TX Judge Breaks Up Lesbian Home

[Vaux]

I don't think you are any more a bigot for being against same sex relationships than you are for not letting girls play on the boys football team.

 

[Broheim]

And? Acceptability of divorce is a liberal ideal. Which was my point. The liberal idea of marriage has nothing in common with the traditional idea of marriage.

those darn liberals back in ancient Greece, always gotta keep a man down 2 thousand years later

 

[nehalem256]

For some reason people do not understand that this country is not a theocracy. The traditional view of marriage doesn't matter. What does matter is that one group of people is recognized under the law and the other is not. By talking about polygamy and beastiality, you are using bigotry to distract from the actual issue.

There is no distraction. If it is wrong to recognize one group under the law and not another then it must be applied to all groups.

Polygamists, bestiality, incest, polygamy, object-sexuals. All you are saying is that bigotry is okay so long as it is YOUR BIGOTRY. So not only are you a bigot, but you are a hypocrite as well.

People like to say "I'm not a bigot because im just following my religions values". Well if your religion has a bigoted view towards same-sex relationships and you embrace that view, then you my friend are a bigot.

Please point out where I brought religion into it?

And what is your excuse for being bigoted against bestial-sexuals? Are you worried that if Human-dog marriage is legalized you will feel an uncontrollable urge to engage in copopulation with you dog?

It only seems backwards if you're conflating the reason marriage is a legal concept with the way marriage is thought of culturally. Two different things. Fact is, there is no real reason for the state to recognize marriage except because it may have to apply some rules for division of assets on divorce. Let me know if you can think of another reason.

Otherwise, marriage can be handled by religious, secular traditions, whatever. If it's just about conceiving of a relationship in a certain way, the state need not recognize it.

Then there is no reason for marriage to exist as a state recognized institution. Your reasoning is entirely circular. If marriage did not exist there would be no divorce and therefore no reason for marriage to exist.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Polygamists, bestiality, incest, polygamy, object-sexuals. All you are saying is that bigotry is okay so long as it is YOUR BIGOTRY. So not only are you a bigot, but you are a hypocrite as well.

You can argue for polygamy if you want.

But clearly your references to man on dog relationships reflect your profound stupidity. You are the main reason abortion laws should be upheld. Apparently your mom had a deep desire to procreate with her brother and failed get rid of you.

 

[nehalem256]

You can argue for polygamy if you want.

But clearly your references to man on dog relationships reflect your profound stupidity. You are the main reason abortion laws should be upheld. Apparently your mom had a deep desire to procreate with her brother and failed get rid of you.

So you are saying that the bolded is not true:

For some reason people do not understand that this country is not a theocracy. The traditional view of marriage doesn't matter. What does matter is that one group of people is recognized under the law and the other is not. By talking about polygamy and beastiality, you are using bigotry to distract from the actual issue.

You have no problem with discriminating against a group of people(bestial sexuals) that you don't like.

 

[BlueWolf47]

So you are saying that the bolded is not true:



You have no problem with discriminating against a group of people(bestial sexuals) that you don't like.

Because animals aren't people you stupid pile of shit.

 

[nehalem256]

Because animals aren't people you stupid pile of shit.

The funny thing is you have no idea how similar you sound to the people saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!!!!!!!!"

The definition of marriage can change, and in fact MUST change if it discriminates against a sexual orientation, no matter how long a given definition of marriage has stood. That is the argument advanced by SSM supporters

 

[BlueWolf47]

I don't give a shit if someone wants to marry a kangaroo. But that has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage. Go make your own thread about wanting to bang cats.

 

[fskimospy]

consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent

 

[nehalem256]

I don't give a shit if someone wants to marry a kangaroo. But that has nothing to do with legalizing same-sex marriage.

It has everything to do with being a hypocrite. Either you believe the things you post as arguments for SSM

What does matter is that one group of people is recognized under the law and the other is not.

Or you do not. If you not equally support HDM you are a hypocrite.

 

[nehalem256]

consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent consent

Don't worry eskimospy no one is talking about making you marry your dog without your consent...

well except maybe in Canada. Where they have the "no living in sin" law.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't worry eskimospy no one is talking about making you marry your dog without your consent...

well except maybe in Canada. Where they have the "no living in sin" law.

Don't worry, since consent isn't required in your opinion I'm adding myself to the list of people who are now married to you. I'll be initiating divorce proceedings shortly however, but I'm looking forward to half of your stuff.

It's amazing how you were the first person to figure out the secret that consent wasn't required for marriage. People could have been looting each other for years! You're truly a legal mastermind.

 

[fskimospy]

You're getting dogpiled by at least half a dozen people at this point. Did it ever occur to you that maybe everyone else might have a point? Is it just pride that's keeping you going right now or do you get off on this sort of thing?

 

[nehalem256]

Don't worry, since consent isn't required in your opinion I'm adding myself to the list of people who are now married to you. I'll be initiating divorce proceedings shortly however, but I'm looking forward to half of your stuff.

Consent is not a definitional part of marriage as shown by historical and modern examples.

However, I have clearly stated multiple times that consent should be required of all humans in the marriage.

It's amazing how you were the first person to figure out the secret that consent wasn't required for marriage. People could have been looting each other for years! You're truly a legal mastermind.

I didn't figure it out. It was pointed out to me by SSM supporters when they said in the past women were considered property and hence had no legal ability to consent.

It was further pointed out to me by the actions of Canada where the state has the power to declare people married.

 

[nehalem256]

You're getting dogpiled by at least half a dozen people at this point. Did it ever occur to you that maybe everyone else might have a point? Is it just pride that's keeping you going right now or do you get off on this sort of thing?

Popularity does not make a side right.

 

[fskimospy]

Consent is not a definitional part of marriage as shown by historical and modern examples.

However, I have clearly stated multiple times that consent should be required of all humans in the marriage.

You have repeatedly been shown that this is incorrect. You appear to be confusing a religious ceremony with a legal contract. They are most certainly not the same thing. Since marriages are legal contracts, consent is required.

I didn't figure it out. It was pointed out to me by SSM supporters when they said in the past women were considered property and hence had no legal ability to consent.

It was further pointed out to me by the actions of Canada where the state has the power to declare people married.

This has already been covered. Does your internet browser have problems with hyperlinks or displaying quoted material? The only way you could continue to believe this is due to some sort of technical failure on your end.

 

[fskimospy]

Popularity does not make a side right.

Right, but not only do you have tons of people telling you that you're an idiot, you have people who are actually lawyers telling you that you don't understand what you're talking about. Since that's their area of expertise, do you perhaps think that maybe you should re-evaluate your position?

 

[Tom]

The article cited left out the fact that they are rarely enforced as the ex-spouse rarely raises the issue.

This one has chosen to. The clause is there, the ex-spouse has a cause of action and homosexuality has nothing to do with it. He could have used that to move a man out of the house too.

seems to me that if the government of Texas has the authority to have such a morality clause as part of their law, then the principle of equal protection under the law means that anyone violating this clause ought to be prevented by the state from living together.

It shouldn't be up to the whims of a private citizen(ex-spouse) which laws get enforced.

 

[nehalem256]

You have repeatedly been shown that this is incorrect. You appear to be confusing a religious ceremony with a legal contract. They are most certainly not the same thing. Since marriages are legal contracts, consent is required.

As I said consent should be required of all humans in a marriage.

This has already been covered. Does your internet browser have problems with hyperlinks or displaying quoted material? The only way you could continue to believe this is due to some sort of technical failure on your end.

I know it has already been covered. Apparently you have problems understanding it? Do I need to look at my Liberal->English dictionary again?

Fact: Canada can declare a couple to be married.

Fact: Women used to be considered property. Property cannot give legal consent. This was used as an argument for SSM to show that the definition of marriage has changed. You are now throwing a fit when I turn the argument back around and use it to support HDM. And in fact that is what is so amusing. Every argument I have used is identical to those used by SSM supporters.

And the only argument against HDM is really no different than saying: "God made Adam and Steve, not Adam and Rover!!!!!!"

 

[fskimospy]

As I said consent should be required of all humans in a marriage.

Irrelevant. Marriage is a legal contract. That requires consent by both parties. I would like you to repeat this back to me so that I'm clear you understand it.

I know it has already been covered. Apparently you have problems understanding it? Do I need to look at my Liberal->English dictionary again?

Fact: Canada can declare a couple to be married.

That is implied consent. This has also been covered. Can you repeat back to me that you understand what implied consent means?

Fact: Women used to be considered property. Property cannot give legal consent. This was used as an argument for SSM to show that the definition of marriage has changed. You are now throwing a fit when I turn the argument back around and use it to support HDM. And in fact that is what is so amusing. Every argument I have used is identical to those used by SSM supporters.

And the only argument against HDM is really no different than saying: "God made Adam and Steve, not Adam and Rover!!!!!!"

This has never been true in the United States and has never been a part of civil marriage in the United States. Since we are discussing civil marriage law in the United States, that is the only history that is relevant.

You continue to attempt to use other religious ceremonies and ceremonies from other cultures in an attempt to deflect, because you realize that the inability for animals to consent destroys your argument. There's no way you don't realize this at this point, so you're either just deliberately trolling these boards or you have some sort of mental illness.

 

[nehalem256]

Irrelevant. Marriage is a legal contract. That requires consent by both parties. I would like you to repeat this back to me so that I'm clear you understand it.

As I have said consent does not make sense with regard to animals. And in any case the owner of said animal would be required to give consent (just like the owners of a corporation give consent for contracts involving the corporation).

That is implied consent. This has also been covered. Can you repeat back to me that you understand what implied consent means?

And living together with someone constitutes implied consent to marriage? Please . If conservative Republicans were to propose such a law liberals would be throwing a fit about them trying to force their religion on others. "OMG Republicans don't want people to live in sin OMG OMG."

EDIT: What happened to the government staying out of people's bedrooms?

This has never been true in the United States and has never been a part of civil marriage in the United States. Since we are discussing civil marriage law in the United States, that is the only history that is relevant.

You continue to attempt to use other religious ceremonies and ceremonies from other cultures in an attempt to deflect, because you realize that the inability for animals to consent destroys your argument. There's no way you don't realize this at this point, so you're either just deliberately trolling these boards or you have some sort of mental illness.

That sounds exactly like the "marriage(including US civil marriage) has always been between a man and a woman" argument advanced by opponents of opposite-sex marriage. Thanks for continuing to make my point. Supporters of SSM are massive hypocrites who do not believe in their own arguments.

 

[BlueWolf47]

It has everything to do with being a hypocrite. Either you believe the things you post as arguments for SSM



Or you do not. If you not equally support HDM you are a hypocrite.

What part of the word "people" causes you to think of animals? I know you have a learning disability but your brain activity is starting to resemble persistent vegetative unconsciousness.

 

[nehalem256]

What part of the word "people" causes you to think of animals? I know you have a learning disability but your brain activity is starting to resemble persistent vegetative unconsciousness.

Are you suggesting bestial sexuals are not people?:hmm:

 

[Broheim]

As I have said consent does not make sense with regard to animals. And in any case the owner of said animal would be required to give consent (just like the owners of a corporation give consent for contracts involving the corporation).



And living together with someone constitutes implied consent to marriage? Please . If conservative Republicans were to propose such a law liberals would be throwing a fit about them trying to force their religion on others. "OMG Republicans don't want people to live in sin OMG OMG."

EDIT: What happened to the government staying out of people's bedrooms?



That sounds exactly like the "marriage(including US civil marriage) has always been between a man and a woman" argument advanced by opponents of opposite-sex marriage. Thanks for continuing to make my point. Supporters of SSM are massive hypocrites who do not believe in their own arguments.

you've been fiddling with the dials haven't you? I'm just not sure if it's trolling or retardation you've turned up to 11 :hmm:

 

[BlueWolf47]

I think he comes on here because the kids in his special needs class make fun of how stupid he is.