Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses? What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony? What would be the point of taking away the right to marry? What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?

Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law?

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.

Your remedy to 'kill gay marriage' is to kill marriage.

But marriage will survive- regardless of your efforts to kill marriage.

Therefore, how can my efforts be "to kill marriage?"
...You retorted your own assumption! --Good work!

You described your own efforts to kill marriage.

You want to kill 'homosexual marriage' by killing marriage.

Apparently you just want everyone who is legally married to be legally harmed.

No, that's not what I said at all. You're not reading too well again. Or maybe you've just decided to be the dishonest little prick you always are and intentionally lie about what I've posted?

I don't want to kill marriage. Just state sanctioning of marriage. People can still get married. Contractual law can still exist. No one is legally harmed because there is no requirement for the state to recognize a marriage.

Once the state no longer sanctions marriage, I think the concept of gays marrying will fade away and become a fond memory of the past.... like leisure suits and flappers.... mullets and disco.

 

[Boss]

Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage. The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves. For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.

Also, I am a married man and abolishing marriage is a personal attack on my status and the status of my wife, and this goes deeper than man-made law. Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, and in Genesis it says that a man and wife become one flesh in the eyes of God, and the bond is not broken until death.

First of all, Christians and Catholics are out of choices if they wish to retain sanctity of marriage. If it remains a state sanctioned institution, it has to include homosexual marriage. So they can modify their religious dogma to condone that or they can support the idea of removing the state from sponsoring marriage. As for the legal status and next of kin, this can be handled through appropriate contracts and wills. Social Security disbursement is not a State concern.

As for "abolishing marriage" ...I never said that. Surely, the relationship between you and your wife is not dependent on a document from the State, is it? Of course not... you presented a very eloquent quote from the Bible which proves it's not. Your marriage will survive not having the State bless it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Conservative Christians and Catholics are not going to go along with abolishing the institution of marriage out of spite for same-sex marriage. The status between a married couple is much bigger than any contract that the couple can come up with themselves. For example, a spouse is legally the next of kin, a spouse gets pensions and social security benefits after the earning spouse dies, spouses can file joint taxes and joint bankruptcy, a spouse is responsible for all the debts incurred by the other spouse, including medical care, spouses are legally required to support each other, etc.

Also, I am a married man and abolishing marriage is a personal attack on my status and the status of my wife, and this goes deeper than man-made law. Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, and in Genesis it says that a man and wife become one flesh in the eyes of God, and the bond is not broken until death.

First of all, Christians and Catholics are out of choices if they wish to retain sanctity of marriage. If it remains a state sanctioned institution, it has to include homosexual marriage. So they can modify their religious dogma to condone that or they can support the idea of removing the state from sponsoring marriage. As for the legal status and next of kin, this can be handled through appropriate contracts and wills. Social Security disbursement is not a State concern.

As for "abolishing marriage" ...I never said that. Surely, the relationship between you and your wife is not dependent on a document from the State, is it? Of course not... you presented a very eloquent quote from the Bible which proves it's not. Your marriage will survive not having the State bless it.

" If it remains a state sanctioned institution, it has to include homosexual marriage. So they can modify their religious dogma to condone that or they can support the idea of removing the state from sponsoring marriage." ??? Or they can put their heads on straight and realize that gays getting married has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of THEIR marriage. Each individual and couple must decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Anyone who believes that what others do can effect the meaning of their marriage, most likely are in a marriage that is in trouble. Secondly, they need to realize that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different and separate things. If anything needs to change, it is to take away the authority of clergy to bestow legal marriage on a couple. That is a bizarre infringement on the concept of separation of church and state. EVERYONE should be required to have a civil ceremony officiated by a judge, justice of the peace, mayor, sea captain, whatever. THEN if they want the blessings of clergy, have a religious ceremony. At the same time, they must also realize that there are a growing number of clergy and religious organization that do condone same sex marriage and will perform those ceremonies for gay couples who are religious. They exist you know. If that, in their view, undermines the "sanctity of marriage" .....to damned bad.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.

I've thought it through and I agree with myself.

It will look like this... ____________________________________.

Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.

Yea we know ...not workable, not possible, not happening

 

[Blackrook]

Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex? We wouldn't want to discriminate now do we?

 

[Blackrook]

The thing is, same-sex marriage has thrown a giant wrench at our society, and we don't know yet how much collateral damage it will cause. The Supreme Court should have allowed the states to decide this issue. Now we know that once again, the desires of the American people do not matter. Only liberals matter.

 

[Boss]

Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.

LOL... Oh, okay... since you say it's not I guess I'll shut up! NOT!

Hate to break it to ya but it's already happening. Alabama passed it but needed a supermajority because it wasn't part of the governor's agenda. It will pass next session. It's also being introduced in several other states. This is going to be what you see happening all over America. If you want to stick your head in the sand or live in denial, that's fine... it is happening though.

 

[Boss]

Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.

I've thought it through and I agree with myself.

It will look like this... ____________________________________.

Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.

Yea we know ...not workable, not possible, not happening

Yep... workable, possible, already happening.

 

[Boss]

Or they can put their heads on straight and realize that gays getting married has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of THEIR marriage. Each individual and couple must decide for themselves what marriage means to them. Anyone who believes that what others do can effect the meaning of their marriage, most likely are in a marriage that is in trouble. Secondly, they need to realize that civil marriage and religious marriage are two different and separate things. If anything needs to change, it is to take away the authority of clergy to...

Whoa, pardner... you were on a roll there until you got to the part about interfering with freedom of religion. No, you're certainly not going to do that. Government has absolutely no authority to remove any authority from the clergy. The first part of your little rant was good... makes a great case for why it won't be an issue for states to abandon sanctioning marriages.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.

LOL... Oh, okay... since you say it's not I guess I'll shut up! NOT!

Hate to break it to ya but it's already happening. Alabama passed it but needed a supermajority because it wasn't part of the governor's agenda. It will pass next session. It's also being introduced in several other states. This is going to be what you see happening all over America. If you want to stick your head in the sand or live in denial, that's fine... it is happening though.

The Alabama law didn't eliminate Civil Marriage, it eliminated State issued Civil Marriage licenses.

It is replaced with the couple completing a form and filing it with the State that then registers the marriage. At the end of the day Alabama was still going to have Civil Marriages that would be available to different-sex couples, interracial couples, same-sex couples, and interfaith couples and those marriage would still be the same as they are today in the State, recognized the same as they are today by other States, and recognized the same as they are today by the Federal government.


Bill to abolish marriage licenses dies in Alabama House
>>>>

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh yes, the studies all show there has been a growing acceptance of gay marriage but we have to look at the reason for this. Homosexuals represent somewhere around 10% of the population, studies vary but in that ballpark.

Homosexuals are less than 3% of the population, but bisexuals are about 7% and they label them all 'homosexual' if the affirm that they have had sex with same gender people in the last 5 years or so, though some go back longer than that.

The longer you go back the fewer there are who say that they have only had homosexual sex in the last twenty years or whatever.

 

[JimBowie1958]

tl;dr

Further proof of what an absolute idiot you are.

My Gawd, it wasn't more than a page long, lol.

 

[Boss]

Boss, this is not going to happen, so there is no further use in discussing it.

LOL... Oh, okay... since you say it's not I guess I'll shut up! NOT!

Hate to break it to ya but it's already happening. Alabama passed it but needed a supermajority because it wasn't part of the governor's agenda. It will pass next session. It's also being introduced in several other states. This is going to be what you see happening all over America. If you want to stick your head in the sand or live in denial, that's fine... it is happening though.

The Alabama law didn't eliminate Civil Marriage, it eliminated State issued Civil Marriage licenses.

It is replaced with the couple completing a form and filing it with the State that then registers the marriage. At the end of the day Alabama was still going to have Civil Marriages that would be available to different-sex couples, interracial couples, same-sex couples, and interfaith couples and those marriage would still be the same as they are today in the State, recognized the same as they are today by other States, and recognized the same as they are today by the Federal government.


Bill to abolish marriage licenses dies in Alabama House
>>>>

The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married. But thanks for confirming this arrangement doesn't effect you, I was concerned about that. Since the Federal government doesn't sanction marriage I'm not too worried about what they recognize.

No that's not what the bill did.

The bill didn't eliminate Civil Marriage in Alabama, I provided a link that showed that, ignoring it doesn't change reality.

Alabama was still going to have Civil Marriage, the only thing that was changing was changing it from the "license" issued by the state to a "form" filed with the government. At th


At end of the day Civil Marriage was still there, it would still be recognized across state lines, and it would still be valid for Federal purposes.

And yes, the recognition of Civil Marriage is very important to the men and women of the military since (Of which as a retiree I'm one) such recognition means their spouses get on the base, have access to the Commissary, have access to military medical facilities, spouse co-location for PCS moves, etc. Let alone all the other aspects of Federal recognition.


Here is a link to the proposed legislation -->> http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/alison/searchableinstruments/2015SS/bills/SB21.htm

Marriage still existed and functioned the same, the difference was how marriage was entered into.


>>>>

 

[Blackrook]

We don't need idiots tampering with the marriage laws.

 

[Nosmo King]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

 

[Syriusly]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

 

[Syriusly]

Could at least one opponent to marriage equality point out the harm, the tangible danger same sex marriage poses? What possible difference could marriage equality make to you if you are not homosexual and desirous of matrimony? What would be the point of taking away the right to marry? What noble purpose would be served by rescinding marriage equality?

Your argument has been made and SCOTUS has ruled. Are you hoping to discover some right-winger who has been living under a rock and is not aware of the recent ruling? Why else would you present an argument for what is now settled law?

The thread OP is about killing homosexual marriage. I've outlined my plan very clearly and concisely. You kill it by rendering it irrelevant. Once the government is removed from sanctioning marriages, there is no more issue to exploit... no more perception of inequity.. and eventually, no more gay marriage to speak of. It all disappears as quickly as it emerged in society and life goes on.

Your remedy to 'kill gay marriage' is to kill marriage.

But marriage will survive- regardless of your efforts to kill marriage.

Therefore, how can my efforts be "to kill marriage?"
...You retorted your own assumption! --Good work!

You described your own efforts to kill marriage.

You want to kill 'homosexual marriage' by killing marriage.

Apparently you just want everyone who is legally married to be legally harmed.

No, that's not what I said at all. You're not reading too well again. Or maybe you've just decided to be the dishonest little prick you always are and intentionally lie about what I've posted?

I don't want to kill marriage. Just state sanctioning of marriage. People can still get married. Contractual law can still exist. No one is legally harmed because there is no requirement for the state to recognize a marriage.

Once the state no longer sanctions marriage, I think the concept of gays marrying will fade away and become a fond memory of the past.... like leisure suits and flappers.... mullets and disco.

Just as the 'concept' of marriage would fade away- and just become a quaint religious custom.

Yep- you are willing to kill marriage in order to 'kill homosexual marriage'

You have admitted that you believe that ending legal marriage would mean fewer people would get married. You just want to pretend that gay couples are more rational than heterosexual couples- even though you know ending legal marriage would have the same effect on all couples.

Hence you just want to kill marriage.

Just to deny marriage to homosexuals.

And that is pretty sick. You want to deny millions of Americans the legal marriage we want- just so you can deny marriage to homosexuals.

Pretty sick.

Very immoral.