Judge Overturns Texas' Gay Marriage Amendment

[seldon14]

science has not proved people are homosexual at birth.

That argument makes the "going extinct" comment even more ridiculous and weather or not a person is born that way, chooses to become that way, or naturally develops that way the still came from a "normal" person.

 

[ajeandy]

Who then do you propose gay people are born from?

LOL. My thoughts exactly. Aliens, obviously.

 

[Trooper]

This makes...what?....the 3rd or 4th time in the last 2 or 3 months? It's a snowball and it's a done deal. He stayed his decision pending appeal, (as happened in Virginia, as well). I have little doubt that the higher courts will uphold these cases, given previous decisions and the logical Constitutional citations the judges have used in their decisions. Here's hoping the reps in Indiana's legislature get the message and stop wasting time and money trying to appease the religious right. The gun community is winning their war through the 14th Amendment and so, too are gay Americans.

Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional - San Antonio Express-News



You can read the decision here.

It will go to appellate court. And with several states all being overturned, that generally does for the hand of SCOTUS to hear these cases.

 

[Mark 1911]

Maybe I missed something in your post?

Yes. You missed the point that Christians do not define marriage. And as it not within the authority of a Christian to define what marriage is (they only follow the teaching that has been given to them), neither it is within the authority of the US government to re-define what marriage is for political motives.

The government provides and administers over legal marriage.

Presiding over and re-creating are two different things. The government has authority for the former, not the latter.

This has nothing to do with christian marriage other than allowing your christian marriage being legally recognized. They recognize MANY non christian marriages, including same sex ones. This in no way effects Christians.

My contention is that it affects not only Christians, but all citizens of the United States. Why? Let's back up a little bit. The OP's stance is that gay marriage is a good thing and that it should be permitted. He is also arguing (see post #4) that this will not have any impact on our second amendment freedoms. It is good to see so many victories in this arena, and as a gun owner I am elated, and I do my part in calling my representatives.

My observation is that we seem to be fighting these battles ever more frequently. Hoepfully that is a good thing and will eventually lead to wider recognition of our rights nation wide. But I am skeptical, very skeptical.

True I am a religious man and I believe in the teachings of my religion. But if we as a people can not even agree on the basic premise that there is objective right and wrong, then there is no point in even discussing things from a religious perspective. My observation, and it has been made by people far wiser and prominent than me, is that in our plunge into relativism, that objective right and wrong has been forgotten. We don't know the difference any more. Without a basic foundation of right and wrong, then we look to the government to decide for us. This not only makes for a very arrogant government, but and errant one as well because the government is no more capable, of inventing right and wrong than the rest of us. Actually when it comes to discerning the difference, the government is actually less capable.

Rather than growing in peace in and prosperity, we get stuck in the mud on issues that should not even be in the courts, are a waste of time and resources, gay marriage is only one example. National security suffers for it. We all suffer for it as the government disregards its own constitution in order to twist the rules to suit whatever political agenda is on the table. If that can happen with the first amendment, my fear is that it is only a matter a time before it happens to the second, and the rest as well And if we keep going in that direction, the constitution may become the least of our concerns as peace and prosperity slip further and further away, and anarchy and division take over.

 

[Trooper]

Yes. You missed the point that Christians do not define marriage. And as it not within the authority of a Christian to define what marriage is (they only follow the teaching that has been given to them), neither it is within the authority of the US government to re-define what marriage is for political motives.


Presiding over and re-creating are two different things. The government has authority for the former, not the latter.


My contention is that it affects not only Christians, but all citizens of the United States. Why? Let's back up a little bit. The OP's stance is that gay marriage is a good thing and that it should be permitted. He is also arguing (see post #4) that this will not have any impact on our second amendment freedoms. It is good to see so many victories in this arena, and as a gun owner I am elated, and I do my part in calling my representatives.

My observation is that we seem to be fighting these battles ever more frequently. Hoepfully that is a good thing and will eventually lead to wider recognition of our rights nation wide. But I am skeptical, very skeptical.

True I am a religious man and I believe in the teachings of my religion. But if we as a people can not even agree on the basic premise that there is objective right and wrong, then there is no point in even discussing things from a religious perspective. My observation, and it has been made by people far wiser and prominent than me, is that in our plunge into relativism, that objective right and wrong has been forgotten. We don't know the difference any more. Without a basic foundation of right and wrong, then we look to the government to decide for us. This not only makes for a very arrogant government, but and errant one as well because the government is no more capable, of inventing right and wrong than the rest of us. Actually when it comes to discerning the difference, the government is actually less capable.

Rather than growing in peace in and prosperity, we get stuck in the mud on issues that should not even be in the courts, are a waste of time and resources, gay marriage is only one example. National security suffers for it. We all suffer for it as the government disregards its own constitution in order to twist the rules to suit whatever political agenda is on the table. If that can happen with the first amendment, my fear is that it is only a matter a time before it happens to the second, and the rest as well And if we keep going in that direction, the constitution may become the least of our concerns as peace and prosperity slip further and further away, and anarchy and division take over.

What government does, at the state level, is create a partnership with rights to survivability coupled with automatic powers of attorney. In other words a business arrangement. Think of what the courts do in divorce. Are the courts dealing with broken hearts or other issues that relate to marriage? Or are they merely dealing with economic issues like property division (children are property) that comes from a business partnership being dissolved?

 

[CathyInBlue]

I never understood the argument that claims, "being a queerosexual is a choice and so it can't be the job of government to protect queerosexuals like it protects women and blacks, since they were born that way, and queerosexuals were not born that way." Let's assume, arguendo, that being non-heterosexual is in fact a choice, that everyone who is not a practicing heterosexual is doing so after a deliberate decision making process culminating in the choice to stop being heterosexual.

So what?

How is that any different from the federal protections for religious people?

Are you born Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Shinto or Pagan? Or are you born a religious blank slate and have to have your family's religious beliefs and traditions taught to you? Is that not a choice? Do you not have the choice to accept or reject the faith you were not intrinsicly born with, but merely born into? And if you choose to reject the faith of your fathers and take on a markedly different faith system, are you not still protected by government anti-discrimination laws?

If we can't protect sexual and "affectional" minorities because they made a choice, that's as much a condemnation of, not an affirmation of, protections for religious practice.

 

[Trooper]

I never understood the argument that claims, "being a queerosexual is a choice and so it can't be the job of government to protect queerosexuals like it protects women and blacks, since they were born that way, and queerosexuals were not born that way." Let's assume, arguendo, that being non-heterosexual is in fact a choice, that everyone who is not a practicing heterosexual is doing so after a deliberate decision making process culminating in the choice to stop being heterosexual.

So what?

How is that any different from the federal protections for religious people?

Are you born Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Shinto or Pagan? Or are you born a religious blank slate and have to have your family's religious beliefs and traditions taught to you? Is that not a choice? Do you not have the choice to accept or reject the faith you were not intrinsicly born with, but merely born into? And if you choose to reject the faith of your fathers and take on a markedly different faith system, are you not still protected by government anti-discrimination laws?

If we can't protect sexual and "affectional" minorities because they made a choice, that's as much a condemnation of, not an affirmation of, protections for religious practice.

If the only problem that gays face is marriage then they are not even close to having real issues. This is mostly a bunch of college boys. If you want real discrimination look at how blacks are in poverty while gays go to grad school and make big bucks. Now if gays had the problem of blacks and could not go to grad school or get good jobs then it might be a problem.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I've heard mutations of that argument before. "You can't possibly have dyslexia or ADHD. Your IQ is too high. Everyone knows that smart people can't possibly have learning disabilities."

So, you're saying that a gay person who is poor can't take on the mantle of poverty because they have the "benefit" of being gay? Does that mean that black people who go to college and get good jobs are forced to live like the lowly minorities they are, even though they are educated and make a lot of money?

There is no such thing as discrimination that is real versus discrimination that is— unreal? Discrimination is discrimination. Even reverse discrimination is just discrimination committed by the "traditionally" discriminated against upon the "traditionally" discriminating.

 

[Trooper]

I've heard mutations of that argument before. "You can't possibly have dyslexia or ADHD. Your IQ is too high. Everyone knows that smart people can't possibly have learning disabilities."

So, you're saying that a gay person who is poor can't take on the mantle of poverty because they have the "benefit" of being gay? Does that mean that black people who go to college and get good jobs are forced to live like the lowly minorities they are, even though they are educated and make a lot of money?

There is no such thing as discrimination that is real versus discrimination that is— unreal? Discrimination is discrimination. Even reverse discrimination is just discrimination committed by the "traditionally" discriminated against upon the "traditionally" discriminating.

No just an observant that an old Marine Gunny sergeant made to me that you seldom see dumb gays. Or gay bubbas.

And actually most of those with issues like ADDH tend to be smarter than average. It is society that looks at them as dumb as they do not fit the mold.

But gays are ONLY being discriminated in terms of marriage. Not education, jobs or making money. Blacks are being prevented from learning, from getting jobs and are being kept poor.

It is a college boy issue that basically does not effect the working man as it is not an economic issue. Or even general civil rights (like gun ownership).

 

[ajeandy]

Idk..I go to college with a lot of black students...I'd day most of my classes are really diverse actually. Sounds like a thing of the past to me. I've had lots of black professors as well.

 

[Trooper]

science has not proved people are homosexual at birth.

Lets say that it is genetic. Does that then make it a birth defect?

 

[ajeandy]

Lets say that it is genetic. Does that then make it a birth defect?

Lol. man...I'm no scientist or a genealogist...I wouldn't call it a defect, although I can see where you would have come up with that seeing as its not really classified as a trait and most other things that have been genetically proven are negative such as cancer, disease, autism.....are typically referred to as defects.

 

[CathyInBlue]

But gays are ONLY being discriminated in terms of marriage. Not education, jobs or making money.

 

[squirrelhntr]

Lets say that it is genetic. Does that then make it a birth defect?

ummm. yes, I believe you can call it a genetic birth defect. IMO, it is one of the many, many manifestations of the gentic birth defect called sin. all humans have the birth defect it just manifests differently among us.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

Lets say that it is genetic. Does that then make it a birth defect?

That quote, right there, explains your whole position and there is no other reason for you to say anything further on the matter.

You are starting with the assumption that being gay is a defect. In your view, it is not "normal".

In my view, it is different. Not abnormal, not defective, not wrong, not immoral, and not against the law. I will admit that I have a hard time understanding it sometimes, but that is not the same as thinking that being gay is wrong or immoral or defective. However, I do not need to come to a full understanding of what attracts one person to another in order to understand that there is no reason for it to be illegal or even a need for a fight for acceptance.

There are some things that I do feel are immoral and I would love to be able to have all of them be against the law. So in that respect, I do understand and even respect your mindset. But my personal idea of morality is not what should be used to govern the land.

 

[IndyGal65]

science has not proved people are homosexual at birth.

Nor have they disproved it.

I truly believe I was born this way. As long as I can remember, I've been attracted to the same sex. When I was young, I didn't understand it or even know what being gay meant. I had two normal, loving heterosexual parents, and I was never abused in any way. I had both male and female friends growing up. I even dated boys in high school. However, without going into the gory details, I prefer being with a woman. Its how i feel heart, mind, and soul. I'm not a man hater by any means, but it is what it is. I'm not saying there aren't people who might experiment a time or two, but I can't imagine why, WHY anyone would "choose" to be gay.

 

[IndyGal65]

Perfect response. I can't believe that post. Unreal.

 

[Trooper]

That quote, right there, explains your whole position and there is no other reason for you to say anything further on the matter.

You are starting with the assumption that being gay is a defect. In your view, it is not "normal".

In my view, it is different. Not abnormal, not defective, not wrong, not immoral, and not against the law. I will admit that I have a hard time understanding it sometimes, but that is not the same as thinking that being gay is wrong or immoral or defective. However, I do not need to come to a full understanding of what attracts one person to another in order to understand that there is no reason for it to be illegal or even a need for a fight for acceptance.

There are some things that I do feel are immoral and I would love to be able to have all of them be against the law. So in that respect, I do understand and even respect your mindset. But my personal idea of morality is not what should be used to govern the land.

It would be seen as not being normal as the normal for most humans is to other sex attracted. While homosexuality may occur naturally, it is just not the norm but a deviation from the norm. If you ask people it is not something that they would seek in a child. Look being an alcoholic is genetic as well. It is called an addictive personality. Again if we had the option, most people would want to screen out most of these genetic deviations.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I find myself wondering if some guys just got teased so much when they were in school for stuff that was really hurtful to them, and for whatever reason were powerless to respond, that they spend the rest of their lives trying to get payback.

(I'll bet many of them drive trucks with really big tires and would never carry anything less than a .40)

 

[CathyInBlue]

Fill in the blank question. Which of the following phrases can NOT be used to accurately complete the sentence below.

Although commonly described as a disorder, it is sufficiently common to be considered a normal variant of ......................... (its prevalence varies with different populations). Many people with .......................... have no problems from it.

A) hair color, blond(e) hair
B) politics, Conservatism
C) sexuality, homosexuality
D) foot shape, Morton's Toe
E) skin tone, white skin