Easy way to eliminate same-sex marriage "equality" and affirm superiority of strait marriage

[Unification]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

Why do you hate freedom?

Reality is that freedom is a right only for religious or spiritual people, since only people who are above moral degenerates which lead to suffering are capable of appreciating freeness.

If individuals reject reality of God or higher power, then they are too un-enlightened to understand freedom, so they settle for beastly pleasures such as addiction to sodomy, drunkness, and gluttony - which lead not to freedom, but to living as feral beast in zoo cage.

How free is obese person who become 600 lbs overweight as result of lifestyle of gluttony? He cannot even move his own left-leg without straining himself, so not very "free" is he? Ha ha.

So altrusitic thing would be for the spiritual people to educate the immoral into changing their hamful lifestyle practices, so they can enjoy spiritual freedom rather than suffering and damnation, no?

The facts are being able to marry either sex is more freedom than just being able to marry the opposite sex.

And why do you care ? It doesn’t effect you.

Look, I think neck tattoos are terrible. I wouldn’t get one . But I don’t think they should be illegal .

Apples to oranges - this proposal not being about making sodomy illegal, that be separate issue and unrelated - but this is merely to create legislation to affirm that same-sex union are not "equal" to straight unions, since former is deluded notion.

It be like saying that putting to sockets, or two electircal plugs together is a 'circuit, but that is oxymoron - circuit requires one socket and one electrical plug or else it is not a circuit to begin with, so of course two men or two women is not a "marriage" either.

 

[Timmy]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

Why do you hate freedom?

Reality is that freedom is a right only for religious or spiritual people, since only people who are above moral degenerates which lead to suffering are capable of appreciating freeness.

If individuals reject reality of God or higher power, then they are too un-enlightened to understand freedom, so they settle for beastly pleasures such as addiction to sodomy, drunkness, and gluttony - which lead not to freedom, but to living as feral beast in zoo cage.

How free is obese person who become 600 lbs overweight as result of lifestyle of gluttony? He cannot even move his own left-leg without straining himself, so not very "free" is he? Ha ha.

So altrusitic thing would be for the spiritual people to educate the immoral into changing their hamful lifestyle practices, so they can enjoy spiritual freedom rather than suffering and damnation, no?

The facts are being able to marry either sex is more freedom than just being able to marry the opposite sex.

And why do you care ? It doesn’t effect you.

Look, I think neck tattoos are terrible. I wouldn’t get one . But I don’t think they should be illegal .

Apples to oranges - this proposal not being about making sodomy illegal, that be separate issue and unrelated - but this is merely to create legislation to affirm that same-sex union are not "equal" to straight unions, since former is deluded notion.

It be like saying that putting to sockets, or two electircal plugs together is a 'circuit, but that is oxymoron - circuit requires one socket and one electrical plug or else it is not a circuit to begin with, so of course two men or two women is not a "marriage" either.

A marriage is only about sex?

If a couple stops having sex, or if one is incapable , are they not married anymore ?

 

[Nosmo King]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

What harm has befallen you and yours as a result of marriage equality? How has marriage equality made your life unbearable, more difficult or just plain worse?

What reasons do you proffer to erode rights all Americans should enjoy? Why must there be a second class citizenship for people who are not breaking the law?

 

[Skylar]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

Why do you hate freedom?

Reality is that freedom is a right only for religious or spiritual people, since only people who are above moral degenerates which lead to suffering are capable of appreciating freeness.

If individuals reject reality of God or higher power, then they are too un-enlightened to understand freedom, so they settle for beastly pleasures such as addiction to sodomy, drunkness, and gluttony - which lead not to freedom, but to living as feral beast in zoo cage.

How free is obese person who become 600 lbs overweight as result of lifestyle of gluttony? He cannot even move his own left-leg without straining himself, so not very "free" is he? Ha ha.

So altrusitic thing would be for the spiritual people to educate the immoral into changing their hamful lifestyle practices, so they can enjoy spiritual freedom rather than suffering and damnation, no?

The facts are being able to marry either sex is more freedom than just being able to marry the opposite sex.

And why do you care ? It doesn’t effect you.

Look, I think neck tattoos are terrible. I wouldn’t get one . But I don’t think they should be illegal .

Apples to oranges - this proposal not being about making sodomy illegal, that be separate issue and unrelated - but this is merely to create legislation to affirm that same-sex union are not "equal" to straight unions, since former is deluded notion.

It be like saying that putting to sockets, or two electircal plugs together is a 'circuit, but that is oxymoron - circuit requires one socket and one electrical plug or else it is not a circuit to begin with, so of course two men or two women is not a "marriage" either.

You're just trying to 'rename' marriage. That doesn't eliminate the right to marry. Your 'legal' argument has no more chance than renaming all fire arms 'boomsticks' and insisting that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.

 

[Slade3200]

Your idocracy is screaming in that OP. So it’s the sodmite marriages that you object to huh? That means heterosexual marriages and lesbian marriages are cool. Right? What about the wives that like to take it up the butt? Shall we do rectal exams before each ceremony?

Thanks for the laugh.

Nay, lesbian marriage is not legitimate, may be less harmful than sodomy since it not involve acts related to human dung and spread associated diseases, but lesbian is usually result of woman being in relationship with abusive cad, and developing phobia of men so she need woman for companionship.

Likely if there was way of getting modern males to "man" up and stop being such cads and dogs, we could eliminate the problem of lesbians, since they would get to experience real man.

Youre the last person who should be explaining how lesbians think... what in the world makes you think you’re qualified to do that?! Regardless, there are still lesbian marriages and your idiotic OP seems to qualify those marriges as legit. Oops, didn’t really think that one through did ya?

This why state should create superior version of marriage only for natural and straight couples, and promote it as superior to degenerate variety of "marriage" open to those of lesser persuasion such as sodomy, lesbianism, and other disorders of the mind and nature.

You go ahead and keep promoting that. haha

I can tell you right now people are just gonna laugh at you. Good luck on your mission

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

Great, good luck with that. Prepare for disappointment

 

[Skylar]

Nay, lesbian marriage is not legitimate, may be less harmful than sodomy since it not involve acts related to human dung and spread associated diseases, but lesbian is usually result of woman being in relationship with abusive cad, and developing phobia of men so she need woman for companionship.

Likely if there was way of getting modern males to "man" up and stop being such cads and dogs, we could eliminate the problem of lesbians, since they would get to experience real man.

Youre the last person who should be explaining how lesbians think... what in the world makes you think you’re qualified to do that?! Regardless, there are still lesbian marriages and your idiotic OP seems to qualify those marriges as legit. Oops, didn’t really think that one through did ya?

This why state should create superior version of marriage only for natural and straight couples, and promote it as superior to degenerate variety of "marriage" open to those of lesser persuasion such as sodomy, lesbianism, and other disorders of the mind and nature.

You go ahead and keep promoting that. haha

I can tell you right now people are just gonna laugh at you. Good luck on your mission

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

Great, good luck with that. Prepare for disappointment

Yeah, renaming marriage 'super marriage' doesn't sound like the firmest legal strategy.

 

[Unification]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

Why do you hate freedom?

Reality is that freedom is a right only for religious or spiritual people, since only people who are above moral degenerates which lead to suffering are capable of appreciating freeness.

If individuals reject reality of God or higher power, then they are too un-enlightened to understand freedom, so they settle for beastly pleasures such as addiction to sodomy, drunkness, and gluttony - which lead not to freedom, but to living as feral beast in zoo cage.

How free is obese person who become 600 lbs overweight as result of lifestyle of gluttony? He cannot even move his own left-leg without straining himself, so not very "free" is he? Ha ha.

So altrusitic thing would be for the spiritual people to educate the immoral into changing their hamful lifestyle practices, so they can enjoy spiritual freedom rather than suffering and damnation, no?

The facts are being able to marry either sex is more freedom than just being able to marry the opposite sex.

And why do you care ? It doesn’t effect you.

Look, I think neck tattoos are terrible. I wouldn’t get one . But I don’t think they should be illegal .

Apples to oranges - this proposal not being about making sodomy illegal, that be separate issue and unrelated - but this is merely to create legislation to affirm that same-sex union are not "equal" to straight unions, since former is deluded notion.

It be like saying that putting to sockets, or two electircal plugs together is a 'circuit, but that is oxymoron - circuit requires one socket and one electrical plug or else it is not a circuit to begin with, so of course two men or two women is not a "marriage" either.

A marriage is only about sex?

If a couple stops having sex, or if one is incapable , are they not married anymore ?

If not about sex then love argument fails.

Is possible for two men to love each other in brotherly way, but does not mean one needs to put it in other man's behind, no?

So sodomite "marriage" isn't about love, perhaps just about sex addiction since anal sex with men provide no risk of pregnancy and easier 'hookups", or fetish for things involving human feces, hmm

 

[bodecea]

I suspect the OP has had his wife leave him for another woman. Totally understandable.dd

 

[Skylar]

Why do you hate freedom?

Reality is that freedom is a right only for religious or spiritual people, since only people who are above moral degenerates which lead to suffering are capable of appreciating freeness.

If individuals reject reality of God or higher power, then they are too un-enlightened to understand freedom, so they settle for beastly pleasures such as addiction to sodomy, drunkness, and gluttony - which lead not to freedom, but to living as feral beast in zoo cage.

How free is obese person who become 600 lbs overweight as result of lifestyle of gluttony? He cannot even move his own left-leg without straining himself, so not very "free" is he? Ha ha.

So altrusitic thing would be for the spiritual people to educate the immoral into changing their hamful lifestyle practices, so they can enjoy spiritual freedom rather than suffering and damnation, no?

The facts are being able to marry either sex is more freedom than just being able to marry the opposite sex.

And why do you care ? It doesn’t effect you.

Look, I think neck tattoos are terrible. I wouldn’t get one . But I don’t think they should be illegal .

Apples to oranges - this proposal not being about making sodomy illegal, that be separate issue and unrelated - but this is merely to create legislation to affirm that same-sex union are not "equal" to straight unions, since former is deluded notion.

It be like saying that putting to sockets, or two electircal plugs together is a 'circuit, but that is oxymoron - circuit requires one socket and one electrical plug or else it is not a circuit to begin with, so of course two men or two women is not a "marriage" either.

A marriage is only about sex?

If a couple stops having sex, or if one is incapable , are they not married anymore ?

If not about sex then love argument fails.

Is possible for two men to love each other in brotherly way, but does not mean one needs to put it in other man's behind, no?

So sodomite "marriage" isn't about love, perhaps just about sex addiction since anal sex with men provide no risk of pregnancy and easier 'hookups", or fetish for things involving human feces, hmm

None of that personal opinion has a thing to do with the actual law. You keep predicating your 'legal' arguments on psuedo-legal opinion that has no basis in any ruling.

None of which will have the slightest relevance in an actual court case.

 

[Unification]

I suspect the OP has had his wife leave him for another woman. Totally understandable.dd

Oh, you say I beat my wife into becoming lesbian, how quaint, he he

 

[Skylar]

I suspect the OP has had his wife leave him for another woman. Totally understandable.dd

Oh, you say I beat my wife into becoming lesbian, how quaint, he he

You're kinda ignoring the huge legal holes in your claims, Uni.

That doesn't bode well for a legal argument. Especially in court.

 

[Crepitus]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

You may be the most bigoted person in the board, and they saying some.

 

[Unification]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

You may be the most bigoted person in the board, and they saying some.

I point out facts.

Cannot have electric circuit from two outlets or two plugs - only way to have circuit is 1 outlet and 1 plug, so saying 2 women or 2 men is 'marriage" is also non-logical, you just have problem with reality and common sense.

 

[Faun]

Youre the last person who should be explaining how lesbians think... what in the world makes you think you’re qualified to do that?! Regardless, there are still lesbian marriages and your idiotic OP seems to qualify those marriges as legit. Oops, didn’t really think that one through did ya?

This why state should create superior version of marriage only for natural and straight couples, and promote it as superior to degenerate variety of "marriage" open to those of lesser persuasion such as sodomy, lesbianism, and other disorders of the mind and nature.

You go ahead and keep promoting that. haha

I can tell you right now people are just gonna laugh at you. Good luck on your mission

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

The right to marry is a constitutionally recognized right. Creating an imaginary 'super marriage' for the express purpose of excluding gays seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Correct, but given that only straight couples can actually marry to begin with, then what needs to be done is just create a superior title affirming that straight-only marriage is the only "real" marriage, and that marriage which includes homo "couples" is merely an inferior from of union.

Saying that a homo couple can marry is silly, since that would be like saying that two light sockets, or that two electrical plugs can "couple together" - when in reality of course, only a plug can "couple" or marry with a socket.

Then come up with a new name for marriage for straight couples. What are ya gonna call it?

 

[Slade3200]

This why state should create superior version of marriage only for natural and straight couples, and promote it as superior to degenerate variety of "marriage" open to those of lesser persuasion such as sodomy, lesbianism, and other disorders of the mind and nature.

You go ahead and keep promoting that. haha

I can tell you right now people are just gonna laugh at you. Good luck on your mission

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

The right to marry is a constitutionally recognized right. Creating an imaginary 'super marriage' for the express purpose of excluding gays seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Correct, but given that only straight couples can actually marry to begin with, then what needs to be done is just create a superior title affirming that straight-only marriage is the only "real" marriage, and that marriage which includes homo "couples" is merely an inferior from of union.

Saying that a homo couple can marry is silly, since that would be like saying that two light sockets, or that two electrical plugs can "couple together" - when in reality of course, only a plug can "couple" or marry with a socket.

Then come up with a new name for marriage for straight couples. What are ya gonna call it?

I think they call it “hitched”

 

[Faun]

You go ahead and keep promoting that. haha

I can tell you right now people are just gonna laugh at you. Good luck on your mission

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

The right to marry is a constitutionally recognized right. Creating an imaginary 'super marriage' for the express purpose of excluding gays seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Correct, but given that only straight couples can actually marry to begin with, then what needs to be done is just create a superior title affirming that straight-only marriage is the only "real" marriage, and that marriage which includes homo "couples" is merely an inferior from of union.

Saying that a homo couple can marry is silly, since that would be like saying that two light sockets, or that two electrical plugs can "couple together" - when in reality of course, only a plug can "couple" or marry with a socket.

Then come up with a new name for marriage for straight couples. What are ya gonna call it?

I think they call it “hitched”

Can't use that. That doesn't sound superior than "marriage."

Unification's gonna have to do better than that.

 

[Slade3200]

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

The right to marry is a constitutionally recognized right. Creating an imaginary 'super marriage' for the express purpose of excluding gays seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Correct, but given that only straight couples can actually marry to begin with, then what needs to be done is just create a superior title affirming that straight-only marriage is the only "real" marriage, and that marriage which includes homo "couples" is merely an inferior from of union.

Saying that a homo couple can marry is silly, since that would be like saying that two light sockets, or that two electrical plugs can "couple together" - when in reality of course, only a plug can "couple" or marry with a socket.

Then come up with a new name for marriage for straight couples. What are ya gonna call it?

I think they call it “hitched”

Can't use that. That doesn't sound superior than "marriage."

Unification's gonna have to do better than that.

How about “super hitched”?!

 

[Unification]

Moot point what you think, point is that it states have right to do it, and I predict Supreme Court would rule it as Constitutional given their recent history, so all states do is have to get busy and act on it.

The right to marry is a constitutionally recognized right. Creating an imaginary 'super marriage' for the express purpose of excluding gays seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Correct, but given that only straight couples can actually marry to begin with, then what needs to be done is just create a superior title affirming that straight-only marriage is the only "real" marriage, and that marriage which includes homo "couples" is merely an inferior from of union.

Saying that a homo couple can marry is silly, since that would be like saying that two light sockets, or that two electrical plugs can "couple together" - when in reality of course, only a plug can "couple" or marry with a socket.

Then come up with a new name for marriage for straight couples. What are ya gonna call it?

I think they call it “hitched”

Can't use that. That doesn't sound superior than "marriage."

Unification's gonna have to do better than that.

I just call it natural marriage, or true marriage, or something.

Not important, but point is it give special benefits to people who choose to have straight marriages which lead to healthly procreation.

 

[Slade3200]

The right to marry is a constitutionally recognized right. Creating an imaginary 'super marriage' for the express purpose of excluding gays seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Correct, but given that only straight couples can actually marry to begin with, then what needs to be done is just create a superior title affirming that straight-only marriage is the only "real" marriage, and that marriage which includes homo "couples" is merely an inferior from of union.

Saying that a homo couple can marry is silly, since that would be like saying that two light sockets, or that two electrical plugs can "couple together" - when in reality of course, only a plug can "couple" or marry with a socket.

Then come up with a new name for marriage for straight couples. What are ya gonna call it?

I think they call it “hitched”

Can't use that. That doesn't sound superior than "marriage."

Unification's gonna have to do better than that.

I just call it natural marriage, or true marriage, or something.

Not important, but point is it give special benefits to people who choose to have straight marriages which lead to healthly procreation.

I like Super Hitched better!

 

[jillian]

Easy way to do this, is to create a new state law allowing a superior version of "marriage" only for non-sodomite couples with special rights which sodomite marriage does not get, such as better tax benefits or subsides to help with natural procreation of children.

Then straight-only marriage becomes the new defacto from of "marriage", while the inferior form of marriage which open to sodomite lifestyle becomes reduced to the new "civil union", and its inequality is affirmed by the state in law.

If we do this, most likely if lawsuit was filed against it, and it made its way to Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of it as Constitutional within the bounds of the 14th Amendment, much as they ruled in favor of the Baker in the recent case.

Then sodomite marriage "equality" would be eliminated and go away like it never existed, and the only way to change it at this point would be to repeal the entire 14th Amendment itself... and good luck with that.

So this should be idea that states get on board with, he he

Why should anyone eliminate marriage equality, hack?

Perhaps you should go live in Russia.