Gay Marriage Is About to Be Legal in Alabama

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

You serious? Many straight couples go through medical treatment and use other sperm/eggs and have them inserted artificially. You really are behind on medical science.

But when gays or lesbians do the same you call it 'wrong'.

Kinda ironic, since you don't complain when we keep babies alive through artificial means or people alive with artificial means.

That life has to be 'natural or naturally supported' argument fell to pieces ages ago, don't know why you even push it - since every time you push it you undermine the pro-life argument.

After all if all life has to be 'natural' what about the people on life support or born too soon, you would have to turn the switch and let them die because they are supported artificially.

In the case of gay and lesbian would be babies, you would be denying them existence too by denying gays and lesbians the right to reproduce and donate their sperm and eggs.

When homos do in-vitro it involves a third party and that third person is the actual second person in the parenting equation. Making the homos the parents is a fantasy. Pretend. At the expense of the kid. Child abuse.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, I have heard of them. And now gay couples in Alabama will get to take advantage of them too.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gracie]

Good. Two consenting adults that love each other should be allowed to marry.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all a nice idea you have had. It is more intelligent than some, like Steve. But in the end it is simply your opinion and wishful thinking. Nowhere, in any marriage document I signed or ceremonial vow I took, were children mentioned at all.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Good. Two consenting adults that love each other should be allowed to marry.

I agree. But don't make the rest of us fund it. And don't grant them the privilege to adoption and potential child abuse of depriving a child of one of its necessary parents. That's what legal homo marriage does.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all a nice idea you have had. It is more intelligent than some, like Steve. But in the end it is simply your opinion and wishful thinking. Nowhere, in any marriage document I signed or ceremonial vow I took, were children mentioned at all.

That's because it was a given, an assumption. Like blind people not being considered for driver's licenses to this day and that probably not even written into driving laws.

 

[Gracie]

Good. Two consenting adults that love each other should be allowed to marry.

I agree. But don't make the rest of us fund it. And don't grant them the privilege to adoption and potential child abuse of depriving a child of one of its necessary parents. That's what legal homo marriage does.

And how many children are BORN to heterosexual couples are mistreated? Who else wants so many unwanted children? If two loving people want to adopt and give that child a home, love, medical attention, learning, who are we to say they should not be able to??? You'd rather they stay in a system being fostered over and over and over again or stay in one institution until they are 18? Really?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Good. Two consenting adults that love each other should be allowed to marry.

I agree. But don't make the rest of us fund it. And don't grant them the privilege to adoption and potential child abuse of depriving a child of one of its necessary parents. That's what legal homo marriage does.

And how many children are BORN to heterosexual couples are mistreated? Who else wants so many unwanted children? If two loving people want to adopt and give that child a home, love, medical attention, learning, who are we to say they should not be able to??? You'd rather they stay in a system being fostered over and over and over again or stay in one institution until they are 18? Really?

I'm sure homo couples are just as capable of being abusive to children as any hetero couples.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your argument fail in a number of way.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is all a nice idea you have had. It is more intelligent than some, like Steve. But in the end it is simply your opinion and wishful thinking. Nowhere, in any marriage document I signed or ceremonial vow I took, were children mentioned at all.

That's because it was a given, an assumption. Like blind people not being considered for driver's licenses to this day and that probably not even written into driving laws.

Nonsense. There is a documented vision requirement for getting a drivers license.

But there is no documented requirement in marriage laws concerning children. None.