Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[WinterBorn]

Show us one state marriage law that requires or even encourages procreation. Just one.

Ever heard of tax exemptions for dependents, i.e., children?

Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.

Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.

And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.

Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.

Those tax breaks were not created for the POTENTIAL of children. And there are separate tax breaks for children. You are arguing nonsense.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Ever heard of tax exemptions for dependents, i.e., children?

Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.

Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.

And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.

Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.

No, that is why the tax breaks for children were created. The Joint Filing status has nothing to do with children. It is also available to senior citizens, long past the child bearing or raising years.

Your argument fail in a number of way.

And what is best is that is has failed spectacularly. Even Alabama, one of the last bastions of old school, is now going to recognize gay marriage.

Again, the potential for procreation begins at the nuptials. Most likely the assumption that a woman was going to sacrifice a career and potential retirement plan by becoming a housewife and potential mother began at this point. Therefore the tax breaks begin even without yet the realization of children. The tax breaks continue into old age because at least one of the couple, assumed to be the wife, sacrificed a career and is in less position to effect a retirement plan.
Anyone who wants to change marriage provisions for hetero couples in light of cultural changes over the years, especially insofar as career women is concerned, is OK by me. But to grant these current subsidies to homo couples and allow for the child abuse of adoption into a home devoid of both genders as parents is immoral and wrong and selfish and outdated already. Not cutting-edge. 1960's old school outdated thinking.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.

Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.

And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.

Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.

No, that is why the tax breaks for children were created. The Joint Filing status has nothing to do with children. It is also available to senior citizens, long past the child bearing or raising years.

Your argument fail in a number of way.

And what is best is that is has failed spectacularly. Even Alabama, one of the last bastions of old school, is now going to recognize gay marriage.

Again, the potential for procreation begins at the nuptials. Most likely the assumption that a woman was going to sacrifice a career and potential retirement plan by becoming a housewife and potential mother began at this point. Therefore the tax breaks begin even without yet the realization of children. The tax breaks continue into old age because at least one of the couple, assumed to be the wife, sacrificed a career and is in less position to effect a retirement plan.
Anyone who wants to change marriage provisions for hetero couples in light of cultural changes over the years, especially insofar as career women is concerned, is OK by me. But to grant these current subsidies to homo couples and allow for the child abuse of adoption into a home devoid of both genders as parents is immoral and wrong and selfish and outdated already. Not cutting-edge. 1960's old school outdated thinking.

Utter nonsense. You are inventing motivations without any proof at all. You are attributing things to having children, when children are never mentioned. Either your argument is nonsense, or every marriage law in this country has been written with huge gaps and no requirements to what you claim is the entire point in marriage. Which do you think is more likely?

 

[Skylar]

Again, the potential for procreation begins at the nuptials.

Unless it doesn't. Infertile people get married all the time. Just as folks get married and choose to have no children. Just as folks become infertile are allowed to remain married.

Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to procreate. Ignore as you will. The courts won't.

But to grant these current subsidies to homo couples and allow for the child abuse of adoption into a home devoid of both genders as parents is immoral and wrong and selfish and outdated already. Not cutting-edge. 1960's old school outdated thinking.

Which has nothing to do with marriage. As no one getting married is required to have children or be able to. Nor are they required to adopt any child.

Adoption is already legal for gays almost everywhere. And gays and lesbians are having their own kids. Refusing to allow them to marriage doesn't magically mean that their children now have opposite sex parents. It only guarantees that the children will never have married parents.

Which benefits no one.

 

[elektra]

4 adult children of gay parents?? Really? You want to make policy based on 4 people's opinions?

And only those 4. All of these kids, who rave about their same sex parent lead families, they don't want you to hear from.

Children Of LGBT Parents Speak Out For The Let Love Define Family Series

Remember how Elektra keeps talking about 'forcing' children into a 'gay' lifestyle- here are the words of one of those children:

Twenty-two-year-old Michael Arden-Sonego is studying to become a firefighter.

“When the social worker told me that the couple that wanted to adopt my brothers and me was two men, she waited for some reaction, but I didn’t care,” Michael recalled. “I just wanted to live somewhere I could call home, somewhere where I could finally relax and know my brothers and I were going to be taken care of. Besides new parents we got a big family with cousins, grandparents, aunts, uncles and four dogs. My parents are good-hearted people who have worked hard to give us many opportunities and I am very grateful to have them as parents

Elecktra would deny these children these parents- and cousins- and grandparents and aunts and uncles- and their 4 dogs.....just because well just because she doesn't approve of the parents.

Impossible. She claims to speak for all children. Either she's straight up delusional, or you're quoting Mr. Arden-Sonego incorrectly.

Here's another voice in the choir:

...“I was lucky to be adopted by two guys I can both call ‘Dad,’” he wrote to Roberts. “They give me and my sister so much love…. It’s important that all families are protected and valued. In our country, we may not all be the same but we are all Americans who deserve an equal chance at bettering our lives.”

Daniel Martinez-Leffew, 12

Children Of LGBT Parents Speak Out For The Let Love Define Family Series

So all children but Daniel and Michael then?

And why is it that she only claims to be concerned about 'orphans' rather than all children up for adoption?

That is just one more of her bizarre claims.

A bizarre claim is to state, "not all children who are adopted have been orphaned by their parents."

That ain't even a strawman argument, its simply pure stupidity.

 

[Skylar]

And only those 4. All of these kids, who rave about their same sex parent lead families, they don't want you to hear from.

Children Of LGBT Parents Speak Out For The Let Love Define Family Series

Remember how Elektra keeps talking about 'forcing' children into a 'gay' lifestyle- here are the words of one of those children:

Twenty-two-year-old Michael Arden-Sonego is studying to become a firefighter.

“When the social worker told me that the couple that wanted to adopt my brothers and me was two men, she waited for some reaction, but I didn’t care,” Michael recalled. “I just wanted to live somewhere I could call home, somewhere where I could finally relax and know my brothers and I were going to be taken care of. Besides new parents we got a big family with cousins, grandparents, aunts, uncles and four dogs. My parents are good-hearted people who have worked hard to give us many opportunities and I am very grateful to have them as parents

Elecktra would deny these children these parents- and cousins- and grandparents and aunts and uncles- and their 4 dogs.....just because well just because she doesn't approve of the parents.

Impossible. She claims to speak for all children. Either she's straight up delusional, or you're quoting Mr. Arden-Sonego incorrectly.

Here's another voice in the choir:

...“I was lucky to be adopted by two guys I can both call ‘Dad,’” he wrote to Roberts. “They give me and my sister so much love…. It’s important that all families are protected and valued. In our country, we may not all be the same but we are all Americans who deserve an equal chance at bettering our lives.”

Daniel Martinez-Leffew, 12

Children Of LGBT Parents Speak Out For The Let Love Define Family Series

So all children but Daniel and Michael then?

And why is it that she only claims to be concerned about 'orphans' rather than all children up for adoption?

That is just one more of her bizarre claims.

A bizarre claim is to state, "not all children who are adopted have been orphaned by their parents."

That ain't even a strawman argument, its simply pure stupidity.

Speaking of pure stupidity, are you still claiming to speak for 99% of the population and all children?

 

[Seawytch]

And in 8 counties in Alabama, same-sex couples were married. Sorry, but you are fighting a losing battle on this one.

Roy Moore's tactic is a delay at best. This is him trying to be George Wallace standing on the steps at the Univ of Alabama. That was wrong and so it Moore. Moore wants a theocracy.

The federal courts have ruled and the SCOTUS refuses to overturn it.

No, this is him preventing George Wallace from forcing bigoted legislation. The homo agenda are the bigots on this issue.

And this is an example of the ignorance and hate which render laws seeking to violate the rights of gay Americans invalid.

It cannot be repeated often enough:

Alabama was the last state to actually repeal mixed race marriages- only 15 years ago.

23 years after the Supreme Court told them that such bans were unconstitutional- and the year before Judge Moore became Judge.

If Judge Moore could do so, I am quite certain he would overturn the Federal Government on Loving v. Virginia too.

It's Alabama. This is the state that voted 40% "no" in 2000 to repeal their interracial marriage ban. 40%!!!!

“ Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to abolish the prohibition of interracial marriages."

Yes: 801,725 59.49%
No: 545,933 40.51%

Racists and anti gay bigots...peas and carrots.

 

[Seawytch]

And this is an example of the ignorance and hate which render laws seeking to violate the rights of gay Americans invalid.

What homo's rights are being violated? They have the right to legally a marry a consenting adult of the opposite gender the same as heteros do.

The right to equal protection of the law, where same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples; to deny same-sex couples access to laws they're eligible to participate in is un-Constitutional.

You don't provide equal protection to entities that aren't equal. Homos cannot procreate as heteros can.

Procreating isn't a requirement for legal marriage. You know that. Stop being silly.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage in the first place. Using its occasional lack of instance as a wedge is a homo agenda MO.

No, actually, property was. The first marriage court cases, the actual impetus for civil registries, was about property...and women being able to own it.

Timeline of Civil Marriage

 

[Seawytch]

Procreating isn't a requirement for legal marriage. You know that. Stop being silly.

Procreation is the impetus for legal marriage in the first place. Using its occasional lack of instance as a wedge is a homo agenda MO.

No, it is not. Of the rights the gays are seeking in their quest for their marriages to be recognized, a few have to deal with children. Most do not.

The right to make decisions on health care, if the spouse is incapacitated. The right of inheritance. The right to co-own homes. And other rights have nothing to do with having children.

And gay couples can either adopt or make use of modern medical technologies to have their own children (or at least have the genetics of one of them).

Those provision apply to hetero marriage because of the hardships that child rearing place on individual careers. Originally for the benefit of a woman who would sacrifice self-sufficiency in the name of child rearing. More mutual child rearing situations require potential sacrifices for either or both genders happening more often more recently keeps those legal provisions just as legit. Since homos can't procreate and should not be allowed to adopt for concern over the well being of the kids and the society, those provisions are irrelevant as an automatic. If two people want to draw up those provisions in separate legal contracts I do believe that is already allowed, homo marriage not necessary.
Hospital visitation is about the only thing that needs to be tweaked.

You don't think there are hardships that child rearing place on individual careers if a gay couple has children?

Homo couples can't have children. You're arguing like a five-year-old.

That's ironic since it is you who is ignoring logic and facts to pound your little fists like a toddler in Walmart not getting his way.

These are facts: Marriage is not required to procreate and vice versa. Gays can and DO have children that are emotionally and legally theirs. They are the parents...in some places even by law. (2nd or Step Parent Adoption) Gays have them the exact same way infertile couples have them...and infertile couples are not denied a civil marriage license.

Oh, an gays could adopt BEFORE we could civilly marry.

 

[Seawytch]

Ever heard of tax exemptions for dependents, i.e., children?

Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.

Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.

And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.

Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.

Those tax breaks were not created for the POTENTIAL of children. And there are separate tax breaks for children. You are arguing nonsense.

Yup...and we got the child tax breaks long before my wife and I got to file jointly.

 

[martybegan]

No, a court MADE up something that I do not oppose to on it face, but I do oppose HOW it was allowed to happen.

So you oppose our checks and balances as written in the U.S. Constitution. Share with us your Constitutional Law background.

Where is the check/balance on the courts? It used to be the amendment process but that is next to impossible to bring about nowadays, so basically we have 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers creating new law.

I don't need a constitutional law background to talk about the constitution, I'm a fucking american.

List any new law created by the Supreme Court. Any.

And you don't know jack-shit about Constitutional law. However, it does give me a giggle to watch your ignorance on parade.

What it creates is psuedo-law by finding existing laws unconstitutional when there is no constitutional basis to do so in the first place. its like when they created a "right" to abortion out of thin fucking air.

Whine whine whine- you just complain when you don't agree with the court.

Attack the messenger when you can't dispute the message.

 

[martybegan]

No, a court MADE up something that I do not oppose to on it face, but I do oppose HOW it was allowed to happen.

So you oppose our checks and balances as written in the U.S. Constitution. Share with us your Constitutional Law background.

Where is the check/balance on the courts? It used to be the amendment process but that is next to impossible to bring about nowadays, so basically we have 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers creating new law.

I don't need a constitutional law background to talk about the constitution, I'm a fucking american.

You can talk about consitutional law- so can I.

Courts don't create new law- all they can do is repeal laws that are unconstitutional.

And thats what they are supposed to do- whether those laws have to do with guns, or religion or marriage.

guns and religion are explicit in the document, marriage is not. You can't just lump in the last one with the first two because you feel like it.

Sure can- the courts exist to address constitutional questions. You don't get to screen which ones you approve of the courts reviewing just because you disagree.

No, you can't. If you do it basically saying the constitution means whatever is popular at a given time.

 

[martybegan]

Only unconstitutional due to an activist court that overstepped its bounds.

There is no end to this argument between us. You think the constitution means whatever suits you at the moment, and I do not.

Translation: A court that made a constitutional decision you didn't like.

No, a court MADE up something that I do not oppose to on it face, but I do oppose HOW it was allowed to happen.

So you oppose our checks and balances as written in the U.S. Constitution. Share with us your Constitutional Law background.

Where is the check/balance on the courts? It used to be the amendment process but that is next to impossible to bring about nowadays, so basically we have 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers creating new law.

I don't need a constitutional law background to talk about the constitution, I'm a fucking american.

So continue to talk like the ignorant dumb shit you are.

Marriage equality will be national by the end of June. The ruling of Alabama makes that quite clear.

I can out think you, out debate you, and out reason you with my frontal lobe filled with cheap grain alcohol, never mind sober.

You are a mental midget on this board.

 

[martybegan]

No, a court MADE up something that I do not oppose to on it face, but I do oppose HOW it was allowed to happen.

So you oppose our checks and balances as written in the U.S. Constitution. Share with us your Constitutional Law background.

Where is the check/balance on the courts? It used to be the amendment process but that is next to impossible to bring about nowadays, so basically we have 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers creating new law.

I don't need a constitutional law background to talk about the constitution, I'm a fucking american.

List any new law created by the Supreme Court. Any.

And you don't know jack-shit about Constitutional law. However, it does give me a giggle to watch your ignorance on parade.

What it creates is psuedo-law by finding existing laws unconstitutional when there is no constitutional basis to do so in the first place. its like when they created a "right" to abortion out of thin fucking air.

You DO realize that when a court makes a ruling, they have to explain the Constitutional basis of that ruling, right? They don't just randomly rule without explaining the Constitutional basis.

And....I cannot help but notice you trying.....trying to shift the goalposts from your original claim that the court was "creating new law".

They make shit up all the time, the only reason you agree with the bullshit they come up with is that you agree with the results.

 

[EatMorChikin]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

 

[WinterBorn]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

Making sure that same sex couples can marry effects you how??? Exactly what changed in your life because of this? It is no more than the federal courts making sure all Americans enjoy equal protections under the law.

 

[Skylar]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

What's happening is explicitly lawful. As the States do not have the power to violate constitutional guarantees. The 14th amendment saw to that. And even you don't believe your own argument. If the State passed legislation to say, make guns illegal.....would you turns yours in?

if States Rights trump the Rights of People, then the answer is obvious. If the rights of people trump that of states, then you have your answer for gun rights....and same sex marriage rights.

 

[EatMorChikin]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

What's happening is explicitly lawful. As the States do not have the power to violate constitutional guarantees. The 14th amendment saw to that. And even you don't believe your own argument. If the State passed legislation to say, make guns illegal.....would you turns yours in?

if States Rights trump the Rights of People, then the answer is obvious. If the rights of people trump that of states, then you have your answer for gun rights....and same sex marriage rights.

No it isn't lawful. Learn the law.

 

[EatMorChikin]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

Making sure that same sex couples can marry effects you how??? Exactly what changed in your life because of this? It is no more than the federal courts making sure all Americans enjoy equal protections under the law.

What does your question have to do with what I typed? Try again. People like you with unicorn dreams, could care less what laws get broken to accomplish the goal. But it indeed is dangerous. Judges being able to wipe out portions of state constitutions. If you don't see the danger in that, there is no helping you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Roy Moore is right and federal judges are fools to ignore God's Law.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. - Galatians 6:7

Has nothing to do with a fake man in the sky. What is happening is lawless, and dangerous. And states should respond to it. The federal government is so far out of control, that this country soon will not be able to operate correctly.

Making sure that same sex couples can marry effects you how??? Exactly what changed in your life because of this? It is no more than the federal courts making sure all Americans enjoy equal protections under the law.

What does your question have to do with what I typed? Try again.

Since the federal judge ruled that banning same sex marriage is a violation of the 14th amendment, the ruling means that they NOW enjoy equal protection. That this allows gays to marry does not effect you at all. The gov't did exactly what it is supposed to do by enforcing the US Constitution and defending the rights of all Americans. That you think this somehow effects how this country operate means you have some issue with it. So my question is perfectly valid.