Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

[bshole]

Makes sense to me. Oligarchical decision-making overruling elected representatives is a problem. You know, the whole reason Obamacare was upheld.

The only problem with your point is that it is morally repugnant to deny gays the right to marry. It is an outrage to our humanity and decency to allow any state the right to deny freedoms to minorities in such a disgusting and filthy manner.

 

[Atreus21]

The only problem with your point is that it is morally repugnant to deny gays the right to marry. It is an outrage to our humanity and decency to allow any state the right to deny freedoms to minorities in such a disgusting and filthy manner.

Requiring that we adhere to the definition of marriage as it existed for millenia before us cannot reasonably be called morally repugnant.

Disgusting and filthy? Give me a break.

 

[werepossum]

The only thing that sticks in my memory about Sr. is his apparent order to stop short of Baghdad. I'm much more critical of Clinton's NAFTA bit.

My wife sits on the right of Attila it seems and has this notion that if a Democrat did anything it must be wrong while I'm more interested in how what is enacted affects me directly.
For instance, Obama care does not affect me since all my health care is VA so I look at that issue from a different perspective. Gay marriage is sort of the same... All rights belong to the individual... Contrary to the Tea Bags, I'd simply include the words, "marriage is a contract between two individual humans" or some such like that.

At the end of the day... I am convinced each president tends toward the middle and wants a legacy. Even though 45ish % don't vote they do help create that legacy. The middle is where it is at, I think.

Well said. Obamacare has screwed me over, but I can still recognize that for some other people it's a Godsend. And I agree with your redefinition of marriage. I disagree that Obama's angling for the middle - I think he's angling pretty hard left - but I can agree with some of what he wants. And for other parts, such as his desire to destroy our health insurance industry, I can at least understand his justification. I don't agree with much of his intended "fundamental transformation" of our nation, but I can see him as something more than a Spandex-clad villain dry-washing his hands as he plots the destruction of our nation.

I don't get 'state's rights' as it applies to marriage. Are some of us [gays who want marriage rights] to avoid states that outlaw same sex marriage? Is that the idea? What if one's company transferred them from a state with rights to one without?

This in a nutshell is why our rights should be nationwide. No American should have some states fundamentally off-limits to them.

End of day... Think of a driver license. Assume the law in AZ is you must be 18 to drive... but you are a CA resident with a CA license and only 16... Because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution each State must recognize the 'just' laws of all other States. You, therefore, can legally drive in AZ.

As I see it!

That's a sensible rebuttal. I would accept this if it was just states deciding whether the legal age of marriage was 15 or 16 or 18, but not if it's states deciding that some consenting adults do not ever possess the right to marry each other, even though both are full qualified to marry someone of opposite sex. If two individuals are full qualified to marry someone of opposite sex, then the state should have no right to prevent them from marrying each other absent some compelling interest that can only be satisfied through that discrimination. That might (or might not) be demonstrable for incest, but with gays openly living together (and in many states marrying) without bringing on Armageddon it obviously isn't true for homosexual marriage. Otherwise we are not truly free creatures. The only true societal impact I'm seeing is by preventing gays from marrying but allowing them to openly live together, raise children together, even adopt children to be raised together, we are forcibly denying the benefits of marriage to some portion of our population. Children don't choose to have gay parents, and they should not be prevented from having the greater security of married parents simply because some of us find it icky or un-Christian, even if that "some of us" happens to be a majority.

 

[werepossum]

I am no better than you and have no Rights that you shouldn't also have.

I hope for you and your partner a long and love filled life together.

Seconded.

There are a lot of things I have no interest in doing that I still do not wish government to prohibit me from doing. ESPECIALLY if others are allowed to do them.

 

[bradly1101]

Seconded.

There are a lot of things I have no interest in doing that I still do not wish government to prohibit me from doing. ESPECIALLY if others are allowed to do them.

Queer was well, queer for centuries in this country. But there are so many of us now (out of the closet) that almost everyone knows a gay person, and respects them. From queer to nearly ubiquitous.

 

[LunarRay]

Requiring that we adhere to the definition of marriage as it existed for millenia before us cannot reasonably be called morally repugnant.

Disgusting and filthy? Give me a break.

Given you're probably taking issue with the bolded bit above my comment might be best made in solitary response but, ()

For quite some time women have been part of the chattel men owned... even the bible's Ten Demands lumps women in with the cows and stuff. Heck, until the 19th Amendment women couldn't even vote for who should tell them what to do...

Society must change as its wisdom does.

 

[thraashman]

Requiring that we adhere to the definition of marriage as it existed for millenia before us cannot reasonably be called morally repugnant.

Disgusting and filthy? Give me a break.

But the definition of marriage hasn't existed the same for millenia as certain people claim it has. Less than 50 years ago many states still had marriage defined to require the same race. A few hundred years before that the idea of consent of the woman was not necessary. At times the concept of it being a union of only 2 was not the case.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically many times throughout history. Choosing to cling to the parts you like while ignoring the rest because of a personal bias against a group is morally repugnant.

 

[LunarRay]

(...snip...)

That's a sensible rebuttal. I would accept this if it was just states deciding whether the legal age of marriage was 15 or 16 or 18, but not if it's states deciding that some consenting adults do not ever possess the right to marry each other, even though both are full qualified to marry someone of opposite sex. If two individuals are full qualified to marry someone of opposite sex, then the state should have no right to prevent them from marrying each other absent some compelling interest that can only be satisfied through that discrimination. That might (or might not) be demonstrable for incest, but with gays openly living together (and in many states marrying) without bringing on Armageddon it obviously isn't true for homosexual marriage. Otherwise we are not truly free creatures. The only true societal impact I'm seeing is by preventing gays from marrying but allowing them to openly live together, raise children together, even adopt children to be raised together, we are forcibly denying the benefits of marriage to some portion of our population. Children don't choose to have gay parents, and they should not be prevented from having the greater security of married parents simply because some of us find it icky or un-Christian, even if that "some of us" happens to be a majority.

Yes, I agree. My post was an analogy regarding his question of State avoidance.

I have always thought of Rights as being held by the individual and if an individual has the Right to marry it must be true that all capable of forming that contract Have that Right. My Right wing fundy wife refers to the bible as the authority on what it states and interprets to include what it don't state in a manner consistent with; God would have said this or that had he thought about it. I am as amazed by that thinking.... The long haired hippy chic sure did change....() as I am by anyone seeking to deny what they enjoy...

Just this morning I said, "3 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea which suggest 2 out of 5 enjoy it." She thought a bit and said, "The bible gives us foods we should not eat but if we do it is the believer who'd enjoy it.".... My sort of joke became coffee all over my pants.

 

[Incorruptible]

Delusional as you are, I wonder how you cope with society at all.

I've condemned radical Islam many times for the same reason I condemn you & yours- none of you are remotely rational. Islamic radicals have made several leaps of faith to arrive at their most cherished beliefs, and so have you. Both operate from a position of self righteous hatred & puffed up emotional outrage, even as each condemns the other.

What you believe cripples your intellect & capacity for human compassion, and it seems unlikely you will ever come close to any realizations about that. More's the pity.

Gotta love that you resort to insults, Radical Islam can't even be compared to the Tea Party. You're a pathetic excuse of a human being for equating them.

I also love how you didn't address your well deserved Teabagging.

 

[werepossum]

Queer was well, queer for centuries in this country. But there are so many of us now (out of the closet) that almost everyone knows a gay person, and respects them. From queer to nearly ubiquitous.

Yep. When many gays come out of the closet, it's either radically oppress them (as Iran) or accept that you guys aren't actually that different. One can only hold the idea that gay people are the devil's minions if one does not know actually gay people. Without holding the idea that gay people are the devil's minions, there can be little justification for treating you differently and all that's left is inertia.

Given you're probably taking issue with the bolded bit above my comment might be best made in solitary response but, ()

For quite some time women have been part of the chattel men owned... even the bible's Ten Demands lumps women in with the cows and stuff. Heck, until the 19th Amendment women couldn't even vote for who should tell them what to do...

Society must change as its wisdom does.

This. Marriage is quite different today than a hundred years ago, much less a thousand when the rule of thumb dictated how a man could lawfully beat his wife. This is as it should be. Tradition should be respected, but not allowed to become a straight jacket.

 

[Matt1970]

I oppose all forms of marriage equally. But that's just me. People should be able to do what they want. If you oppose gay marriage cause u think it is a sin, then you are just forcing people to commit a different sin by living together out of wedlock. But really, how is letting gay people get married going to diminish your quality of life? It's not like a law can be passed to keep them apart, so let them do whatever they want..

 

[bshole]

Matt,

Dude, I thought you were a conservative. That is completely shocking coming from you.

 

[Matt1970]

Matt,

Dude, I thought you were a conservative. That is completely shocking coming from you.

Hold onto your hat. There are actually gay people that are Conservative. Contrary to what people think, I don't have to refer to the Conservative handbook to find out where I stand on an issue. I also don't change my opinions every other day so I could never run for any kind of office, not that I would want to anyways.

 

[Meghan54]

No, The Tea Party is about limited Constitutional government and not social conservatism.

So, if the Tea Party is for a Constitutional gov't, will the party quit using "Christian nation" to describe this country?

From what I've read in the Constitution, no where does it mention Christ, Jesus or any form of Christianity. In fact, it doesn't mention God at all.

Now, the Declaration of Independence mentions God, but God as the creator, not the head of the Christian church. I just don't get how a country that has a specific mention of not creating a state religion puts up with political parties that espouse one religion over all others, ending up with a de facto state religion in all but law....and even corrupting law to a certain extent.

 

[dainthomas]

Requiring that we adhere to the definition of marriage as it existed for millenia before us cannot reasonably be called morally repugnant.

Disgusting and filthy? Give me a break.

Of course it can. What would give you that idea?

Or do you suggest that the forced marriage of girls as soon as they're physically able to procreate in order to solidify political/social ties between families is morally defensible?

Or perhaps you subscribe to the fallacy that marriage was always about love?

 

[Incorruptible]

So, if the Tea Party is for a Constitutional gov't, will the party quit using "Christian nation" to describe this country?

From what I've read in the Constitution, no where does it mention Christ, Jesus or any form of Christianity. In fact, it doesn't mention God at all.

Now, the Declaration of Independence mentions God, but God as the creator, not the head of the Christian church. I just don't get how a country that has a specific mention of not creating a state religion puts up with political parties that espouse one religion over all others, ending up with a de facto state religion in all but law....and even corrupting law to a certain extent.

This has been explained before, Some social conservatives are hijacking the message of the Tea Party which is about fiscal issues.

What is your obsession assuming they're about social issues.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Wow, this is quite Big Government of them,...

 

[Atreus21]

But the definition of marriage hasn't existed the same for millenia as certain people claim it has. Less than 50 years ago many states still had marriage defined to require the same race. A few hundred years before that the idea of consent of the woman was not necessary. At times the concept of it being a union of only 2 was not the case.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically many times throughout history. Choosing to cling to the parts you like while ignoring the rest because of a personal bias against a group is morally repugnant.

You're going to argue that marriage throughout history has not been generally between one man and one woman? That's going to require some sourcing.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course it can. What would give you that idea?

Or do you suggest that the forced marriage of girls as soon as they're physically able to procreate in order to solidify political/social ties between families is morally defensible?

Or perhaps you subscribe to the fallacy that marriage was always about love?

Forcing girls to marry is morally repugnant because it involves the use of force on someone of insufficient maturity to grasp the seriousness of her situation. It's predatory, abusive, and coercive. That is morally repugnant.

Saying that we shouldn't allow people of the same gender to marry is not morally repugnant. The arguments against gay marriage, excepting those that amount to "we hate fags", are not morally repugnant. Just because you disagree with those arguments don't make them morally repugnant.

 

[jhbball]

I thought God was supposed to do the judging?

 

[werepossum]

You're going to argue that marriage throughout history has not been generally between one man and one woman? That's going to require some sourcing.

I don't think anyone would argue that accepting gay marriage is the biggest change in a few hundred years, we're just arguing that marriage as an institution has not remained unchanged for hundreds of years. In reality marriage as an institution is constantly evolving, as any institution must if it is to serve the population rather than the population serving the institution.

 

[Daverino]

Requiring that we adhere to the definition of marriage as it existed for millenia before us cannot reasonably be called morally repugnant.

Disgusting and filthy? Give me a break.

The definition of marriage, as we know it in America, has existed for less than a century. Prior to 1967, the marriage between a black and white person was seen as immoral, unnatural and illegal. Even in this century, a woman's property was transferred to the man through marriage. Marriage laws has been constantly evolving, primarily in terms or racial and gender equality, throughout the past 100 years.

Globally, very little of the world adheres to the Judeo-Christian view of marriage. In much of the third world, marriage is concurrent with gross gender inequality that we do not have in America. And marriage in America has almost no resemblance to marriage as defined in the Bible, save that it is between a man and a woman. Almost every other aspect of Biblically defined marriage has been discarded.

 

[SlickSnake]

"Firefly" star Adam Baldwin went on a Twitter rant about same-sex marriage Thursday and compared it to incest.



Baldwin unleashed his rant on Feb. 20, after posting a link to an article on The Hill about Matt Bevin, the Republican hoping to defeat Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky's November 2014 Senate race. NewNowNext reported. Last week, Bevin suggested legalizing same-sex marriages could lead to the legalization of parent-child marriages for issues like tax purposes.



From his verified account, Baldwin tweeted a link to the article with the hashtag "#PolymorphousPerversity."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...arriage_n_4846727.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

[werepossum]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...arriage_n_4846727.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Well, at least he didn't call gay people selfish little pigs. So you're coming out better than did his own daughter.

This is a horrible, horrible person and I suspect that this will end Hollywood's and the left's constant rehabilitation of this man's character. The irony is he is a good actor. Why then can he not act like a decent human being in public?

 

[thraashman]

Well, at least he didn't call gay people selfish little pigs. So you're coming out better than did his own daughter.

This is a horrible, horrible person and I suspect that this will end Hollywood's and the left's constant rehabilitation of this man's character. The irony is he is a good actor. Why then can he not act like a decent human being in public?

Such disappointing news about the hero of Canton.