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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

Do bigots have the right to punish children because they disapprove of the parents sexuality?

Yes or no ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though I am enjoying some of your evasiveness,
Do feel free to quote your yes or no answer for the audience again.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though I am enjoying some of your evasiveness,
Do feel free to quote your yes or no answer for the audience again.

I clearly stated in post 429 that the issue of who can marry who can and is regulated by the government but is subject to legal challenges and the gov. must defend those restrictions. What part of that don't you understand??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ptbw forever]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

 

[ptbw forever]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Gays are actually number 1 on the GOP "hate" list. This is the list:

1. Gays
2. Muslims
3. Blacks
4. Hispanics
5. Liberals
6. Jews
7. Women's rights
8. Sick and disabled
9. College professors
10. Scientists

They have been number one the longest. People how don't hurt anyone hated by people who hurt everyone. There is a symmetry there.

Only Democrats have a "hate list".

The sensible Republicans just hate the media.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

We're talking about the US


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ptbw forever]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

We're talking about the US


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except when you are criticizing Russia for being against gay marriage while gays are being murdered in the Congo at the exact same time.

BTW, you are talking about a specific time period that the entire world is subject to, not just the US.

 

[Seawytch]

Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?

Yes or fucking no?

Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.

Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.

The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.

Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.

You, on the other hand seem to have a piss poor understanding of how things work. No one is saying that the gov. does not have the right to "draw the line" as you put it. Laws set limits on various rights all the time. That is why a guy can't marry his 12 year old niece.

HOWEVER, when those restrictions are challenged, the government must defend the need for them. In the case of same sex marriage, the defendants-those representing the states were unable to demonstrate a compelling government interest or even a rational basis ( those are legal terms in constitutional law-look them up) to allow the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman.

Now has we have said, if anyone thinks that sibling marriage, or interspecies marriage or anything else is a good idea, they are free to petition the courts the same way that gays did. But these are separate issues with different implications for society, law and the meaning of the family

I see. So, because THEY could not give justification for where the line was drawn...noone else can either.

Got it.

Or maybe there is no line. Folks once thought the line not to cross was "race mixing". We crossed it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

We're talking about the US


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except when you are criticizing Russia for being against gay marriage while gays are being murdered in the Congo at the exact same time.

BTW, you are talking about a specific time period that the entire world is subject to, not just the US.

How would you know who I'm criticizing and who I'm giving a pass to. You don't know me.

In any case, what would YOU do about Russia, the Congo, the Middle East or anywhere else where gays are mistreated. ? What should the US do?.

 

[ptbw forever]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

We're talking about the US


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except when you are criticizing Russia for being against gay marriage while gays are being murdered in the Congo at the exact same time.

BTW, you are talking about a specific time period that the entire world is subject to, not just the US.

How would you know who I'm criticizing and who I'm giving a pass to. You don't know me.

In any case, what would YOU do about Russia, the Congo, the Middle East or anywhere else where gays are mistreated. ? What should the US do?.

Nothing really.

The point is that Obama spent more time bashing Russia for having the same position on gay marriage as we had at the time than bashing Uganda for openly calling for the extermination of gay people in the same relative timeframe.

Immigration alone will destroy any "progress" you make in the west if you continue to import from deeply regressive countries that Americans are not allowed to even publicly criticize without being fired from their jobs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

We're talking about the US


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except when you are criticizing Russia for being against gay marriage while gays are being murdered in the Congo at the exact same time.

BTW, you are talking about a specific time period that the entire world is subject to, not just the US.

How would you know who I'm criticizing and who I'm giving a pass to. You don't know me.

In any case, what would YOU do about Russia, the Congo, the Middle East or anywhere else where gays are mistreated. ? What should the US do?.

Nothing really.

The point is that Obama spent more time bashing Russia for having the same position on gay marriage as we had at the time than bashing Uganda for openly calling for the extermination of gay people in the same relative timeframe.

Immigration alone will destroy any "progress" you make in the west if you continue to import from deeply regressive countries that Americans are not allowed to even publicly criticize without being fired from their jobs.

I can't speak for what Obama's priorities were on gay rights abroad, or what the diplomatic implications may have been or are now.

It would appear that you want to now make this into an anti- immigrant thread. I don't know where you stand on gay rights, but I do know that there are people who hate immigrants just a little more than they hate gays and will use the treatment of gays by foreigners and an excuse to ban them. Until I know other wise, you are suspect.

Meanwhile let me ask you this, how many incidents of violence against gays have been perpetrated by Muslims and other foreigners vs. Americans? We have two Muslims in congress. How many anti gay bills have been introduced by them? How often have they bemoaned gay rights AS OPPOSED to all other lawmakers at the state and federal level.

 

[bodecea]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

Gay Marriage is still illegal in most of Asia.....

Gay Marriage is a death sentence in most Africa.

THAT is the 21st century.

That's the 21st century as wished for by con-servatives.

 

[Kondor3]

All it takes is another court challenge going all the way to SCOTUS...

And hitting a 5-4 court...

In order to begin setting America back onto the path of sanity again and away from its present trend towards perversion and moral relativity and degeneracy...

More like a 6-3 court in the not-too-distant future, given that Ginsberg isn't going to last much longer...

 

[Chuz Life]

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though I am enjoying some of your evasiveness,
Do feel free to quote your yes or no answer for the audience again.

I clearly stated in post 429 that the issue of who can marry who can and is regulated by the government but is subject to legal challenges and the gov. must defend those restrictions. What part of that don't you understand??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why can't you give a yes or no answer to a direct yes or no question.

See, this is one of the uuuuge reasons for why there is no meaningful dialect between the two sides.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though I am enjoying some of your evasiveness,
Do feel free to quote your yes or no answer for the audience again.

I clearly stated in post 429 that the issue of who can marry who can and is regulated by the government but is subject to legal challenges and the gov. must defend those restrictions. What part of that don't you understand??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why can't you give a yes or no answer to a direct yes or no question.

See, this is one of the uuuuge reasons for why there is no meaningful dialect between the two sides.

I'm not giving a direct yes or no answer because there is no direct yes or no answer. The problem is that your concreate, ridged and unsophisticated thinking only allows you to process simplistic yes or no answers. You have no ability to deal with nuances or complexities . The answer that I gave , that you can't seem to grasp, is that government can limit rights if 1. those limitations go unchallenged 2. If challenged, they can justify them. You seem to be unable to understand that .

The only thing that I don't know is whether this is some sick and bizarre game that your playing where you pretend to not understand what I'm saying, or if your are really that intellectually limited .

 

[Chuz Life]

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?

I have already addressed that issue. The fact that you're asking again tells me that you're reading comprehension is first grade at best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Though I am enjoying some of your evasiveness,
Do feel free to quote your yes or no answer for the audience again.

I clearly stated in post 429 that the issue of who can marry who can and is regulated by the government but is subject to legal challenges and the gov. must defend those restrictions. What part of that don't you understand??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why can't you give a yes or no answer to a direct yes or no question.

See, this is one of the uuuuge reasons for why there is no meaningful dialect between the two sides.

I'm not giving a direct yes or no answer because there is no direct yes or no answer. The problem is that your concreate, ridged and unsophisticated thinking only allows you to process simplistic yes or no answers. You have no ability to deal with nuances or complexities . The answer that I gave , that you can't seem to grasp, is that government can limit rights if 1. those limitations go unchallenged 2. If challenged, they can justify them. You seem to be unable to understand that .

The only thing that I don't know is whether this is some sick and bizarre game that your playing where you pretend to not understand what I'm saying, or if your are really that intellectually limited .

Watch this.

The answer is YES!

Period.

 

[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.

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Yes, marriage is a purely private Act, made Public only for full faith and credit purposes. We have government limited by a Constitution.

Our limited Government has the right (and I would also say the duty) to draw the line on what it will and will not recognize as marriage... especially when it comes to naturalization laws and citizenship... bit I would argue that they have the same right in other areas as well.

So, the issue is not whether or not the Government has the right to draw the line. Clearly it does. The issue is "where" should the lines be drawn.

The right wing only alleges to be for, Individual Liberty; but, instead prefer their socialism on a national basis, at Every opportunity.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

marriage is a purely private Act; it is "commuted public" for full faith and credit purposes, nothing more.

NOTHING more.....

Guess you wont miss the Tax deductions or any other financial benefits then.