The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[mdk]

The only reason you believe it to be irrelevant is b/c another couple getting a divorce, or married, doesn't have any effect on your marriage. Just like gay marriage doesn't have any effect on your marriage. Besides, heterosexuals getting a divorce isn't a very compelling reason to deny gays access to marriage, it's just a lame excuse.

Its not my belief, it is simply a fact. If you cannot see it for what it is, then I cannot help you.

Again: Questioning whether the relaxation of divorce laws harmed your individual marriage is irrelevant. Did it erode marriage in society?

Yes or no?

Mark

No, you are citing your opinion and pretending it is fact as the marriage or divorce of another couple doesn't have any effect on your marriage.

If you were truly interested in curbing divorce you would be pushing to make divorce more difficult to obtain but all I see is whining about gay marriage.

Not surprising that you didn't answer my question. Answering yes would give me credence. Answering no would make you look like an idiot.

As for laws making divorce harder, I am all for them. But, since that is not the subject of the thread I figured I would not bring it up.

Mark

I am not answering your question b/c it is a red herring and as nothing to do with the topic of thread. You're trying damn hard to make it about divorce though. Again, denying gays access to marriage on the basis of heterosexual divorce rate is stupid. The logical disconnect is blatant for all to see. No wonder the anti-gay marriage folks got their asses handed to them in the courts all across the nation.

Since I never stated that gays caused divorce(yet) your answer is nonsensical.

But think what you wish.

Mark

I never said you did. Try rereading my post.

 

[80zephyr]

Its not my belief, it is simply a fact. If you cannot see it for what it is, then I cannot help you.

Again: Questioning whether the relaxation of divorce laws harmed your individual marriage is irrelevant. Did it erode marriage in society?

Yes or no?

Mark

No, you are citing your opinion and pretending it is fact as the marriage or divorce of another couple doesn't have any effect on your marriage.

If you were truly interested in curbing divorce you would be pushing to make divorce more difficult to obtain but all I see is whining about gay marriage.

Not surprising that you didn't answer my question. Answering yes would give me credence. Answering no would make you look like an idiot.

As for laws making divorce harder, I am all for them. But, since that is not the subject of the thread I figured I would not bring it up.

Mark

I am not answering your question b/c it is a red herring and as nothing to do with the topic of thread. You're trying damn hard to make it about divorce though. Again, denying gays access to marriage on the basis of heterosexual divorce rate is stupid. The logical disconnect is blatant for all to see. No wonder the anti-gay marriage folks got their asses handed to them in the courts all across the nation.

Since I never stated that gays caused divorce(yet) your answer is nonsensical.

But think what you wish.

Mark

I never said you did. Try rereading my post.

Then if you didn't, you would not have minded answering my question. So, which is it?

Mark

 

[mdk]

No, you are citing your opinion and pretending it is fact as the marriage or divorce of another couple doesn't have any effect on your marriage.

If you were truly interested in curbing divorce you would be pushing to make divorce more difficult to obtain but all I see is whining about gay marriage.

Not surprising that you didn't answer my question. Answering yes would give me credence. Answering no would make you look like an idiot.

As for laws making divorce harder, I am all for them. But, since that is not the subject of the thread I figured I would not bring it up.

Mark

I am not answering your question b/c it is a red herring and as nothing to do with the topic of thread. You're trying damn hard to make it about divorce though. Again, denying gays access to marriage on the basis of heterosexual divorce rate is stupid. The logical disconnect is blatant for all to see. No wonder the anti-gay marriage folks got their asses handed to them in the courts all across the nation.

Since I never stated that gays caused divorce(yet) your answer is nonsensical.

But think what you wish.

Mark

I never said you did. Try rereading my post.

Then if you didn't, you would not have minded answering my question. So, which is it?

Mark

Because divorce has nothing to do with the topic. Start another thread about if it means that much to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark, that is not the OP.

Sil, as usual the facts do not support your opinion. Your silly anger reveals you know what I say is true.

The fact remains that LGBT marriage does not hurt straight marriage.

Your opinion is not fact.

We cannot know yet whether gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. It will probably be decades before we find out. But, like with welfare and easy divorce, the damage to the family unit will have been done.

There is an old African proverb that goes something like this:

Before you tear down a fence, find out why it was built in the first place.

Mark

There is an old saying from home: "hide in the trees and watch." However, we don't have decades. The law is now. The law is real. So we will find out. Thank you for stating the inability to know whether LGBT marriage hurts the institution of marriage.

Jake, how could we know if it hurts marriage until we allow it? We can't. However if it does, it will be a moot point. Just one more nail in the coffin of the family unit.

Mark

Marriage is marriage, family units are family units, and your disagreement is immaterial.

An aside: the subject of divorce has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[80zephyr]

Mark, that is not the OP.

Sil, as usual the facts do not support your opinion. Your silly anger reveals you know what I say is true.

The fact remains that LGBT marriage does not hurt straight marriage.

Your opinion is not fact.

We cannot know yet whether gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. It will probably be decades before we find out. But, like with welfare and easy divorce, the damage to the family unit will have been done.

There is an old African proverb that goes something like this:

Before you tear down a fence, find out why it was built in the first place.

Mark

There is an old saying from home: "hide in the trees and watch." However, we don't have decades. The law is now. The law is real. So we will find out. Thank you for stating the inability to know whether LGBT marriage hurts the institution of marriage.

Jake, how could we know if it hurts marriage until we allow it? We can't. However if it does, it will be a moot point. Just one more nail in the coffin of the family unit.

Mark

Marriage is marriage, family units are family units, and your disagreement is immaterial.

An aside: the subject of divorce has nothing to do with this thread.

I disagree. That you cannot see its use as an example is your problem, not mine.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark, that is not the OP.

Sil, as usual the facts do not support your opinion. Your silly anger reveals you know what I say is true.

The fact remains that LGBT marriage does not hurt straight marriage.

Your opinion is not fact.

We cannot know yet whether gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. It will probably be decades before we find out. But, like with welfare and easy divorce, the damage to the family unit will have been done.

There is an old African proverb that goes something like this:

Before you tear down a fence, find out why it was built in the first place.

Mark

There is an old saying from home: "hide in the trees and watch." However, we don't have decades. The law is now. The law is real. So we will find out. Thank you for stating the inability to know whether LGBT marriage hurts the institution of marriage.

Jake, how could we know if it hurts marriage until we allow it? We can't. However if it does, it will be a moot point. Just one more nail in the coffin of the family unit.

Mark

Marriage is marriage, family units are family units, and your disagreement is immaterial.

An aside: the subject of divorce has nothing to do with this thread.

I disagree. That you cannot see its use as an example is your problem, not mine.

Mark

We have seen JQ, Sil, Redfish, Correll, and Mark insist their opinions are facts today.

Heavens help us.

 

[80zephyr]

Not surprising that you didn't answer my question. Answering yes would give me credence. Answering no would make you look like an idiot.

As for laws making divorce harder, I am all for them. But, since that is not the subject of the thread I figured I would not bring it up.

Mark

I am not answering your question b/c it is a red herring and as nothing to do with the topic of thread. You're trying damn hard to make it about divorce though. Again, denying gays access to marriage on the basis of heterosexual divorce rate is stupid. The logical disconnect is blatant for all to see. No wonder the anti-gay marriage folks got their asses handed to them in the courts all across the nation.

Since I never stated that gays caused divorce(yet) your answer is nonsensical.

But think what you wish.

Mark

I never said you did. Try rereading my post.

Then if you didn't, you would not have minded answering my question. So, which is it?

Mark

Because divorce has nothing to do with the topic. Start another thread about if it means that much to.

Using examples is a tried and true debate tactic. You figure that if you keep the subject matter narrow enough, debate would be stifled.

I agree. If you don't want to debate...don't.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

I am not answering your question b/c it is a red herring and as nothing to do with the topic of thread. You're trying damn hard to make it about divorce though. Again, denying gays access to marriage on the basis of heterosexual divorce rate is stupid. The logical disconnect is blatant for all to see. No wonder the anti-gay marriage folks got their asses handed to them in the courts all across the nation.

Since I never stated that gays caused divorce(yet) your answer is nonsensical.

But think what you wish.

Mark

I never said you did. Try rereading my post.

Then if you didn't, you would not have minded answering my question. So, which is it?

Mark

Because divorce has nothing to do with the topic. Start another thread about if it means that much to.

Using examples is a tried and true debate tactic. You figure that if you keep the subject matter narrow enough, debate would be stifled.

But marriage and divorce aren't the same thing. You're using the false equivalency fallacy.

 

[80zephyr]

We cannot know yet whether gay marriage hurts the institution of marriage. It will probably be decades before we find out. But, like with welfare and easy divorce, the damage to the family unit will have been done.

There is an old African proverb that goes something like this:

Before you tear down a fence, find out why it was built in the first place.

Mark

There is an old saying from home: "hide in the trees and watch." However, we don't have decades. The law is now. The law is real. So we will find out. Thank you for stating the inability to know whether LGBT marriage hurts the institution of marriage.

Jake, how could we know if it hurts marriage until we allow it? We can't. However if it does, it will be a moot point. Just one more nail in the coffin of the family unit.

Mark

Marriage is marriage, family units are family units, and your disagreement is immaterial.

An aside: the subject of divorce has nothing to do with this thread.

I disagree. That you cannot see its use as an example is your problem, not mine.

Mark

We have seen JQ, Sil, Redfish, Correll, and Mark insist their opinions are facts today.

Heavens help us.

Logic leads to conclusions. There are no studies to rely on, and even if there were, you would simply deny them anyway.

Mark

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not answering your question b/c it is a red herring and as nothing to do with the topic of thread. You're trying damn hard to make it about divorce though. Again, denying gays access to marriage on the basis of heterosexual divorce rate is stupid. The logical disconnect is blatant for all to see. No wonder the anti-gay marriage folks got their asses handed to them in the courts all across the nation.

Since I never stated that gays caused divorce(yet) your answer is nonsensical.

But think what you wish.

Mark

I never said you did. Try rereading my post.

Then if you didn't, you would not have minded answering my question. So, which is it?

Mark

Because divorce has nothing to do with the topic. Start another thread about if it means that much to.

Using examples is a tried and true debate tactic. You figure that if you keep the subject matter narrow enough, debate would be stifled.

I agree. If you don't want to debate...don't.

Mark

You don't want to use common sense is the problem. Divorce and marriage are different topics. You are using a false equivalency, and you won't be allowed to get away with that.

 

[Skylar]

There is an old saying from home: "hide in the trees and watch." However, we don't have decades. The law is now. The law is real. So we will find out. Thank you for stating the inability to know whether LGBT marriage hurts the institution of marriage.

Jake, how could we know if it hurts marriage until we allow it? We can't. However if it does, it will be a moot point. Just one more nail in the coffin of the family unit.

Mark

Marriage is marriage, family units are family units, and your disagreement is immaterial.

An aside: the subject of divorce has nothing to do with this thread.

I disagree. That you cannot see its use as an example is your problem, not mine.

Mark

We have seen JQ, Sil, Redfish, Correll, and Mark insist their opinions are facts today.

Heavens help us.

Logic leads to conclusions. There are no studies to rely on, and even if there were, you would simply deny them anyway.

Mark

Yeah, but equating marriage with divorce isn't logical. Nor is insisting that unless marriage is immutable and can never change it 'has no meaning'.

Both are actually quite illogical.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I bet when it comes to the 2A, he's very "pro-Constitution".

Yep. But, if "rights" are your litmus test, then you SHOULD NOT DENY any form of marriage you can think of.

So, are you for "anything goes"?

If not, you are EXACTLY the same as I am, only with a slightly different moral code.

Mark

I'm for anything goes... as long as it's A) consenting adults and B) isn't between people who are already directly related.

The first is simple, a minor can't consent to marriage, the second is mainly for biological reasons but also that people who are directly related, (ie brother, sister, mother, father etc) shouldn't need to get married for any reason anyway.

So, your "morals" won't allow you to condone marriage to a minor?

Tell me, what the right age for marriage is?

Amazing that society can put constraints on people to buttress what you believe, but when other try to do it, they are called bigots.

Mark

We place many restraints on minors. Why? Because they haven't learned enough to make good choices.

We don't let people drive until a certain age. We don't let them drink or smoke until a certain age. We don't allow them to work or join the military until a certain age.

Are you all for allowing kids to do what the hell they like before they're ready to make such decisions?

Personally I've seen people who go married you, or who had kids young, and not one of them is with their original partner.

We also place many restraints on our adults. But, that isn't the point. Who decides who is a "minor"? Society does. We could make the age of adulthood for children around the time of puberty(around 12) to the time when science says a human brain is fully formed(age 26).

In essence, we place an arbitrary age on people to acknowledge them as an adult.

And since we do(and if you agree with it), you are a bigot.

And again(sigh) is that what I consider moral, you consider bigotry, but what you consider moral, is somehow more righteous than my beliefs.

You can't have it both ways. Either you RESPECT the morals of others, or you understand that you also push your righteousness onto others.

BTW, my grandma on one side married at 16, my grandma on the other side(and one of her daughters) married at 15. All stayed married.

Mark

Why is someone who agrees to placing an age on when children become adults a bigot? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, just because they stayed married doesn't mean anything. Staying married in the age your grandparents grew up in is different to staying married in the modern world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mark, no, you don't get your own definition of bigotry.

bigot

noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\​

Simple Definition of bigot​

• 
  
  • : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) from Merriam-Webster.

 

[Silhouette]

Mark, no, you don't get your own definition of bigotry.

bigot

noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\​

Simple Definition of bigot​

• 
  
  • : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) from Merriam-Webster.

What do you call a person who otherwise could care less about other people except where those other people's behaviors infringe on the rights of children who want and need both a mother and father in marriage....or Christians who disagree with the behavior? Surely "bigot" wouldn't suffice because we're talking about just one type of behavior that's objectionable. I meet gays all the time and I have no problem with them unless they try to shove their behavior in my face, or other people's faces...or if they try to marry and deprive boys and girls of fathers or mothers.

 

[Skylar]

Mark, no, you don't get your own definition of bigotry.

bigot

noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\​

Simple Definition of bigot​

• 
  
  • : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) from Merriam-Webster.

What do you call a person who otherwise could care less about other people except where those other people's behaviors infringe on the rights of children who want and need both a mother and father in marriage....or Christians who disagree with the behavior?

Save of course that denying marriage doesn't magically transform same sex parents into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that the children of same sex couples never have married parents.

Which hurts hundreds of thousands of children and helps none. Yet you insist we hurt hundreds of thousands of children just the same. All to help none.

No thank you.

 

[mdk]

Mark, no, you don't get your own definition of bigotry.

bigot

noun big·ot \ˈbi-gət\​

Simple Definition of bigot​

• 
  
  • : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) from Merriam-Webster.

What do you call a person who otherwise could care less about other people except where those other people's behaviors infringe on the rights of children who want and need both a mother and father in marriage....or Christians who disagree with the behavior? Surely "bigot" wouldn't suffice because we're talking about just one type of behavior that's objectionable. I meet gays all the time and I have no problem with them unless they try to shove their behavior in my face, or other people's faces...or if they try to marry and deprive boys and girls of fathers or mothers.

I suppose it is a good thing for gays and their allies that you're powerless to do anything about it.

 

[hazlnut]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

The chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court issued an administrative order on Wednesday barring state judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, in contravention of the broadly accepted meaning of a June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Chief Justice Roy Moore forbade probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses that violate the state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, “until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court.”

Moore argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had only explicitly struck down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee in its landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges, though the ruling may be interpreted to apply to other states’ bans based on precedent.

Judges don't issue licenses.

You farking idiot.


Too bad they let your sibling-paretns marry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Judges don't issue licenses.

You farking idiot.


Too bad they let your sibling-paretns marry.

This thread is about Alabama...


ALA CODE § 30-1-12 : Alabama Code - Section 30-1-12: PROBATE JUDGE TO MAINTAIN REGISTER OF LICENSES;

The judge of probate must keep a book, in which shall be registered all licenses issued by him and which shall state whether the parties, or either of them, were of the age specified in Section 30-1-5. If not, he must also state whether either of them had been previously married, or if consent had been given to the marriage by the parent or guardian. If such consent was in writing, he must transcribe it on the same page on which he records the license, and the record so made, or a certified copy thereof, is presumptive evidence of the facts.


ALA CODE § 30-1-12 : Alabama Code - Section 30-1-12: PROBATE JUDGE TO MAINTAIN REGISTER OF LICENSES; REGISTER DEEMED PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF FACTS


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

The chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court issued an administrative order on Wednesday barring state judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, in contravention of the broadly accepted meaning of a June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Chief Justice Roy Moore forbade probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses that violate the state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, “until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court.”

Moore argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had only explicitly struck down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee in its landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges, though the ruling may be interpreted to apply to other states’ bans based on precedent.

Judges don't issue licenses.

You farking idiot.


Too bad they let your sibling-paretns marry.

In Alabama probate judges register them. Which in practice is the same thing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Alabama Chief Justice Effectively Bans Same-Sex Marriage In The State

The chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court issued an administrative order on Wednesday barring state judges from issuing same-sex marriage licenses, in contravention of the broadly accepted meaning of a June 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Chief Justice Roy Moore forbade probate judges in the state from issuing marriage licenses that violate the state’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, “until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court.”

Moore argued that the U.S. Supreme Court had only explicitly struck down same-sex marriage bans in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee in its landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges, though the ruling may be interpreted to apply to other states’ bans based on precedent.

Judges don't issue licenses.

You farking idiot.


Too bad they let your sibling-paretns marry.

In Alabama probate judges register them. Which in practice is the same thing.

They register and issue.


>>>>