Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[Kondor3]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

It is not trampling of rights to advance an agenda.

It is denying legal standing to sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals)... reversing the forcibly-imposed agenda of the Gay Mafia.

Why are you so upset and threatened by gays having rights that you can take for granted? They are just people who are more like the rest of us than different. What happened to you to make you so angry and obsessive . I can only conclude that you are by virtue of the fact that you are even here on this topic. Is there something about you that we should know that would help us to understand you? It might be helpful to let it out. Most people who are secure in their lives and identities do not have the need to lash out at others and demean and marginalize them, when they have done nothing to you.

Awwww... did I hit a nerve, precious?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

It is not trampling of rights to advance an agenda.

It is denying legal standing to sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals)... reversing the forcibly-imposed agenda of the Gay Mafia.

Why are you so upset and threatened by gays having rights that you can take for granted? They are just people who are more like the rest of us than different. What happened to you to make you so angry and obsessive . I can only conclude that you are by virtue of the fact that you are even here on this topic. Is there something about you that we should know that would help us to understand you? It might be helpful to let it out. Most people who are secure in their lives and identities do not have the need to lash out at others and demean and marginalize them, when they have done nothing to you.

Awwww... did I hit a nerve, precious?

No!! Not at all. I'm just fine. However, I do believe that I hit a nerve with you. You can't seem to deal with the issue in a rational way so you're trying to make it about me. Do you understand the psychological concept of projection? So again, I'll ask you, why are you so angry and what happened to you to make you that way? Please be honest, I'm here to help!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Marriage is a legal construct it is what we say it is through our laws and in accordance With the Constitution. Through amendments, even the Constitution can be changed too.

The problem that people like me have with "gay martiage" is not with gay people or even the ewww factor in gay sex. It's with the way the issue has been ppushed through the courts system and essentially forced onto the people - rather than it being resolved over time, democratically.

Next you will be saying it would have been better for the white majority of voters in Alabama should have approved desegregation because that would have been more democratic.

Why not?

Wouldn't that have had more meaning if it were the result of the better / more Constitutional arguments winning the majority of the hearts and minds of the people?

The hearts and minds of the majority. ?? We did, so it's a moot point:

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical

Two years after the Supreme Court decision that required states to recognize same-sex marriages nationwide, support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally is at its highest point in over 20 years of Pew Research Center polling on the issue
By a margin of nearly two-to-one (62% to 32%), more Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry than say they are opposed

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults finds striking increases in support for same-sex marriage among some demographic and partisan groups that, until recently, had broadly opposed it,

Read the whole article if you dare.

Right.

The ends justify the means.

I got it.

What the fuck are you talking about now? You implied that there is a lack of popular support for same sex marriage. I documented the fact that you are wrong. And now this gibberish?

 

[Eloy]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:

1.Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

2. Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

No explanation needed there

Are people Gay by choice or are they born that way?

Oh shit! Now you want to go off on another tangent....launch another red herring to avoid dealing with the legal issue at hand?? Are straight people straight by choice? Are you straight by choice. It is as stupid as stupid gets to think that gay is a choice. The only people who even bring it up any more are the bigots who claim that it's a choice in order to paint the "gay lifestyle " as something frivolous as an excuse to marginalize them.

The fact is that the courts have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . Even the lawyers defending the states that tried to ban same sex marriage knew better than to raise that as an issue because it would get kicked out of court.

You are becoming a bore. I must say that I am wholly unimpressed by the level of intelligence that you display, your grasp of the subject matter, and your ability to actually engage in a meaningful discussion or debate.

Son if you agree that no-one is gay by choice.... why did you skiff at the idea of prenatal gays and their having any rights?

Son? Let me tell you something. I'm 70 years old and have been around the block a few times. I don't know how old you are but I have the distinct impression that I'm dealing with a 20 something who lacks basic life skills and is afflicted with low information disease.

Now, why did I "skiff at the idea of prenatal gays" ? Because it was a stupid fucking question and off topic.

I'll tell you what. The subject of what is going on in Texas is kind of dead in the water until there are new developments there. Meanwhile, everything that can be said about it has been said. In addition, the author of that trash seems to have abandoned the thread so I don't suppose that he will mind if we change the topic.

So, lets make it about the issue of whether or not gay is a choice. However, I'm not going to do all of the work. You brought it up so lets start with you. Do you think that it's a choice? Start by stating your premise. It is a choice or it is not a choice? You are born gay or you are not? What exactly is meant by "born gay? Then present your argument to support your premise. Include sources to support your argument. That is how debate works .See if you can avoid logical fallacies and stay on topic in the process. Let's see what you've got. I suspect not much.

 

[Chuz Life]

Marriage is a legal construct it is what we say it is through our laws and in accordance With the Constitution. Through amendments, even the Constitution can be changed too.

The problem that people like me have with "gay martiage" is not with gay people or even the ewww factor in gay sex. It's with the way the issue has been ppushed through the courts system and essentially forced onto the people - rather than it being resolved over time, democratically.

Next you will be saying it would have been better for the white majority of voters in Alabama should have approved desegregation because that would have been more democratic.

Why not?

Wouldn't that have had more meaning if it were the result of the better / more Constitutional arguments winning the majority of the hearts and minds of the people?

The hearts and minds of the majority. ?? We did, so it's a moot point:

Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows, Even Among Groups That Had Been Skeptical

Two years after the Supreme Court decision that required states to recognize same-sex marriages nationwide, support for allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally is at its highest point in over 20 years of Pew Research Center polling on the issue
By a margin of nearly two-to-one (62% to 32%), more Americans now say they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry than say they are opposed

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults finds striking increases in support for same-sex marriage among some demographic and partisan groups that, until recently, had broadly opposed it,

Read the whole article if you dare.

Right.

The ends justify the means.

I got it.

What the fuck are you talking about now? You implied that there is a lack of popular support for same sex marriage. I documented the fact that you are wrong. And now this gibberish?

I implied no such thing.

Try re-reading and actually comprehending what I actually DID post.

 

[Chuz Life]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

 

[Chuz Life]

Are prenatal gays being treated "fair"?

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:

1.Weak analogy
Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

2. Red herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what’s really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

No explanation needed there

Are people Gay by choice or are they born that way?

Oh shit! Now you want to go off on another tangent....launch another red herring to avoid dealing with the legal issue at hand?? Are straight people straight by choice? Are you straight by choice. It is as stupid as stupid gets to think that gay is a choice. The only people who even bring it up any more are the bigots who claim that it's a choice in order to paint the "gay lifestyle " as something frivolous as an excuse to marginalize them.

The fact is that the courts have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . Even the lawyers defending the states that tried to ban same sex marriage knew better than to raise that as an issue because it would get kicked out of court.

You are becoming a bore. I must say that I am wholly unimpressed by the level of intelligence that you display, your grasp of the subject matter, and your ability to actually engage in a meaningful discussion or debate.

Son if you agree that no-one is gay by choice.... why did you skiff at the idea of prenatal gays and their having any rights?

Son? Let me tell you something. I'm 70 years old and have been around the block a few times. I don't know how old you are but I have the distinct impression that I'm dealing with a 20 something who lacks basic life skills and is afflicted with low information disease.

Now, why did I "skiff at the idea of prenatal gays" ? Because it was a stupid fucking question and off topic.

I'll tell you what. The subject of what is going on in Texas is kind of dead in the water until there are new developments there. Meanwhile, everything that can be said about it has been said. In addition, the author of that trash seems to have abandoned the thread so I don't suppose that he will mind if we change the topic.

So, lets make it about the issue of whether or not gay is a choice. However, I'm not going to do all of the work. You brought it up so lets start with you. Do you think that it's a choice? Start by stating your premise. It is a choice or it is not a choice? You are born gay or you are not? What exactly is meant by "born gay? Then present your argument to support your premise. Include sources to support your argument. That is how debate works .See if you can avoid logical fallacies and stay on topic in the process. Let's see what you've got. I suspect not much.

I was under the impression that most Gays believe they are born that way.

Do you agree with or disagree with them?

 

[Eloy]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

That's none of my business.

 

[Chuz Life]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

That's none of my business.

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

 

[danielpalos]

I agree with your premise, man. My problem, however, is the govt got their greedy hands on it. They have no place getting involved in marriage. But they did..
Them denying equal rights is institutional discrimination. I'm just not down for govts being peculiar. That is closer to tyranny than giving marriage rights to a couple queers.

I see your point and I agree with it for the most part. However, I think this is Texas's way of sending the message that "Gay marriage" is not (or at least was not) a Constitutional right. This move tells me that they WANT it to be challenged and they want the Gay Marriage issue to be revisited by the SCOTUS. Like an earlier member said.... It's much the same as it is with Roe v Wade.

All Texas is doing, is sending a message that "equal protection of the law" is not a State responsibility; slackers.

Only a libtard would conclude that receiving benefits is tantamount to "equal protections."

I might start to believe you tards actually give a shit about "equal rights" when you start standing up for those being denied to children in the womb.

Maybe.

Equality is a social term not a capital term; no wonder y'all on the right wing, are just clueless and Causeless.

Stop complaining about social services for the poor, right wingers.

Ummm.

How capitalistic is the abortion "cause" fuctard?

It is the right wing that is cognitively dissonant enough to complain about both, the cost of an ounce of prevention And the cost of a pound of cure.

 

[danielpalos]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

Where is that power defined in the Constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

It is not about States' rights. It is about equal protection of the law.

 

[Chuz Life]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

Where is that power defined in the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

 

[danielpalos]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

Americans have always used the courts to challenge laws that they feel treat them unfairly. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, queers will cotinue to marry despite all your foot-stomping.

Just the right wing being fiscally irresponsible and wasting the (other) Peoples' money on frivolous litigation.

All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

It is not about States' rights. It is about equal protection of the law.

Marriage and benefits are NOT what the founders and framers were talking about when they talked about "equal protection."


Try again.

 

[danielpalos]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

Where is that power defined in the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

lol. Name the specific clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

It is not about States' rights. It is about equal protection of the law.

Marriage and benefits is NOT what the founders and framers were talking about when they talked about "equal protection."


Try again.

Laws have to be applied equally, dear.

 

[Chuz Life]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

Where is that power defined in the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

lol. Name the specific clause.

Why?

Do you disagree that the U.S. Government has the right to define what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for the purposes of immigration and naturalization laws?

 

[toobfreak]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Thank you for using the more proper term of "Married Same-Sex Couple." Helluva lot better than just "married couple."