1/3/2014 4:21 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:06:00 PM (view original):
If this actually becomes an issue, close it up in the way I described earlier.  Easy peasy. 
The easy way;

Gay Bill:  I'd like a marriage license to marry Jill.
ND clerk;   Are you currently married?
GB:  I'm married to Ed in MA.
NDC:   Oh, we don't acknowledge that ****.  
GB:   So I can have a marriage license to marry Jill?
NDC:  Sure.  But you're a polygamist anywhere SSM is recognized.   Pretty sure that's against the law.  Have a nice day. 
1/3/2014 4:22 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):
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.
Do you think they won't?

Seriously, this is borderline retarded.   Activists are looking for a fight for their cause.    This one was found.
1/3/2014 4:22 PM
The easy way:

GB: I'd like a marriage license to marry Jill.
NDC: Are you married?
GB: I'm married to Ed in MA.
NDC: We can't give you a marriage license because it leads to complications when it comes to benefits, tax issues, etc.
GB: Oh. <walks away>
1/3/2014 4:23 PM
Yes, but I don't think it will work.  ND will just close the loophole in the way I described before they allow SSM in their state.
1/3/2014 4:23 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
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.


You call it giving up?

I call it "Not repeating myself over and over again because you're dumb."

Weird.
1/3/2014 4:25 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):
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.
Do you think they won't?

Seriously, this is borderline retarded.   Activists are looking for a fight for their cause.    This one was found.
So what is the argument the activists will make???
1/3/2014 4:26 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:25:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:20:00 PM (view original):
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.
Do you think they won't?

Seriously, this is borderline retarded.   Activists are looking for a fight for their cause.    This one was found.
So what is the argument the activists will make???
That polesmoking is fun for the whole family.  Like Yahtzee.
1/3/2014 4:27 PM
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

1/3/2014 4:30 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):
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.
Has this or does this happen without gay marriage?

Please provide examples.

Thanks in advance.
1/3/2014 4:32 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

Really?  You figured that one out quick.   He's only been doing it for a year and change.

When he doesn't like the direction of the discussion, he asks the same retarded question over and over again.   Even if A) he knows the answer B) you've repeated it a dozen times. 
1/3/2014 4:32 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

I thought marriage was something that was supposed to be decided at the state level.  Isn't that what all the opposition to DOMA was all about?

Are you proposing to change the U.S. Constitution?
1/3/2014 4:36 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/3/2014 4:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:19:00 PM (view original):
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.


You call it giving up?

I call it "Not repeating myself over and over again because you're dumb."

Weird.
I call it giving up.

If you're going tinfoil hat on us, you need to at least explain what the activists are going to sue for. You haven't yet.

Mike is married to BIll in NY.
MIke moves to North Dakota and decides he wants to marry Jane.
North Dakota tells him yes because of the loophole and then MIke sues for...what exactly?

Or

ND closes the loophole and tells him no because Mike has a marriage legal in NY already and then Mike sues for...what exactly?
1/3/2014 4:37 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

I'm not following you. Who/what am I trolling?
1/3/2014 4:39 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/3/2014 4:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

I thought marriage was something that was supposed to be decided at the state level.  Isn't that what all the opposition to DOMA was all about?

Are you proposing to change the U.S. Constitution?
I was making the points being argued by Mike to BL since he was asking the same questions over and over for a couple days.  Mike was ******* around with him, I was getting annoyed with the exchange.

But sure, 28th Amendment - Prohibits the denial of the right to marry any person based on the sex of both parties.
1/3/2014 4:40 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/3/2014 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/3/2014 4:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm starting to think BL is hardcore trolling now.

A) Polygamy is a felony.
B) Allow SSM because otherwise I can be married to 2 people at once.  If you allow SSM on the federal level, we don't have the issue anymore.

I'm not following you. Who/what am I trolling?
Mike has answered the questions a few times, and you're missing them completely or trolling.  I couldn't imagine someone could miss the points over and over.
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.