A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

why do you keep posting this lie, after having it pointed out over 500 times?

 

This isn’t about the truth or rational arguments - if it was Dixon would not ignore the bulk of everyone’s posts - the people that are against same sex marriage (~30% of the US voting population) are almost identically aligned with the population that believe homosexuality should be illegal (~22% of the US voting population). Their arguments are not to have a debate or change anyone’s opinions - it’s to simply spew their bigotry.

The op was intended to have an open dialogue but instead we are met with “but I can’t marry my dog” or “Ancient Roman laws” so it’s the same arguments as before Obergefell.

In the meantime, 78% of those polled under 30 support same sex marriage so the issue will be irrelevant in a decade.

 

...and limited marriage to straight couples. Agreed.

 

Virginia prohibited interracial marriage; the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The Lovings were in violation of that act.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia, That the State registrar of vital statistics may, as soon as practicable after the taking effect of this act, prepare a form whereon the racial composition of any individual, as Caucasian, Negro, Mongolian, American Indian, Asiatic Indian, Malay, or any mixture thereof, or any other non-Caucasic strains, and if there be any mixture, then, the racial composition of the parents and other ancestors, in so far as ascertainable, so as to show in what generation such mixture occurred, may be certified by such individual, which form shall be known as a registration certificate. The State registrar may supply to each local registrar a sufficient number of such forms for the purpose of this act; each local registrar may; personally or by deputy, as soon as possible after receiving such forms, have made thereon in duplicate a certificate of the racial composition, as aforesaid, of each person resident in his district, who so desires, born before June 14, 1912, which certificate shall be made over the signature of said person, or in the case of children under fourteen years of age, over the signature of a parent, guardian, or other person standing in loco parentis. One of said certificates for each person thus registering in every district shall be forwarded to the State registrar for his files; the other shall be kept on file by the local registrar.
Every local registrar may, as soon as practicable, have such registration certificate made by or for each person in his district who so desires, born before June 14, 1912, for whom he has not on file a registration certificate, or a birth certificate.

2. It shall be a felony for any person wilfully or knowingly to make a registration certificate false as to color or race. The wilful making of a false registration or birth certificate shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

3. For each registration certificate properly made and returned to the State registrar, the local registrar returning the same shall be entitled to a fee of twenty-five cents, to be paid by the registrant. Application for registration and for transcript may be made direct to the State registrar, who may retain the fee for expenses of his office.

4. No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct.

If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are "white persons" as provided for in this act.

The clerk or deputy clerk shall use the same care to assure himself that both applicants are colored, when that fact is claimed.

5. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.

6. For carrying out the purposes of this act and to provide the necessary clerical assistance, postage and other expenses of the State registrar of vital statistics, twenty per cent of the fees received by local registrars under this act shall be paid to the State bureau of vital statistics, which may be expended by the said bureau for the purposes of this act.

7. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are, to the extent of such inconsistency, hereby repealed.

 

Its not an argument. It is observable fact. And race has no relationship to the ability to vote.

They are YOUR strawmen. Not my arguments

 

You bring up childbirth, when someone comments on it it is a strawman, then you bring up your dog, then potential of procreation, followed by Roman law and your sister - When no one can’t put together your “argument” then maybe it is you that is not illustrating your point thoroughly.

 

No one claimed otherwise. And the law they violated was-

"If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage."

Going to Washington DC to get married wasn't against the law. It was coming back to Virginia and cohabitating as husband and wife that turned it into a violation of the law. They didn't make any fraudulent registration certificate,

 

No, I pointed to the 50 state laws that directly contradict your assertion.

 

Because you labeling it a lie 500 times couldn't be more meaningless other than a suggestion that anything you label a lie, is probably the truth.

 

But you know perfectly well your post, and continued claim of the court ruling "respect and dignity" for homosexuals is a lie. So why do you continue posting this lie, knowing full well that it is a lie?

 

nothing you pointed to is in any way relevant, let alone contradict a single thing he said.

 

Homosexuals of the past were not regulated. They now are intensely regulated.

 

???? His statement was that

50 state laws prohibiting closely related couples from marrying directly contradicts the statement above.

 

Regulated by ????
Regulated in what way ????
Must Gay People register ??

 

your statement is completely irrelevant to his, and in no way contradicts anything he said.

 

So then we can deny a woman access to the man to whom she is married to by the laws of another country because by this country's laws, she is not related to him and thus has no medical decision making rights.

 

I wasn't asking about legally. Most people who are married would say that they are still married.

Yes I understand that the main thrust of the thread is legal marriage, which makes any argument that uses religion or world history red herrings as well. But since anti -SSM people bring them up, that makes them legitimate areas for rebuttal. As long as they use those arguments, I will continue to use the very same context to rebuttal and expose their errors.

 

First to get married, they must complete forms, pay a tax to the government and register the marriage with the county of record. Before, they did none of that. Imagine them paying income taxes, and the proof that is required.

 

They, the mysterious "They"
They said this or that.

Lots of Heterosexual People would live together without getting Married, that is nothing New.

It is not Regulated as you propose.

 

Non regulated, they could simply say we are married and that is that.

 

There is an easy to find forum where a man and wife got divorced upon the SSM laws being enacted. It was his claim that divorced he and his wife, an actual woman, would save tens of thousands of dollars in taxes by the act of getting divorced. We have a few posters here that know of this man and read what he said. But he owns a lot of property and employs a large crew to work on his property. Anyway, if challenged, and i find out about it, by you using the @ and my name, I will do my best to find this forum. I have not returned to it in over 2 years and i believe it ran into problems. He may have got banned or simply quit. But I know what he said since he was explaining it tothe forum about the same time as SSM was made law.

Some of you might want to check with your tax person to see if you should remain married.

 

I have heard things similar before same sex Marriages, my freind Calvin, a WW-ll Veteran, started to have heart problems and had Medicare as coverage, and his Wife of 40 years divorced him out of fear her finances would be ruined, she had an imheritance and properties and to be on Medicare, you need to be almost destitute.

So the divorce angle did not appear poofers with the legalization of same sex Marriages, this was happening long before.

 

Still, it put more rich people into divorce proceedings than the intended consequences.

 

Yes, I had seen that happen to people I knew..
One thing to read about it, another to actually see it happening to people you know.

 

Which is pretty much how it used to be, back when there wasn't a butte ton of legal benefits and protections. Even then, the US didn't start seeing licenses until people tried to have interracial marriages.That is when it started to become a definitive legal institution separate from the religious and social institutions