Texas to vote on banning gay marriage

[Zysoclaplem]

I just find it amazing that we as humans still take such pleasure in being so selfish.
As long as you have it what the hell does it matter?
I mean, after all, they are just gays. Why can't they just go away?

Well we aren't going anywhere, and we will knock down every god damned wall you place in front of us and your kind will slowly but surely die out until those of you that remain must hide your faces and bodies with white masks and robes as you make your last pointless stand.

Society is moving forward and despite the battles you have won the war is far from over. You cannot anchor progression.

 

[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.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari
If I had a dime for every time a liberal cried bigotbigotbigot I'd be a rich man.

Maybe they should cease from helping the homos in thier hostile takeover of society.

Yoink.

 

[Tab]

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.

I guess I must the odd one out in North Dakota. 🙂

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Ok... So the amendment aims to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.

People seem to be up in arms about the apparent snub to gay couples. Well this also affects those who would like to legitimize three-way (or more) marriages and other non-traditional marriages. After all, if a marriage is only one man and one woman you can't very well marry two women can you?

The argument against this amendment seems to be that a gay marriage is in no way disruptuve to society in general. And that may be so. But it's no less disruptive than a bigamous marriage either. (Assuming all partners are aware of the situation) So why should they be locked out as well? If you allowed one under the equal protection clause then why not the other?

At what point do we draw the line as to what a marriage is or isn't?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

How does it violate the rights of gays? They can still marry. It just has to be to one member of the opposite sex. Like I said above... the Texas amendment also says that I can't marry two or more women. Is that fair to us if the three of us want to be married? We're not hurting anyone. We won't be a disruption to society.

Where do you draw the line as to what is or isn't a marriage?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Ok... So the amendment aims to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.

People seem to be up in arms about the apparent snub to gay couples. Well this also affects those who would like to legitimize three-way (or more) marriages and other non-traditional marriages. After all, if a marriage is only one man and one woman you can't very well marry two women can you?

The argument against this amendment seems to be that a gay marriage is in no way disruptuve to society in general. And that may be so. But it's no less disruptive than a bigamous marriage either. (Assuming all partners are aware of the situation) So why should they be locked out as well? If you allowed one under the equal protection clause then why not the other?

At what point do we draw the line as to what a marriage is or isn't?

The Supreme Court decided long ago against polygomy. (Well, more like that the government can stop certain practices in a religion, but you get the idea)

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Ok... So the amendment aims to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.

People seem to be up in arms about the apparent snub to gay couples. Well this also affects those who would like to legitimize three-way (or more) marriages and other non-traditional marriages. After all, if a marriage is only one man and one woman you can't very well marry two women can you?

The argument against this amendment seems to be that a gay marriage is in no way disruptuve to society in general. And that may be so. But it's no less disruptive than a bigamous marriage either. (Assuming all partners are aware of the situation) So why should they be locked out as well? If you allowed one under the equal protection clause then why not the other?

At what point do we draw the line as to what a marriage is or isn't?

The Supreme Court decided long ago against polygomy.

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?

 

[cruiser1338]

Woohoo.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

How does it violate the rights of gays? They can still marry. It just has to be to one member of the opposite sex. Like I said above... the Texas amendment also says that I can't marry two or more women. Is that fair to us if the three of us want to be married? We're not hurting anyone. We won't be a disruption to society.

Where do you draw the line as to what is or isn't a marriage?

Then you put in the liner, marriage is between two consenting adults. Problem solved.
Im not sure where people get the idea that gay marriage is the start of a trend to polygamy and then bestiality.

What would a hostile homosexual takeover be like? Legions of leather clad men striding throughout the city redecorating buildings? Women in flannel constructing houses?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
If I had a dime for every time a liberal cried bigotbigotbigot I'd be a rich man.

Maybe they should cease from helping the homos in thier hostile takeover of society.

Yoink.

I'm in for one as well.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Ok... So the amendment aims to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.

People seem to be up in arms about the apparent snub to gay couples. Well this also affects those who would like to legitimize three-way (or more) marriages and other non-traditional marriages. After all, if a marriage is only one man and one woman you can't very well marry two women can you?

The argument against this amendment seems to be that a gay marriage is in no way disruptuve to society in general. And that may be so. But it's no less disruptive than a bigamous marriage either. (Assuming all partners are aware of the situation) So why should they be locked out as well? If you allowed one under the equal protection clause then why not the other?

At what point do we draw the line as to what a marriage is or isn't?

The Supreme Court decided long ago against polygomy.

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?

Cuz they're gay.

(Sorry, had to 🙂)

 

[Steeplerot]

76% anti-gay marriage...tx is such a sh1thole...What is the matter with the majority of people there?

Please let the next propositionbe to secede and take their dumbass cowboy with them...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Ok... So the amendment aims to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman only.

People seem to be up in arms about the apparent snub to gay couples. Well this also affects those who would like to legitimize three-way (or more) marriages and other non-traditional marriages. After all, if a marriage is only one man and one woman you can't very well marry two women can you?

The argument against this amendment seems to be that a gay marriage is in no way disruptuve to society in general. And that may be so. But it's no less disruptive than a bigamous marriage either. (Assuming all partners are aware of the situation) So why should they be locked out as well? If you allowed one under the equal protection clause then why not the other?

At what point do we draw the line as to what a marriage is or isn't?

The Supreme Court decided long ago against polygomy.

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?

They are different because, unlike your poligamy scenario, it isn't against the law for one person to marry another person....unless you are gay. Clearly a violation of equal rights. As the example that has been used before, are we to not allow a black man/woman to marry a white man/woman just because that isn't the "traditional" marriage? In earlier times, yes we did. Thankfully, we overcame our fears, stereotypes and racist ways. Hopefully we can do the same to our fears, stereotypes and homophobic "gays are trying to take over society" views as well. The sooner the better.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

How does it violate the rights of gays? They can still marry. It just has to be to one member of the opposite sex. Like I said above... the Texas amendment also says that I can't marry two or more women. Is that fair to us if the three of us want to be married? We're not hurting anyone. We won't be a disruption to society.

Where do you draw the line as to what is or isn't a marriage?

Then you put in the liner, marriage is between two consenting adults. Problem solved.
Im not sure where people get the idea that gay marriage is the start of a trend to polygamy and then bestiality.

What would a hostile homosexual takeover be like? Legions of leather clad men striding throughout the city redecorating buildings? Women in flannel constructing houses?

So why two and not three?

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
76% anti-gay marriage...tx is such a sh1thole...What is the matter with the majority of people there?

:thumbsup: to Texas.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
76% anti-gay marriage...tx is such a sh1thole...What is the matter with the majority of people there?

:thumbsup: to Texas.

LMFAO... Only a Lib would wonder what was wrong with the other 76%.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

How does it violate the rights of gays? They can still marry. It just has to be to one member of the opposite sex. Like I said above... the Texas amendment also says that I can't marry two or more women. Is that fair to us if the three of us want to be married? We're not hurting anyone. We won't be a disruption to society.

Where do you draw the line as to what is or isn't a marriage?

Then you put in the liner, marriage is between two consenting adults. Problem solved.
Im not sure where people get the idea that gay marriage is the start of a trend to polygamy and then bestiality.

What would a hostile homosexual takeover be like? Legions of leather clad men striding throughout the city redecorating buildings? Women in flannel constructing houses?

So why two and not three?

OR animals or inanimate objects? where does one draw the line? or shall we just just make marriage meaningless?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

How does it violate the rights of gays? They can still marry. It just has to be to one member of the opposite sex. Like I said above... the Texas amendment also says that I can't marry two or more women. Is that fair to us if the three of us want to be married? We're not hurting anyone. We won't be a disruption to society.

Where do you draw the line as to what is or isn't a marriage?

Then you put in the liner, marriage is between two consenting adults. Problem solved.
Im not sure where people get the idea that gay marriage is the start of a trend to polygamy and then bestiality.

What would a hostile homosexual takeover be like? Legions of leather clad men striding throughout the city redecorating buildings? Women in flannel constructing houses?

So why two and not three?

OR animals or inanimate objects? where does one draw the line? or shall we just just make marriage meaningless?

I love the form of argument goes from meaningful and though-provoking, to making the most asinine assertions possible.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Did any of you that are stating that this is not really a big deal and just defining marriage as a single man and single woman happen to read the legislation in the prior link and notice the part that I copied/pasted? If not, I will do so again:

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

That rules out civil unions which in turn, squashes the constitutional rights of gays. Period. End of story. This amendment wouldn't make it out of any court in the country (except the bible belt states) and will be shot down by the SCOTUS if it does get out of state courts.

How does it violate the rights of gays? They can still marry. It just has to be to one member of the opposite sex. Like I said above... the Texas amendment also says that I can't marry two or more women. Is that fair to us if the three of us want to be married? We're not hurting anyone. We won't be a disruption to society.

Where do you draw the line as to what is or isn't a marriage?

Then you put in the liner, marriage is between two consenting adults. Problem solved.
Im not sure where people get the idea that gay marriage is the start of a trend to polygamy and then bestiality.

What would a hostile homosexual takeover be like? Legions of leather clad men striding throughout the city redecorating buildings? Women in flannel constructing houses?

So why two and not three?

OR animals or inanimate objects? where does one draw the line? or shall we just just make marriage meaningless?

I love the form of argument goes from meaningful and though-provoking, to making the most asinine assertions possible.

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?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
76% anti-gay marriage...tx is such a sh1thole...What is the matter with the majority of people there?

:thumbsup: to Texas.

LMFAO... Only a Lib would wonder what was wrong with the other 76%.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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