President Obama Supports Forcing Gay Marriage on the Entire Country

[marvin martian]

I can't imagine them denying the application. It's two adult people, with full consent, signing a piece of paper saying they are joining in law. Clerk of the Court asked a couple of questions, we answered I do, he signed the form, and we were married. Pretty easy. Maybe too easy for some...

Funny...in old movies...folks were rushing off to Maryland, Elkton, Maryland, in fact, to get married and bypass the restrictions, waiting periods, blood tests etc, that other states enforced before one could marry, to get married. That changed to Vegas...and their 24/7 on the spot marriages.

Part of the national debate began when former Maryland Atty General Doug Gansler said Maryland was bound by law to recognize same sex marriages through Full Faith and Credit considerations.

You merely assent to a different authority...then follow that up with legal maneuverings to acquire some of the same privileges.

Are you going to keep dodging the question? Am I wasting my time by asking you to answer it again?

 

[Max R.]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying it's horseshit that the government needs to validate anyone's marriage. It's a libertarian thing, and certainly not a common view.

Dude, one last time then I'm out of here: you are conflating "validating" marriage with legally recognizing it.

You can marry your cat in the presence of a Feline Preacher and the great Cat God, but our government won't legally recognize it even if you are truly married in accordance with your religion. So are you married to your cat? Yes. Can your cat collect Social Security from your wages before or after your death? No.

 

[Craig]

Are you going to keep dodging the question? Am I wasting my time by asking you to answer it again?

I find it an incredibly stupid question. It supposes something unimaginable to me. The restrictions are so small, it's simply not a reasonable theoretical in my world. That you harp....and harp...and harp....and harp...on it simply makes no sense. In addition, the entire paragraph regarding Elkton and Las Vegas should have clued you in. That you failed to comprehend the ease that one can marry in another state and then have FF&C apply, then you're simply not reading for comprehensive purposes.

Recall...you've been insisting we are "begging for permission". In the real world...we walked in and dropped a few bucks on the counter and signed a piece of paper. No begging.

 

[marvin martian]

Dude, one last time then I'm out of here: you are conflating "validating" marriage with legally recognizing it.

You can marry your cat in the presence of a Feline Preacher and the great Cat God, but our government won't legally recognize it even if you are truly married in accordance with your religion. So are you married to your cat? Yes. Can your cat collect Social Security from your wages before or after your death? No.

One last time, I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that the idea of the government legally recognizing marriage is absurd. I'm not saying it doesn't exist.

And, yes, I can arrange for anyone (human, sorry about your cat reference) to collect my social security benefits with a simple legal document that specifies such.

 

[marvin martian]

I find it an incredibly stupid question.

I notice you say that every time you get caught in a lie or are asked a question that would completely discredit your argument were you to answer it honestly. It tells me all I need to know. You have no honor.

 

[Craig]

I notice you say that every time you get caught in a lie or are asked a question that would completely discredit your argument were you to answer it honestly. It tells me all I need to know. You have no honor.

Another baseless accusation. Ho hum...

 

[Craig]

I notice you say that every time you get caught in a lie or are asked a question that would completely discredit your argument were you to answer it honestly. It tells me all I need to know. You have no honor.

You left out all of this, speaking of one's lack of honor...

It supposes something unimaginable to me. The restrictions are so small, it's simply not a reasonable theoretical in my world. That you harp....and harp...and harp....and harp...on it simply makes no sense. In addition, the entire paragraph regarding Elkton and Las Vegas should have clued you in. That you failed to comprehend the ease that one can marry in another state and then have FF&C apply, then you're simply not reading for comprehensive purposes.

Recall...you've been insisting we are "begging for permission". In the real world...we walked in and dropped a few bucks on the counter and signed a piece of paper. No begging.

 

[marvin martian]

Another baseless accusation. Ho hum...

Please. It's not baseless at all, you dodged the question and we both know why. If you answer it honestly, your entire premise is nullified. Mocking the question only makes you look even more pathetic.

Clearly, your slave mentality brought you to a logical dead end. Answer the question and admit it, or continue to dissimulate and look a fool. Your choice...

 

[Craig]

Please. It's not baseless at all, you dodged the question and we both know why. If you answer it honestly, your entire premise is nullified. Mocking the question only makes you look even more pathetic.

Clearly, your slave mentality brought you to a logical dead end. Answer the question and admit it, or continue to dissimulate and look a fool. Your choice...

Clearly, you can't read for comprehension worth a damn. People used to avoid local laws all the time. I would do the same.

Again with the "slave mentality". It's quite stupid.

 

[marvin martian]

Clearly, you can't read for comprehension worth a damn. People used to avoid local laws all the time. I would do the same.

Again with the "slave mentality". It's quite stupid.

So, if the state denied your application for permission to marry, you would marry anyway, and disregard the state's unconstitutional authority over you. In that case, we agree.

 

[Craig]

So, if the state denied your application for permission to marry, you would marry anyway, and disregard the state's unconstitutional authority over you. In that case, we agree.

So much for blowing my entire premise...

I still mock the question. Theoreticals have a use, but that one was simply for you to hector me. The fact that you needed to be spoon fed the answer is fodder for a different discussion.

Hey...I drove to DC to drink beer when the drinking ages were disparate. I am an inveterate jaywalker and speeder. States have long had such differences...and many people take advantage of them. Many folks in southern PA drive to MD to buy liquor. Many folks north of Boston drive to NH. Some Marylanders drive to Delaware to shop, as Delaware has no sales tax. Right now, it's legal to have an ounce of weed in DC. Not across the line. Think people care?

Authority is derived by consent of the governed. The authority is constitutional. One doesn't need to agree with all aspects of that authority and one can push those civil authorities to the degree they wish. Petitioning the government for change is most certainly constitutional.

 

[Max R.]

...Authority is derived by consent of the governed......

Agreed. What happens when an entire state or group of states withdraws it's consent?

 

[Craig]

Agreed. What happens when an entire state or group of states withdraws it's consent?

Then we have situations like we have in Colorado and Washington and Oregon...and DC, with legal marijuana. They withdrew their consent to keep weed illegal.

It's all about the process. Sausage making, laws...there may be blood and death involved.

 

[Max R.]

Then we have situations like we have in Colorado and Washington and Oregon...and DC, with legal marijuana. They withdrew their consent to keep weed illegal.

It's all about the process. Sausage making, laws...there may be blood and death involved.

Agreed. Just like in 1861.

 

[Craig]

Agreed. Just like in 1861.

Not quite "just like".

The concerns were a tad different at the time. At this point, none of those jurisdictions mentioned that have legalized have written secession statements indicating they will go leave the union over their state's right's concerns.

 

[Max R.]

Not quite "just like".

The concerns were a tad different at the time. At this point, none of those jurisdictions mentioned that have legalized have written secession statements indicating they will go leave the union over their state's right's concerns.

LOL. "That's different". Isn't that the unofficial motto of the Democratic Party?

 

[Craig]

LOL. "That's different". Isn't that the unofficial motto of the Democratic Party?

Slavery is the same as legal weed. Got it.

 

[Queen Titania]

Is it sexually deviant if a man wants to penetrate a woman's anus with his penis?

Hopefully it has not yet become the norm --- since the meaning of deviant is simply that which is not generally accepted as the usual/norm.

 

[Queen Titania]

President Obama supports forcing gay marriage on the entire country? Really? I don't think it means you have to go out and marry a member of your gender if you don't want to. So, what's the problem?

It isn't such a big deal in Europe but obviously is in the US -- it is contentious -- I still feel that if such Unions had been given their old/ancient names, that of Brotherments and Sisterments, it would have been far more acceptable to those who disagree with it --- that the whole issue could have been more carefully managed.

Yet again, the other day, I had to sit through a half hours explanation of someone who was telling me that their daughter had just married and that it was a same sex marriage and the whys and wherefores and ect when if they had just called the marriage a Sisterment it would have saved us that rather clumsy and boring half hours <yawn> explanation.

When I suggested this in 'Religion' whilst you were still all discussing it, I was called a homophile and so on's, but I'm not, we are talking here of legally binding partnerships which are or are not blessed in a Holy place --- and for me clarity is an important element of language, why here in this instance is a simple clarity not acceptable.

 

[Max R.]

Hopefully it has not yet become the norm --- since the meaning of deviant is simply that which is not generally accepted as the usual/norm.

Kinky is when a feather is used while making love. Deviant or perverted is when you use the whole chicken.