Obama: 'TX Pressure Congress to pass my agenda' (Austin, Snyder: city hall, hotel)

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by Rakin

As OP, this thread was meant to knock Obama for trying to tell us Texans how to run this state economically and create jobs. He's way out of his league with his advice.

But as the divorced father of a gay son, I agree with above. Why do we need the Govt determining there are any special benefits for married, divorced or singles. Let get all Govt and special rules out of marriage between couples.

Let each couple and their faith decide on their commitment.

Texans are about less Govt involvement, not more. Don't penalize or reward me because I'm married or not married.

The problem with this is that there are lots of areas that constitutionally fall under the purview of the federal government that do, in fact, affect couples and families. The federal government constitutionally controls immigration. In the case of an American citizen marrying a foreign national, the American citizen may sponsor his or her spouse for immigration purposes. This is a basic international principle of not breaking up families or placing undue burdens on bi-national married couples. This isn't something you can get the federal government out of -- it is a fundamental aspect of the federal government's constitutional role. The same is true of everything that falls under the federal government's power to levy taxes on individuals. The federal government has a broad range of indisputable constitutional authority, and some of this authority affects couples. Just to take another example, it is part of the federal government's role to operate and fund the national military services. Spouses of military personnel get various benefits, essentially as part of the remuneration package, as well as to provide for the humane needs and the morale of military personnel (it would hardly be realistic to set up a military of celibates or one in which personnel were deprived of their spouses and children when not serving in combat or in a war zone).

I'm afraid you don't seem to be thinking these issues through. It is because of such issues that fall under the proper authority of the federal government that lesbian and gay couples need equality before the law in respect to their relationships.

[turkeytrot]

Originally Posted by justme02

I did answer youre question, being gay is not a choice. There is no decision to it. It something your born with.

What Im arguing is not that attending pride week should be manditory for everyone, but just that they should not be able to be fired simply for being gay and no other reason. That does happen even if its not as rampant as it once was. Im not saying that everyone has to celebrate it, just let them live their lives uninterupted.

Still would like an answer, although deflection is another tool for propagating lies. IF a person is born with a desire to be homosexual it's their choice whether they act on it or not.

[doctorjef]

Yes, it is a choice to be true to oneself and to determine to live a life that expresses one's authentic self rather than to live a lie, hiding in the closet. Quite right.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by turkeytrot

Still would like an answer, although deflection is another tool for propagating lies. IF a person is born with a desire to be homosexual it's their choice whether they act on it or not.

Yes, I suppose it is their choice whether to try to achieve the happiness and fulfillment we heterosexuals that come with falling in love, starting a family, growing old together, etc. But hey, why fight for that when you can be miserable and watch other "normal" people do it instead?

Think of it this way, someone tells you that you aren't entitled to have those things we all take for granted, does that make you not want them? As for being gay being a choice, you have to hide under a rock and cover your eyes and ears to think so.

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

Yes, it is a choice to be true to oneself and to determine to live a life that expresses one's authentic self rather than to live a lie, hiding in the closet. Quite right.

Exactly.

Just as some choose a life of celibacy. It doesn't make the celibate any less straight or gay. The desire to act on one's sexual orientation has nothing to do with what one's orientation actually is.

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by Cathy4017

Suffice it to say that I find it strange as hell--and leave it at that, OK?

What is it to you that many straights feel exactly the same way as I do? You got what you wanted, so......

I do think the notion that you would rather die than see gay marriage come to pass is a position that is a bit more extreme than most straight people would agree to. Many straights may find it strange as hell (though this number is dwindling every day, bit by bit).

But to say that many straight people feel it better to be dead than see gay marriage happen? I'm not so sure about that.

[theSUBlime]

Originally Posted by turkeytrot

Still would like an answer, although deflection is another tool for propagating lies. IF a person is born with a desire to be homosexual it's their choice whether they act on it or not.

Yes, it's called suppression and that's why people kill themselves. However, you are still homosexual if you have a continuous desire for the same sex even if you choose not to have sex with someone of the same sex. That's the problem. People think sexuality just means having sex and that's why people answer "no" to the question "Do you identify as homosexual, etc?" Basically what Fillmont said.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by theSUBlime

Yes, it's called suppression and that's why people kill themselves. However you are still homosexual if you have a continuous desire for of the same sex even if you choose not to have sex with someone of the same sex. That's the problem. People think homosexuality just means having sex and that's why people answer "no" to the question "Do you identify as homosexual, etc?"

This raises an excellent point. For some reason, many who oppose gay right break it down to the sexual aspect of it only. A relationship is so much more than that. Straight and gay relationships are just as boring as one another. Saying you're for gay rights doesn't mean you think that everyone should condone and attend bare back parties. It means that, despite whatever their sexual preference may be, I think you should have the same legal rights I do.

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

I do think the notion that you would rather die than see gay marriage come to pass is a position that is a bit more extreme than most straight people would agree to. Many straights may find it strange as hell (though this number is dwindling every day, bit by bit).

But to say that many straight people feel it better to be dead than see gay marriage happen? I'm not so sure about that.

Ok, let me clarify.

Many straight people feel as I do that traditional marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.

The dead part? I was referring only to myself.

Having said that, I don't care how gays choose to live their lives, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I have no problem with civil unions and legal protections. But traditional marriage as we know it--nope, sorry. Can't agree with that. It just simply isn't normal.

I just don't want to see gay marriage photos and writeups in the social section of the newspaper, LOL!!

[doctorjef]

Well m'dear, it depends on where you live of course, but people do and will find same-gender wedding notices and photos in their newspapers. I shouldn't think it will hurt them so to do. Hell, I normally skip over that bit of the paper anyway.

And to be clear, it's "not normal" to you.

There have undoubtedly been humans whose attractions have been ordered to persons of their own gender since time immemorial. Many relationships between same-gender couples formed in the past tended to fly under the radar, sometimes augmented by the general social consensus that one didn't talk about such things in "polite society"; hence, homosexual relationships didn't even get acknowledged as such. The bachelor president James Buchanan, who had a male companion sharing his bed in the White House, seems to have been one such example, as do the recently canonized John Henry Newman and his life-companion Ambrose StJohn. Actually, at least in the case of Buchanan and his companion William Rufus, there does seem to have been some public acknowledgement - some of it impolite - from other politicians at the time. Both of these examples are from the 19th Century Victorian Era. As with many gay persons to the present, there were also some ambiguities: Buchanan -a most desirable potential "catch" for any well-heeled young woman - courted one for a while (she died suddenly and without satisfactory medical explanation) but never married, while Rufus - a senator and vice president under Franklin Pierce - apparently never tried to find a female mate. Newman (eventually to become Cardinal Archbp. of Westminster) and Ambrose St John were both priests (and one might note that Newman had not married while he was still a priest in the Church of England, before departing for the Roman Catholic Church), so outwardly celibates, though they lived essentially like a married couple and were ultimately buried together in the same gravesite.

As with heterosexual couples, the vast bulk of a gay or lesbian union is comprised of companionship and mutual endeavors and shared goals. Gay identity is much more than genital sexual activity; it is indeed to do with human sexuality, but not with sex per se. However, most persons do not voluntarily choose to cut themselves off from physical affection and intimate companionship, nor indeed from genital sexual expression with another person. Most people are ill-suited to such a prospect. How ill-suited is readily seen, for example, in the inability of many Catholic clergy to maintain strict chastity, as well as in the difficulty the Latin Church (the Western part of the Catholic Church in which clerical celibacy is mandatory) has in recruiting vocations.