Texas to vote on banning gay marriage

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

But the same argument can be made for other non-traditional unions that can be made for gays. Why are they any different than any other non-traditional marriage group?

The government can regulate the structure of legal contracts within the United States. It cannot, however, discriminate against people desiring to enter into those legal contracts based on gender. In other words, it can say the marriage contract may only have 2 contracting parties, but it cannot say that only one gender is permitted enterance into that contract. As I said already, and as very few have acknowledged, Mary's right to be equally permitted as John is to enter into the same contract with Susie is protected by the Constitution.

Consider an analogy. Imagine that the proposed ban was instead written to prevent women from obtaining financing on Ford cars, and to prevent men from obtaining financing on Chevrolets. The legal consequences of the situations are identical, to wit: men would be disallowed from entering into a perfectly valid contract for which only women are eligible, and likewise women would be disallowed from entering into a perfectly valid contract for which only men are eligible. Why can't a woman buy a Ford? "Tradition"? Please.

The problem is that the topic is so emotional that people can't see the cut-and-dried legal argument. They'd rather complain about "destroying the family" or "tradition" or "homophobia" or "anti-gay legislation." After all, those make for much more lively rhetoric and headlines. It's not about sexual orientation, however. It's about gender, and the proposed legistlation will eventually fall to that clear-cut argument.

-Garth

Actually is all about sexuallity and the family unit. It appears most people prefer to have marriage be between a man and woman.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Well the polygomy argument was used as being assinine, but it happens and some people do want it.

So where do you draw the line?

With humans and legal adults.

Personally, I find this laughable, especially when there are states that allow kids to marry adults.

So youa re ok with polygamy and relatives getting married? ANd by what means are you use to draw lines of distinction of who can marry and who cannot?

No, I'm not. And I thought we were talking about what is asinine, not what I believe is ok. However, you decided to chime in with your comment about animals and inanimate objects, the part I find asinine.

Whoozyerdaddy did have a valid point with polygamy, since that would fall into the category of consenting adults, so it wasn't his argument I was calling asinine.

 

[dahunan]

I wonder how many of them voted that way because Dog told them to LMAO...

What is next.. dunk harry potter and that woman who wrote the books into vats of hot oil for witchcraft?

go get um fundies.. God is happy tonight 😛

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Well the polygomy argument was used as being assinine, but it happens and some people do want it.

So where do you draw the line?

With humans and legal adults.

Personally, I find this laughable, especially when there are states that allow kids to marry adults.

So youa re ok with polygamy and relatives getting married? ANd by what means are you use to draw lines of distinction of who can marry and who cannot?

No, I'm not. And I thought we were talking about what is asinine, not what I believe is ok. However, you decided to chime in with your comment about animals and inanimate objects, the part I find asinine.

Whoozyerdaddy did have a valid point with polygamy, since that would fall into the category of consenting adults, so it wasn't his argument I was calling asinine.

So why do you discriminate about what consenting adults wish to do? polygamy and relatives getting married? This type of distiction would be less different than not wanting gays to marry.

 

[Steeplerot]

texas....the new iran of the west

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

But the same argument can be made for other non-traditional unions that can be made for gays. Why are they any different than any other non-traditional marriage group?

The government can regulate the structure of legal contracts within the United States. It cannot, however, discriminate against people desiring to enter into those legal contracts based on gender. In other words, it can say the marriage contract may only have 2 contracting parties, but it cannot say that only one gender is permitted enterance into that contract. As I said already, and as very few have acknowledged, Mary's right to be equally permitted as John is to enter into the same contract with Susie is protected by the Constitution.

Consider an analogy. Imagine that the proposed ban was instead written to prevent women from obtaining financing on Ford cars, and to prevent men from obtaining financing on Chevrolets. The legal consequences of the situations are identical, to wit: men would be disallowed from entering into a perfectly valid contract for which only women are eligible, and likewise women would be disallowed from entering into a perfectly valid contract for which only men are eligible. Why can't a woman buy a Ford? "Tradition"? Please.

The problem is that the topic is so emotional that people can't see the cut-and-dried legal argument. They'd rather complain about "destroying the family" or "tradition" or "homophobia" or "anti-gay legislation." After all, those make for much more lively rhetoric and headlines. It's not about sexual orientation, however. It's about gender, and the proposed legistlation will eventually fall to that clear-cut argument.

-Garth

Actually is all about sexuallity and the family unit. It appears most people prefer to have marriage be between a man and woman.

Good for them. There is a minority that deserves the same privilidges as hetrosexsual couples as well.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Ronstang


No, only a liberal couldn't grasp that some of his kind had to vote for this to pass also. 76% is an OVERWHELMING majority.

More like the rednecks and christian radicals rallied against what they do not understand...this IS texas were talking about....

well, congrats bigoted texas voters, you make texas look like some backward mideast state you all claim to hate so much.

a total disgrace to this country and freedom.

 

[judasmachine]

Hi my name is Robert, and I am ashamed of my bigoted hypocritical neighbors. Please excuse them as they went to school here in Texas, and somehow believe that their president is actually a Texan, when he's one of those northeastern elites we all seem to hate so much down here. But you gays better watch out, just ask a black man what we do to them in Jasper, and Tulia.

Now with linky goodness. /EDIT

 

[Steeplerot]

Sorry, man..Send me a pm if you ever decide to ditch those knuckledraggers...I always am willing to help you look for a place.

I wouldnt want anyone to be stuck living around people so hate filled everyone cool I knew who lived in tx have left ages ago when bush was gov.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Let there be no doubt I am sure Texas will show how discriminatory and full of hatred they are.

Yes, right along with:
Oregon
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Ohio
Utah

Here's a better list:
Link to PDF

I found this list to be ironic/pathetic/telling:

State rankings for education:

Oregon - 38th
Arkansas - 37th
Georgia - 40th
Kentucky - 35th
Michigan - 27th
Mississippi - 49th
Montana - 9th
North Dakota - 20th
Oklahoma - 39th
Ohio - 31st
Utah - 33rd

Notice any sort of trend there? Take out the two anomolies (especially considering that it should be a whole lot easier to get a good ranking when you have a total statewide enrollment that is less than some school districts in more heavily populated states) and you have a lot of the worst educated states that feel that it is okay to discriminate against others.

They apparently never learned that 'rites' are not the same as 'rights'.

 

[polypterus]

Don't forget 40 years ago the same number of people that oppose gay marriage today (~70%) opposed interracial marraige. 40 years from now we'll look back on this and laugh and wonder how people could be so ignorant.

Some of us can wonder that today though.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

For those of you who oppose the right of gays to marry, I ask, on what grounds do you do so?

Are they purely religious?

Or do you believe that a gay couple can't instill the same values as a straight couple?

Also, do you think being gay is a choice someone makes, or is something they're born being?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
More like the rednecks and christian radicals rallied against what they do not understand...this IS texas were talking about....

More sweeping generalizations and stereotypes from Steeple?

 

[Paratus]

Hey just wanted to say I voted the way our Founding Fathers would have intended.........



Against that DISCRIMINITORY piece of crap.



posted via Palm LifeDrive

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
More like the rednecks and christian radicals rallied against what they do not understand...this IS texas were talking about....

More sweeping generalizations and stereotypes from Steeple?

I noticed that but people like him are usually not even worth talking to. He has obviously never been to Texas but he sure is quick to jump on the stereotype bandwagon. I find it interesting that when liberals stereotype it is intelligent, insightful, and an accurate assessment of a situation but if a conservative does the exact same they are racist, biggoted, and closeminded. It is amazing how intolerant liberals are yet they are the ones always calling everyone who does not agree with them intolerant. Hypocrites of the truest fashion.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Well the polygomy argument was used as being assinine, but it happens and some people do want it.

So where do you draw the line?

With humans and legal adults.

Personally, I find this laughable, especially when there are states that allow kids to marry adults.

So youa re ok with polygamy and relatives getting married? ANd by what means are you use to draw lines of distinction of who can marry and who cannot?

No, I'm not. And I thought we were talking about what is asinine, not what I believe is ok. However, you decided to chime in with your comment about animals and inanimate objects, the part I find asinine.

Whoozyerdaddy did have a valid point with polygamy, since that would fall into the category of consenting adults, so it wasn't his argument I was calling asinine.

So why do you discriminate about what consenting adults wish to do? polygamy and relatives getting married? This type of distiction would be less different than not wanting gays to marry.

Why would it be less different? I think marriage/civil unions are between two people. And in addition to thinking it's just wrong to marry a relative, there are also serious health risks for any offspring.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Hey just wanted to say I voted the way our Founding Fathers would have intended.........



Against that DISCRIMINITORY piece of crap.



posted via Palm LifeDrive

:thumbsup:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Let there be no doubt I am sure Texas will show how discriminatory and full of hatred they are.

Yes, right along with:
Oregon
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Ohio
Utah
Texas

Here's a better list:
Link to PDF

🙁

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: misle

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Let there be no doubt I am sure Texas will show how discriminatory and full of hatred they are.

Yes, right along with:
Oregon
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Ohio
Utah

Here's a better list:
Link to PDF

I found this list to be ironic/pathetic/telling:

State rankings for education:

Oregon - 38th
Arkansas - 37th
Georgia - 40th
Kentucky - 35th
Michigan - 27th
Mississippi - 49th
Montana - 9th
North Dakota - 20th
Oklahoma - 39th
Ohio - 31st
Utah - 33rd

Notice any sort of trend there? Take out the two anomolies (especially considering that it should be a whole lot easier to get a good ranking when you have a total statewide enrollment that is less than some school districts in more heavily populated states) and you have a lot of the worst educated states that feel that it is okay to discriminate against others.

They apparently never learned that 'rites' are not the same as 'rights'.

The second list is just hillarious. Somehow Alaska went from #23 to #45 in one year. Maybe someone could explain to me how an entire population of nearly 700,000 went from smarter than most to dumber than almost everyone in a single year.

Nice troll post though.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Well the polygomy argument was used as being assinine, but it happens and some people do want it.

So where do you draw the line?

With humans and legal adults.

Personally, I find this laughable, especially when there are states that allow kids to marry adults.

So youa re ok with polygamy and relatives getting married? ANd by what means are you use to draw lines of distinction of who can marry and who cannot?

No, I'm not. And I thought we were talking about what is asinine, not what I believe is ok. However, you decided to chime in with your comment about animals and inanimate objects, the part I find asinine.

Whoozyerdaddy did have a valid point with polygamy, since that would fall into the category of consenting adults, so it wasn't his argument I was calling asinine.

So why do you discriminate about what consenting adults wish to do? polygamy and relatives getting married? This type of distiction would be less different than not wanting gays to marry.

Why would it be less different? I think marriage/civil unions are between two people. And in addition to thinking it's just wrong to marry a relative, there are also serious health risks for any offspring.

When I started this argument I specifically left out incest/beastiality. Ethics aside, there are medical concerns with incest and in the case of beastiality one party can not enter into a contract.

I specifically kept the argument to non-traditional partnerships because I didn't want to get into the stupid argument about comparing gays to animals and all that stupid crap.

I personally believe it is within the states' power to regulate marriage as they see fit. Some states recognize marriages that would qualify for statutory rape in others. (Remember the recent case of the couple that married in one state and then the husband was jailed when they came back to their home state?) That in itself seems to be enough precident to grant the voters in their respective states the power to define what a legal marriage is.

And it works both ways. Some states have civil unions. One state actually has gay marriage.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Well, looks like Texas has passed the State Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage like the DOMA the Federal Government passed years ago. Also regarding DOMA, it allowed states
This Proposition: "Constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman."

DOMA: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

Sounds like Texas followed the 1996 DOMA.

 

[techs]

Do they like have an official queer hunting season in Texas? Do the let the Bow and Arrow hunters get in two weeks before the automatic weapons season starts? Is there a limit to how many you can bag?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Well the polygomy argument was used as being assinine, but it happens and some people do want it.

So where do you draw the line?

With humans and legal adults.

Personally, I find this laughable, especially when there are states that allow kids to marry adults.

So youa re ok with polygamy and relatives getting married? ANd by what means are you use to draw lines of distinction of who can marry and who cannot?

No, I'm not. And I thought we were talking about what is asinine, not what I believe is ok. However, you decided to chime in with your comment about animals and inanimate objects, the part I find asinine.

Whoozyerdaddy did have a valid point with polygamy, since that would fall into the category of consenting adults, so it wasn't his argument I was calling asinine.

So why do you discriminate about what consenting adults wish to do? polygamy and relatives getting married? This type of distiction would be less different than not wanting gays to marry.

Why would it be less different? I think marriage/civil unions are between two people. And in addition to thinking it's just wrong to marry a relative, there are also serious health risks for any offspring.

maybe the phrase consenting adults...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Well the polygomy argument was used as being assinine, but it happens and some people do want it.

So where do you draw the line?

With humans and legal adults.

Personally, I find this laughable, especially when there are states that allow kids to marry adults.

So youa re ok with polygamy and relatives getting married? ANd by what means are you use to draw lines of distinction of who can marry and who cannot?

No, I'm not. And I thought we were talking about what is asinine, not what I believe is ok. However, you decided to chime in with your comment about animals and inanimate objects, the part I find asinine.

Whoozyerdaddy did have a valid point with polygamy, since that would fall into the category of consenting adults, so it wasn't his argument I was calling asinine.

So why do you discriminate about what consenting adults wish to do? polygamy and relatives getting married? This type of distiction would be less different than not wanting gays to marry.

Why would it be less different? I think marriage/civil unions are between two people. And in addition to thinking it's just wrong to marry a relative, there are also serious health risks for any offspring.

When I started this argument I specifically left out incest/beastiality. Ethics aside, there are medical concerns with incest and in the case of beastiality one party can not enter into a contract.

I specifically kept the argument to non-traditional partnerships because I didn't want to get into the stupid argument about comparing gays to animals and all that stupid crap.

I personally believe it is within the states' power to regulate marriage as they see fit. Some states recognize marriages that would qualify for statutory rape in others. (Remember the recent case of the couple that married in one state and then the husband was jailed when they came back to their home state?) That in itself seems to be enough precident to grant the voters in their respective states the power to define what a legal marriage is.

And it works both ways. Some states have civil unions. One state actually has gay marriage.

I threw it in because there are people that want marriage to include anything.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Actually is all about sexuallity and the family unit.

Except for the cogent legal argument that I presented to the contrary. Your assertion belies your ignorance.

It appears most people prefer to have marriage be between a man and woman.

And...? So what? Most people like to have ketchup with their fries, but it isn't the governmnet's place to outlaw mustard as a condiment.

Perhaps it would be better if you relegated yourself to the role of "spectator." Your participation in the discussion has so far contributed nothing.

-Garth