1/3/2014 3:29 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
If the harm to allowing equality is minor inconveniences like this, then it's really not much harm at all.
1/3/2014 3:30 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
I could argue it was someone like you making the case that we shouldn't be allowing SSM because it will lead to polygamy.  
1/3/2014 3:32 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
I could argue it was someone like you making the case that we shouldn't be allowing SSM because it will lead to polygamy.  
I could accept that argument.    Either way, I doubt it was a man who was married to another man asking if he could marry a woman in ND but couldn't get a divorce from the man because they both lived in states that didn't recognize SSM.
1/3/2014 3:35 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
I could argue it was someone like you making the case that we shouldn't be allowing SSM because it will lead to polygamy.  
I could accept that argument.    Either way, I doubt it was a man who was married to another man asking if he could marry a woman in ND but couldn't get a divorce from the man because they both lived in states that didn't recognize SSM.
So really, there's no issue right now, as the person who's fighting to be married to a straight woman in one state while married to a gay man in another state doesn't exist.
1/3/2014 3:41 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
Who is being harmed?
1/3/2014 3:42 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
What court case is there to be made?
1/3/2014 3:52 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
Who is being harmed?
Joe legally marries Pete in Massachusetts.

Joe legally marries Linda in North Dakota.

Since polygamy is not recognized in any of the 50 states, I would assume that each state is only going to recognize either Pete or Linda as Joe's legal spouse.

Whoever is not recognized by <insert state name here> is "harmed".
1/3/2014 4:06 PM
If this actually becomes an issue, close it up in the way I described earlier.  Easy peasy. 
1/3/2014 4:10 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
I could argue it was someone like you making the case that we shouldn't be allowing SSM because it will lead to polygamy.  
I could accept that argument.    Either way, I doubt it was a man who was married to another man asking if he could marry a woman in ND but couldn't get a divorce from the man because they both lived in states that didn't recognize SSM.
So really, there's no issue right now, as the person who's fighting to be married to a straight woman in one state while married to a gay man in another state doesn't exist.
An issue is being made or I never hear about the non-existent person.    Do you disagree?
1/3/2014 4:15 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
Who is being harmed?
Joe legally marries Pete in Massachusetts.

Joe legally marries Linda in North Dakota.

Since polygamy is not recognized in any of the 50 states, I would assume that each state is only going to recognize either Pete or Linda as Joe's legal spouse.

Whoever is not recognized by <insert state name here> is "harmed".
That has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with Joe marrying two different people.
1/3/2014 4:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
What court case is there to be made?
Are you going to address this???

Explain the argument that would be made in the court case.
1/3/2014 4:18 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 3:22:00 PM (view original):
I thought it was interesting because BL kept insisting "There's no harm in allowing SSM?".  Apparently, there is.
Who is being harmed?
Joe legally marries Pete in Massachusetts.

Joe legally marries Linda in North Dakota.

Since polygamy is not recognized in any of the 50 states, I would assume that each state is only going to recognize either Pete or Linda as Joe's legal spouse.

Whoever is not recognized by <insert state name here> is "harmed".
Also, if Joe marries Pete in MA and then they both move to ND, ND isn't going to recognize the marriage.

Are you arguing that Pete is harmed in that scenario?
1/3/2014 4:18 PM

I answered yesterday.   Cocksuckery in the 3rd degree.

1/3/2014 4:19 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:18:00 PM (view original):

I answered yesterday.   Cocksuckery in the 3rd degree.

Someone called the North Dakota officials so that they can sue for cocksuckery???

I love when you just completely give up your retarded argument.


1/3/2014 4:20 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):
It's somewhat interesting.  Or at least tec thought it was.  I don't know, people make big deals out of things that aren't big deals all the time.
So do you also plan on pretending that the anonymous caller, with the perfect scenario, wasn't a SSM advocate looking to make a court case?
I could argue it was someone like you making the case that we shouldn't be allowing SSM because it will lead to polygamy.  
I could accept that argument.    Either way, I doubt it was a man who was married to another man asking if he could marry a woman in ND but couldn't get a divorce from the man because they both lived in states that didn't recognize SSM.
So really, there's no issue right now, as the person who's fighting to be married to a straight woman in one state while married to a gay man in another state doesn't exist.
An issue is being made or I never hear about the non-existent person.    Do you disagree?
A hypothetical was brought up.  Someone found a loophole that nobody's tried to jump through yet.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.