Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Faun]

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

 

[Pop23]

You have advocated ending the legal form of marriage that I and millions of Americans enjoy.

You have advocated eliminating every 'government benefit' associated with marriage- and yeah- that is ending a lot for my wife and I.

Social Security survivors benefits: gone
Inheritance tax exemption for surviving spouse: gone
Automatic legal assumption of a spouse being a legal guardian: gone

You are willing to end legal marriage for all Americans- just to kill legal marriage for homosexuals.

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.

I just can't believe the stupidity and hatred exuded by Pop and Boss Man.

Of course you also don't know which sex you're supposed to breed with, so your credibility is, at a minimum, suspect.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic t partnership and leave that to the individual.

I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as wall. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED ! She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED. No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!

And the law Alabama proposed would not change that. Nor have I advocated changing that. If, in the future, you have a Civil Union contract, it serves the exact same purpose.

Complete horseshit on both counts. You have in fact consistently advocated
the elimination of marital benefits, AND you know damned well that a civil union would NOT secure Social Security for my wife.

 

[Pop23]

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

 

[Skylar]

And no one save fringe republicans has any interest in this idea. Even Alabama proposed nothing of the kind in SB377....or any other bill.

Which is why Boss doesn't quote SB377 or any bill or law from Alabama.

He quotes himself. And then seems dumbfounded when no one gives a shit.

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.

I just can't believe the stupidity and hatred exuded by Pop and Boss Man.

Of course you also don't know which sex you're supposed to breed with, so your credibility is, at a minimum, suspect.

Do you have that sentence as a macro...because its becoming your standard reply for almost everyone.

 

[Skylar]

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

If you have a case to make for incest marriage, make it.

But everytime I ask you to.....you always abandon the argument. Strange that.

 

[Pop23]

telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

Well that was already covered as you pointed out, the bill in Alabama doesn't alter any of that. Again... you seem to want to morph the argument into something you can defeat with the Constitution. I am not having that argument with you, it is one you are creating in your own head.

Now... Pension benefits can be a matter of contract law between parties. Before there was ever any such thing as gay marriage, homosexual couples routinely handled their affairs this way and that will continue as it always has. The same applies to married couples or single individuals, they can arrange contracts to handle survivor pensions, etc., as well as wills in probate. So none of this requires any government recognition of marriage.

Social security is nearly broke, it is all going to be completely restructured anyway. I am sure we can adopt proposals to deal with any domestic partnership when we do so. Inheritance tax, same thing, if we even choose to keep it. My proposal is to remove government from all aspects of domestic t partnership and leave that to the individual.

I have a pension from the State of New Jersey. I have Social Security as wall. If I die, my wife will continue to get those benefits BECAUE WE ARE MARRIED ! She will inherit everything that I have tax free BECAUSE WE ARE MARRIED. No contract or will or anything else would result in her getting those benefits if we were not MARRIED. You are an idiot!

And the law Alabama proposed would not change that. Nor have I advocated changing that. If, in the future, you have a Civil Union contract, it serves the exact same purpose.

You have advocated getting rid of all the perks of marriage. And social security benefits are one of those perks.

I don't know about Boss, but I am completely cool with that idea.

 

[Boss]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.

 

[Pop23]

I can only hope that the Republicans of Alabama take up his plan.

"Republicans for the end of marriage benefits"

That will be a big vote getter in a state that loves its serial monogamy.

I'm loving thd idea actually. I hope it spreads across this whole country!

Do you think the backlash for this will go against those who supported interracial marriage, or the Obergfell supporters?

I think that the backlash will go against anyone who suggests telling married couples that the surviving spouse will get no pension benefits or social security survivor benefits, or inheritance tax exemption.

What ever party tells the citizens of Alabama that they are no longer legally married.

I just can't believe the stupidity and hatred exuded by Pop and Boss Man.

Of course you also don't know which sex you're supposed to breed with, so your credibility is, at a minimum, suspect.

Do you have that sentence as a macro...because its becoming your standard reply for almost everyone.

Hey, just stating the obvious lil guy.

 

[Syriusly]

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

As he said- gender is no longer a roadblock.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

 

[Syriusly]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.

Reason left this thread in the OP.

 

[Pop23]

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

Wow....in charge, and on point.

Do you drive a huge 4-wheel drive?

At any rate...it sounds like the only thing you'll accomplish, and it also sounds like it's what you want...

If gays change the definition of marriage, you won't care about marriage anymore.

If so....what does it matter what's rattling around in your psyche?

Gay will still fall in love, have sex, and since natural selection hasn't resulted in their elimination...absolutely nothing reslts form you being in charge, and on point, wit your anti gay marriage crusade

You really think natural selection can weed out OCD?

Really?

 

[Pop23]

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

As he said- gender is no longer a roadblock.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

And up until a few weeks ago, neither could same sex.

 

[toxicmedia]

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

Wow....in charge, and on point.

Do you drive a huge 4-wheel drive?

At any rate...it sounds like the only thing you'll accomplish, and it also sounds like it's what you want...

If gays change the definition of marriage, you won't care about marriage anymore.

If so....what does it matter what's rattling around in your psyche?

Gay will still fall in love, have sex, and since natural selection hasn't resulted in their elimination...absolutely nothing reslts form you being in charge, and on point, wit your anti gay marriage crusade

You really think natural selection can weed out OCD?

Really?

I may regret asking this, because you're probably just trolling...

But, you don't think being gay is somehow linked to OCD.....do you?

(crossing fingers)

 

[Syriusly]

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

As he said- gender is no longer a roadblock.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

And up until a few weeks ago, neither could same sex.

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

 

[Montrovant]

Nothing in the text of the bill even MENTIONS what he's claimed. Which is why he never cites the bill. It has nothing to do with his argument. Its a canvas. A blank space upon which he casts his hopes and desires.

What the bill actually says is utterly irrelevant to his argument, and in most cases, a hindrance to it. As the actual bill repeatedly contracts his imaginary version.

And nothing in the 14th Amendment or Constitution MENTIONS marriage, homosexuals or homosexual marriage. As we can clearly see, that doesn't mean jack shit-- It doesn't have to MENTION it! Why is that fact not penetrating your empty cranium?

As for "my version" ...we have three "versions" floating around in this discussion... We have my actual version, your version and your false perception of my version. You're hell bent on insisting your false perception of my version is actually my version and it doesn't seem to matter how many times I correct you and school your ass on it, you keep right on lying and insisting your false perception of my version is my version.

Reason no longer seems to matter here... it left the building a long time ago.

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case. In fact, you ignore that Alabama recognizes common law marriage, which is a type of marriage which does not include a license. How can the state recognize common law marriage if not having a licensing requirement means it is not a recognized marriage?

 

[toxicmedia]

What is the matter with you who oppose gay marriage....I just don't understand the draw.

Is watching the occaisonal gay couple walk by so unbearable?

Is thinking of them living down the street freaking you out?

I know guys who were raised by low life Hells Angels, or guys who went to Prison, and I get why they have that hostility to anyone who isn't prepared to be bad ass at the drop of a hat. They're used to those guys getting abused.

But for regular people, needing to be macho...enough that you take out your insecurities on gays you don't even know, or didn't cause your baggage.....it's just savage, and uneccessary. Maybe if you hate gays, you should look to your own insecurities, or abuse from the past.

Of course if you're just against it because Republicans are, or your church is, that's different

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.

They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.

Lozers and boozers are what they are.

 

[Syriusly]

Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.

They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.

Lozers and boozers are what they are.

Imagine what these boards would have been like if they had existed back when Loving v. Virginia passed?

"Well we can just end legal marriage to 'kill mixed race marriage'
'If mixed race couples can marry- well why can't brothers and sisters?"

 

[toxicmedia]

Boss and Pop23 are simply whining and pining.

They have nothing, they know they have nothing, and they know they will never have nothing.

Lozers and boozers are what they are.

Well, it's never too late to drop the booze and get that monkey off your back.

Sometimes you'll find you're not so angered by stuff that doesn't affect you