable by anyone's standards. Today, not only do we have millions of abortions a year, but we now have "academics" making the case in a medical journal that we should have the right to KILL children up to 4 years old because of "buyers remorse" and the fact that they don't have a right to life at that age (I noticed that you ran like hell from this last point - as you usually do from FACTS )

You can't stop gay marriage. Minnesota is likely to be the 12th state to pass a gay marriage bill with Delaware hot on their tail. It's done and just a matter of time. Get ready for the sky to fall, Chicken Little.

You're right - I can't stop gay marriage. Because your own ultra liberal state of California did it for me, before I could...

 

[P@triot]

YOU might define it that way and so can your church Fishy, but the government has to treat us all equally

You already are treated equally you stupid twat. You can marry a man ANY time you want. What you want, as usual with you libtards, is special treatment, extra perks, and additional benefits.

 

[Seawytch]

YOU might define it that way and so can your church Fishy, but the government has to treat us all equally

You already are treated equally you stupid twat. You can marry a man ANY time you want. What you want, as usual with you libtards, is special treatment, extra perks, and additional benefits.

And blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. Tried and failed.

Face the facts, puppy, you've lost this one. Gays are married, are getting married and will continue to get married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

butch or fem, twychy? you never did tell us which role you play.

hair color or which hand you write with are not comparable to an aberration that places two mammals of the same sex in a sexual relationship. nose picking ? really? you equate nose picking to gay sex------what exactly do you and your partner do? no, never mind, I don't want to know.

spin all you want, biology says you are an aberration of the human animal.

Not very kind. If I was a neg rep kinda person I would give you one.

Thing is, you're entitled to your opinion in hating gay people - that's America and the first Amendment.

But what I can't understand is why you want to make everyone else around you behave just like you (with strictly defined rules).

I'm a supporter of small gov't and think that folks should be able to do what they like so long as no harm is being done to anyone else.

What about you?


.

why is it that liberals never read a post before responding to it? I do not hate gay people, I have gay friends and family members. I fully support equal rights for gays and lesbians.

the only thing I object to is gay "marriage". A marriage is one man and one woman, it has been so for thousands of years.

I support civil unions or mutual support contracts for gays, those instuments give them equal rights to insurance, inheritance, ownership of property etc.

But when you listen to people like wytchy, its not really about equality, its all about forcing the rest of us to accept their "marriage".

equality---yes
marriage---no

As usual, this makes no sense.

That something is perceived to be ‘traditional’ is legally irrelevant; and one cannot advocate for equality without advocating for same-sex couples’ access to marriage law.

‘Separate but equal’ is still un-Constitutional.