Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The court leans right currently....we will end ****** mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

I don't need to wish. We will end up in a civil war if your filth prevails

That quaking you hear are my boots.

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

 

[Silhouette]

Children were the reason marriage was invented; The anticipation of children being fatherless or motherless was something a tribe or community could not tolerate. They watched and saw enough miscreants created this way that the institution of marriage was invented as a remedy for the fatherless/motherless home.

Enter Obergefell which fundamentally reversed that contractual enjoyment children used to have.

As to mdk's assertion that "if something doesn't exist then it cannot be an implicit part of a contract", let me say this, children not being born yet, but anticipated by the society that sets up marriage parameters is the same as profits not yet in existence from a contract signed between budding business partners. Those profits anticipated are in fact part of that contract. So are children anticipated to come statistically from marriage.

It is that very anticipation and not wanting a tribe full of miscreants that led states to incentivize marriage with benefits in the first place. Now they are "legally" (not) required to incentivize THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CREATION OF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

Thanks to five unelected lawyers in DC in 2015.

they're angry deplorable bigots. they can't help it.

I agree. People who hate children and their right to both a mother and father from any marriage contract really are deplorable.

Said the single mother whose house doesn't have a father. If you spent half as much time worrying about my marriage perhaps you could find a husband. After all, children have a right to a mother and father...unless it's yours.

Is my marital status affecting the substance of my points? No. So lose the ad hominem and stick to the points.

...vv and refrain from obvious attempts at derailing the topic with a strawman...

Is my marital status affecting the substance of my points? No. So lose the ad hominem and stick to the points

It sure does. You seem so concerned about the happening in households of gays, but you get all pissy when the microscope gets pointed back. Hypocritical busybodies never like having the standards they set for others apply to themselves.

The discussion is about marriage laws. Not who is or isn't married and for what reasons. If I was a widower or a widow, would your comments be allowed?

 

[Unkotare]

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

I don't need to wish. We will end up in a civil war if your filth prevails

That quaking you hear are my boots.

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

???

 

[mdk]

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

 

[mdk]

The discussion is about marriage laws. Not who is or isn't married and for what reasons. If I was a widower or a widow, would your comments be allowed?

And here I thought the discussion was about how children have a right to a mother and a father.

Also, the solution you seek doesn't address your problem. Stopping gays from getting married doesn't magically make their children have a mother or a father. It just stops them from getting married. You don't care about children, you care about harming homos. Good thing you lost and keep losing.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

View attachment 159722

Lol...I guess that statement came off that way. I didn't mean it the way you are taking it though.

 

[WinterBorn]

The court leans right currently....we will end ****** mock marriages as a federal rule.

Did you get your hands on a Monkey's Paw?

Huh?

It's from short story by W. W. Jacobs. Having a Monkey's Paw allows the person that possess it three wishes.

I don't need to wish. We will end up in a civil war if your filth prevails

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

 

[mdk]

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

View attachment 159722

Lol...I guess that statement came off that way. I didn't mean it the way you are taking it though.

I am not too concerned either way. If I sold the farm every time someone made a claim of an impending civil war I would be landless a million times over. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

I suspect offensivelyopenminded's ire is more focused on systematically distancing children from a contractual enjoyment they had from time immemorial to 2015.

 

[WinterBorn]

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

I suspect offensivelyopenminded's ire is more focused on systematically distancing children from a contractual enjoyment they had from time immemorial to 2015.

Not sure why you are blaming same sex marriage. The trend towards single parent families and families with parents on their 2nd (or more) marriages has been rising for decades.

from: Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family
"Fewer than half (46%) of U.S. kids younger than 18 years of age are living in a home with two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage. This is a marked change from 1960, when 73% of children fit this description, and 1980, when 61% did, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of recently released American Community Survey (ACS) and Decennial Census data."

 

[WinterBorn]

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

I suspect offensivelyopenminded's ire is more focused on systematically distancing children from a contractual enjoyment they had from time immemorial to 2015.

And being angry that your beliefs are not the law is one thing.

Threatening the murder of innocent people because they do not share your beliefs is quite another.

 

[Silhouette]

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

I suspect offensivelyopenminded's ire is more focused on systematically distancing children from a contractual enjoyment they had from time immemorial to 2015.

And being angry that your beliefs are not the law is one thing.

Threatening the murder of innocent people because they do not share your beliefs is quite another.

Sure, but it makes an excellent diversion form the fact that even if children are not born but merely anticipated, they still are implicit partners in the marriage contract. Just as if no profits exist between budding business partners the day they signed, those future profits are in fact part of the contract they signed.

 

[Syriusly]

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

The 14th Amendment says that State laws have follow the Constitution- which is why the Supreme Court has 4 times now overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing in there about *** "marriage".

Absolutely correct. There is no '***' marriage any more than there is 'n*gger' marriage- there is just marriage.

And marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution- yet we all still have the right to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Children were the reason marriage was invented; .

You keep saying that as if repeating it over and over will make it true.

Like everything else you say.

 

[WinterBorn]

Civil war? WTF? You think people will take up arms because the SCOTUS gave a ruling that gave same-sex couples the same access to marriage (and the benefits therein)?

I doubt there are more than a few dozen willing to do so. And those are all nutcases waiting for any excuse.

I suspect offensivelyopenminded's ire is more focused on systematically distancing children from a contractual enjoyment they had from time immemorial to 2015.

And being angry that your beliefs are not the law is one thing.

Threatening the murder of innocent people because they do not share your beliefs is quite another.

Sure, but it makes an excellent diversion form the fact that even if children are not born but merely anticipated, they still are implicit partners in the marriage contract. Just as if no profits exist between budding business partners the day they signed, those future profits are in fact part of the contract they signed.

And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?

Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

And you mock because you are not right in my face.

View attachment 159722

Lol...I guess that statement came off that way. I didn't mean it the way you are taking it though.

I am not too concerned either way. If I sold the farm every time someone made a claim of an impending civil war I would be landless a million times over. lol

Neither Windsor or Obergefell have anything to do with 'deviant sex practitioners.

That's what homosexuals are.

That's how the 14th Amendment works. Equality for all classes defined. (or added outside powers by the Judiciary in violation of separation of powers)

The 14th Amendment says that State laws have follow the Constitution- which is why the Supreme Court has 4 times now overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing in there about *** "marriage".

Absolutely correct. There is no '***' marriage any more than there is 'n*gger' marriage- there is just marriage.

And marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution- yet we all still have the right to marry.

No you don't have a "right" to marry. You dont understand what a "right" actually is so you make stupid arguments as if you do.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep- that is right.

Silhouette believes that homosexuals in America have no Constitutional protections.

That the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to homosexuals.

People doing homosexual stuff have all sorts of protections.

Not what you said before-
And what Constitutional protections do deviant sex addicts have? Zero, that's right. .

So why exactly do you believe Homosexual Americans have no Constitutional protections?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Syriously thinks she cannot be misguided.

 

[Silhouette]

And if the couple decide that they are not having any children, is the marriage defunct?

Or if, by age or medical malady, the couple is incapable of having children, is their marriage valid?

No. A general provision of a contract applied over a society can come with a rider that says "you can choose no children". It's just that if a couple does choose children, they are mandated to be mother and father. So therefore, only men may marry women and vice versa because the dominant partners in marriage contracts, the reason they were created since the dawn of time, are the children who rely on the best stable home in order to thrive as adults/productive members of society.

Again, just because children are not present at the time the contract is signed does not mean they are not anticipated as implicit to the contract. Just as budding business partners have no profits on day one, those future profits after the contract is signed are absolutely implied to the contract.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Syriusly...you should just tell the truth. You don't care about precedent or fact


..you want fags to be seen as the same as heteros and that is what drives your crusade against normalcy.