Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, the state has the power to define marriage......unless they violate constitutional guarantees.

Nature defined marriage .

Man defined- and defines marriage. There is no marriage in nature.

If we looked at nature for guidance- well then incestuous and polygamous marriage would be perfectly acceptable

Actually God established marriage. Read Genesis.

Actually there is no evidence that a 'god' exists...

Nonsense...

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Fact: The Universe Exists and like everything else IN the Universe, existence stems from the result of consequences that created it... Therefore, whatever created the Universe is axiomatically defined as "The Creator"; where the creation is recognized as being regulated by laws which provide for structure and order, such indicates the existence of energy bearing the incontestable indications of intelligence; in that energy, the forceful, intelligent consequence of which is the observed universe, and in that, we find: God.

You disagree... but your disagreement rests entirely upon: NOTHING. No reasoning, beyond the whimsy of pure happenstance, wherein order is the fleeting consequence of chaos... which you'll be shocked to learn is a non sequitur... (look it up).

See how easy it is to prove God exists? Nothing to it, beyond OPENING YOUR EYES and seeing the creation... which can only result from the existence of The Creator.

What is it that makes you think the universe was created? And your Creator is just as likely to be pure evil as pure good, or more likely, neither.

 

[Silhouette]

S/he's not talking about God, idjit. S/he's talking about nature. A thing pagans should be delighted to hear. NATURE designed male and female as parents to children.
The idea of using children as lab rats in this neo-experiment is one that even the LGBTs themselves were not subjected to as impotent children who cannot vote. Even they had "mom and dad". Being truly self-absorbed and blind to the consideration of any other on the planet, they now insist that all future generations must include ranks of children of boys without fathers and girls without mothers "as legitimate marriage".
Not on my watch.

Fair enough. I disagree with you; I think that relegating same sex couples to civil unions while opposite sex couples have marriages is a clear example of separate but equal. And for myself, I'd prefer that all couples receive a civil union and let marriages be the province of private individuals rather than the state. However, that doesn't seem feasible to me.

For the reasons of children and adoption. Surely you understand this. Did you forget the conversation? Children need a mother and a father for their best formative environment.

There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.

James that's not entirely true. They cannot adopt children in many states if a couple living together isn't married. That's the reason...THE reason they want to redact the word "marriage": to access orphaned kids. Read my signature for possibilities as to why that is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

The main questions that I would like to have answered concerning the issue, is basic and simple.....
Why does this minority think that they need to redefine the definition of marriage to gain some equality that they feel they are being denied by not redefining marriage?
There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.
Some here have used sarcasm that this is separate but equal, and the fact is that that is exactly what it is, and there is nothing wrong with it, as it is not segregation anymore than women and men being segregated by use of rest room facilities or placing their sex in a drivers license.
Happiness is not gained by a word.
Equality is not gained by redefining a word.
Equality would be gained by enforcing contract law, and the right to contract. I believe in free will, and that everyone has the right to do as they wish, as long as in exercising that right they do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another.

Fair enough. I disagree with you; I think that relegating same sex couples to civil unions while opposite sex couples have marriages is a clear example of separate but equal. And for myself, I'd prefer that all couples receive a civil union and let marriages be the province of private individuals rather than the state. However, that doesn't seem feasible to me.

Of course you do... because where Marriage exists as defined by Nature, it will stand as the legitimate example distinct from the illegitimate pretense of such.

You feel that one entity being legitimate, where the other is not, is not 'fair' and you lack the strength of character to admit that your notion of fairness is a perversion of the terms essence, in that tose who are aligned with the natural order are superior to those who reject such, thus their lineage will continue while the lineage of the illegitimate will cease to exist.

In reality, there is no means to get more FAIR than that... and this without regard to the deviant reasoning which whimpers otherwise.

 

[Montrovant]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

Its very simple scamp.

Ya see human physiology was designed by Nature. That construct was specifically designed to promote what scientists recognize as the 'Biological Imperative'.

The Biological Imperative provides for the perpetuation of the species and toward that end, Nature designed two distinct, but complimenting genders. Each designed, respectively, to JOIN WITH THE OTHER.

Each gender is designed with distinct traits, which also are designed to compliment and join with the other. And this provides that where the two join, conception is promoted and where conception is achieved, the union of the two individuals; one male and one female, provides that the female's diminished means to provide for herself is offset by the male. As he serves her unique needs, provides for her sustenance, protects her and her developing baby. Afterwards, each bring to bear their own respective traits in the training and nurturing of the child, so that the child will likely become a sound, productive adult and repeat the processes; therein perpetuating the species. A process which is sound, thus sustainable.

We've come to call it: CIVILIZATION.

It's not even a debatable point, it has happened hundreds of billions of times throughout human history and absent it having happened, there would BE NO HUMAN HISTORY.

Yet there you are, demanding that such is a pretense, a construct of humanity... .

To deny this otherwise incontestable fact, presents as an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Need anything else?

Again, joining together to procreate is sex. Joining together in a contractual arrangement involving medical benefits, power of attorney, pledges of monogamy (or not), legal authority over children, etc. is marriage and is a human construct.

Humans have been having children without being married throughout the history of our species. There have likely been couples who had no children throughout the history of the concept of marriage, just as there have been different types of marriages through history.

Nature did not create marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

deleted (thanks, Montrovant)

 

[Montrovant]

Keys, James, and Sil are all in the echo chamber. Guys, you can have your own opinions, but your own unique terms, definitions, and narratives that differ from the traditionally accepted legitimacy concerning the sum of matters. Never. Marriage equality will come to pass, and the CSA is dead forever, and Keys natural law theory remains bogus.

That's funny Jake. The traditionally accepted definition of marriage is one of the big arguments against same sex marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That accepted definition of marriage has changed, Montrovant. Keys, James, and Sil are all in the echo chamber. Guys, you can have your own opinions, but your own unique terms, definitions, and narratives that differ from the traditionally accepted legitimacy concerning the sum of matters. Never. Marriage equality is now the traditionally accepted form of marriage. and SCOTUS will have it come to pass for all of the Nation, and the CSA is dead forever, and Keys natural law theory remains bogus.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[Marriage is defined by nature... per the design intrinsic to human physiology. ...

Marriage is a human construct. You are conflating sex with marriage. The two are separate.

Oh so humans created humanity?

ROFLMNAO! (You can NOT make this crap up!)

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Reader, can you IMAGINE the weeping and gnashing of Leftist tooth, if I had ACCUSED the idiots of LITERALLY creating humanity?

How do you go from marriage is a human construct to humans created humanity?

Its very simple scamp.

Ya see human physiology was designed by Nature. That construct was specifically designed to promote what scientists recognize as the 'Biological Imperative'.

The Biological Imperative provides for the perpetuation of the species and toward that end, Nature designed two distinct, but complimenting genders. Each designed, respectively, to JOIN WITH THE OTHER.

Each gender is designed with distinct traits, which also are designed to compliment and join with the other. And this provides that where the two join, conception is promoted and where conception is achieved, the union of the two individuals; one male and one female, provides that the female's diminished means to provide for herself is offset by the male. As he serves her unique needs, provides for her sustenance, protects her and her developing baby. Afterwards, each bring to bear their own respective traits in the training and nurturing of the child, so that the child will likely become a sound, productive adult and repeat the processes; therein perpetuating the species. A process which is sound, thus sustainable.

We've come to call it: CIVILIZATION.

It's not even a debatable point, it has happened hundreds of billions of times throughout human history and absent it having happened, there would BE NO HUMAN HISTORY.

Yet there you are, demanding that such is a pretense, a construct of humanity... .

To deny this otherwise incontestable fact, presents as an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Need anything else?

Again, joining together to procreate is sex. Joining together in a contractual arrangement involving medical benefits, power of attorney, pledges of monogamy (or not), legal authority over children, etc. is marriage and is a human construct.

Joining together, wherein the male enters the body of the female, is a contract. And it's a contract wherein the male promises to care for the female and the child conceived through the PURPOSE OF THE JOINING.

The shared obligations come as a natural consequence of the merged INTERESTS... .

You speak to artificial constructs, as if they are supreme to the inalterable laws of nature.

Try this... Go write yourself a contract, wherein you agree to flap your arms are hard as you can to achieve lift... find any other party who is willing to compensate you in whatever way serves your needs, but you must first achieve left by flapping your arms, as part of the contract.

Through this exercise you'll come to find the distinction between the merit of artificial constructs within a reality which deems such to be irrelevant.

Best of luck to ya.

OH! I should point out, in fairness... that where you take on such an obligation you will piss way your life, your little micro-civilization will be lost, to the folly born of your foolish refusal to accept the observed laws of nature as superior to whatever bargains you make in defiance of those laws.

(In that declaration, I've done all I can for you. You should know, that unlike the above covenant, actual civilization involves many disparate interests, and where there exists those who threaten the sound construct of civilization, some among those interests will at some point, destroy you... and that such is their duty; in that if they fail to bear the responsibility to do so, they quite literally forfeit their own rights to live in a sound civil construct.

So... well, you know.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have done nothing, Keys, except natter and chatter.

You are no authority on these matters, clearly.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...
Humans have been having children without being married throughout the history of our species.

Yes, and in each and every instance, those children were born into illegitimate environments. Thus their lives tend toward the chaotic, which are subject to much higher probabilities for the instability common to calamity... by virtue of those children having not been adequately nurtured and trained in the tenets of a sound existence.

Like the Clap, illegitimate children happen... but it is only the most profoundly foolish who are found ENCOURAGING IT!

Now, does that help, in any way?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB.

I present you:

The FOOL!​

That accepted definition of marriage has changed, Montrovant. Keys, James, and Sil are all in the echo chamber. Guys, you can have your own opinions, but your own unique terms, definitions, and narratives that differ from the traditionally accepted legitimacy concerning the sum of matters. Never. Marriage equality is now the traditionally accepted form of marriage. and SCOTUS will have it come to pass for all of the Nation, and the CSA is dead forever, and Keys natural law theory remains bogus.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...
Humans have been having children without being married throughout the history of our species.

Yes, and in each and every instance, those children were born into illegitimate environments. Thus their lives tend toward the chaotic, which are subject to much higher probabilities for the instability common to calamity... by virtue of those children having not been adequately nurtured and trained in the tenets of a sound existence.

What the hell are you talking about? Marriage is recent, men and women having and raising children isn't. The vast majority of humans were born to unmarried people, and did just fine. ****, I'd swear you think that life was invented the day you were born...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB.

I present you:

The FOOL!​

That accepted definition of marriage has changed, Montrovant. Keys, James, and Sil are all in the echo chamber. Guys, you can have your own opinions, but your own unique terms, definitions, and narratives that differ from the traditionally accepted legitimacy concerning the sum of matters. Never. Marriage equality is now the traditionally accepted form of marriage. and SCOTUS will have it come to pass for all of the Nation, and the CSA is dead forever, and Keys natural law theory remains bogus.

Indeed you are, Keys, and self recognition of your failure is the beginning of repairing it.

Recognizing that as a philosopher, Keys, you are a failure would be the logical next step.

 

[James Everett]

S/he's not talking about God, idjit. S/he's talking about nature. A thing pagans should be delighted to hear. NATURE designed male and female as parents to children.
The idea of using children as lab rats in this neo-experiment is one that even the LGBTs themselves were not subjected to as impotent children who cannot vote. Even they had "mom and dad". Being truly self-absorbed and blind to the consideration of any other on the planet, they now insist that all future generations must include ranks of children of boys without fathers and girls without mothers "as legitimate marriage".
Not on my watch.

Fair enough. I disagree with you; I think that relegating same sex couples to civil unions while opposite sex couples have marriages is a clear example of separate but equal. And for myself, I'd prefer that all couples receive a civil union and let marriages be the province of private individuals rather than the state. However, that doesn't seem feasible to me.

For the reasons of children and adoption. Surely you understand this. Did you forget the conversation? Children need a mother and a father for their best formative environment.

There is nothing that cannot be gained by redefining marriage that cannot be gained by enforcing the right to contract under a civil union contract.

James that's not entirely true. They cannot adopt children in many states if a couple living together isn't married. That's the reason...THE reason they want to redact the word "marriage": to access orphaned kids. Read my signature for possibilities as to why that is.

I disagree in that, just because a couple marry does not make the environment for raising a child. Some marriages involve abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc, therefore for the best interest of a child all things must be considered in adoption. Now just because marriage may be re-defined to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, does not makethat environment somehow in the best interest of the child, just on the basis that it is called a marriage. I personally would consider all things in an adoption were I the arbiter, and I would be inclined to choose a committed couple man and man over an abusive husband in an actual marriage by its true definition. I openly admit that a man and a man sexual relationship is revolting to me, however many things are revolting to me equally as that man and man sexual relationship. I have witnessed both alcohol and drug abuse, and I find such even more revolting. Two men who are in a sexual relationship raising a child with love and respect would in my opinion be better than a child raised by an abusive parent or parents be it physical, mental,sexual,verbal, alcoholism or drug abuse.
My issue is more with the changing of the. Meaning of a marriage, and the misuse of their 14th amendment to further the subjugation of the States via more BS fiction heaped atop of a mountainous pile of fictional BS.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Horse puckey, Sil.

You and Keys weirdo and Saint Mike and the rest of the gastric penguins have failed every time in explaining why we should go back to the old, no longer traditional, way.

We won't.

 

[Silhouette]

Horse puckey, Sil.

You and Keys weirdo and Saint Mike and the rest of the gastric penguins have failed every time in explaining why we should go back to the old, no longer traditional, way.

We won't.

Depends on which state you live in...

The burden is upon the cult to prove to the discreet communities that a brand new redaction of the structural meaning of the word marriage and its subsequent guarantee to deprive boys of fathers and girls of mothers, is a good idea. So far they've convinced about a dozen states that kids should be used as lab rats in an experiment they cannot vote to not participate in or not. In an experiment even the LGBT adults today didn't have to participate in against their will or choice. All the other states have preserved the meaning of the word marriage.

30-something left to go. You should really brush up on those PR skills. The South is going to be an especially hard sell...and the Midwest...and apparently California too...

And before you breathe a word of how a rogue lower federal circuit gang can overrule Windsor without SCOTUS, let me remind you that Windsor said this question was up to the states no less than 56 times in Windsor. In fact it was this very hinge Constitutional Finding that SCOTUS used to strike down part of DOMA that said the fed gets to tell states. That concept was put in the dumpster..

Dozen states +/- That's all you have right now.

 

[James Everett]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

I agree, in a adoption situation, or a divorce situation where in my opinion each issue must be considered, all things are never really equal, close maybe, I would clearly count a same sex situation as a negative, however, there are many other negatives that are worse. It is my understanding that the demand, or perhaps better worded, the wish to adopt children far exceeds the availability. Many must seek adoption from foreign countries.
However, again, I see the two as separate issues, the redefining of a marriage and the rearing of children through adoption are only distantly related and to be dealt with separately.
Also, the divide and conquer strategy in which left v right are pitted against one another in order for the U.S. National government to use in exceeding its authority clouds every issue with blind emotion by those who have fallen victim to this strategy. We see it in every issue. People who associate themselves with the left spectrum of the strategy, seem to always confuse Confederate with Conservative. However all will usually agree with the common law which we advocate wherein one is free to do as one chooses as long as in doing so one does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. Those such as Jake cannot see that I as a Confederate, have no interest in what these "homosexuals" do in their private lives anymore than I have an interest in what the heterosexual do in their private lives. The issue for me is the redefining of the meaning of a marriage contract, and the misuse of the 14th amendment by the SCOTUS in order that the national govt of the U.S. May exceed its authority and jurisdiction.

 

[James Everett]

Horse puckey, Sil.

You and Keys weirdo and Saint Mike and the rest of the gastric penguins have failed every time in explaining why we should go back to the old, no longer traditional, way.

We won't.

No JAKE you won't go back unless you find that it in some way benefits the "right" that you despise so blindly, and in someway becomes detrimental to the left.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes but.... all other things being equal, a mother/father home is the superior home to any other structure. So it's why most states in the Union recognize the meaning of marriage and refuse to redact it to accomodate a new social experiment that deprives by its very structure, the best formative environment for kids.

There's no predicting what will happen once the base structure is in place. What is predictable is that a son needs a father and a daughter needs a mother.

Not true since it appeals to ignorance of Spartan policies public; which must be considered superior for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.