Is Texas really as conservative/narrow-minded as people say it is? (white, run)

[jayshoota]

Originally Posted by Cathy4017

Uh......huh? Do you want me to go into graphic detail, or what.....?

If you don't see any difference, I can't help you, and I'm NOT going to spell it out in a public forum.

Oh, so to you marriage is all about the sex?

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

Ron Paul and the racist newsletters (Fact Checker biography) - The Washington Post How many such links shall I post? Doesn't matter, does it, because many here will simply agree with Paul, give him a pass for what other people may have written in his newsletters, or insist his meaning and/or context have been distorted.

Post as many as you want, DocJ...because it is not necessarily agreeing with Paul, but seeing nothing "racist" in the comments (made by others, not Paul).

For instance:

That wasn’t an isolated incident with Paul’s newsletters. A separate article from the Survival Report said, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

Is that NOT true? Ever watched one of those videos of a robbery on reality TV? Does political correctness matter more than sheer reality? Of COURSE, on average, black youth are very fleet-footed in comparrison to whites and asians. That is the reason they excell in sports which demand quickness and speed. And nothing wrong with that.

The article blames African American men for the L.A. riots, saying, “The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

*shrug* This is true as well. Wanna say it is not? Some of the attacks on innocent people who had the misfortune to be in South LA when the riot started, were that of animal packs. The worst of the worst was that of the guy throwing a brick into the head of a white truck driver, then dancing in glee after the fact. And? It is a blunt fact that young black males commit violent crimes far out of proportion to their percentage of the population.

The Paul publications also criticized homosexuals, saying gays “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,” referring to AIDS

I don't know much about this one, as I doubt -- as individuals -- anyone wants pity for being sick. However, there is a point to be made in that the homosexual lifestyle IS condusive to the spread of AIDS. At a much greater rate than among the heterosexual population. Is THAT not true?

P.S. BTW -- I am really not a Paul supporter. I agree with a lot of his stances, but in some ways, he is TOO libertarian for me.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by jayshoota

Liberty and Due Process. Marriage is a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia

I know about Loving v. Virginia. It challenged miscegenation laws, and involved a black man and white woman.

Man and Woman. But whatever, here is another opinion when the case was used to support same-sex marriage:
***********************************************

Although the Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) (which was overridden by the New York State Legislature via enactment of the Marriage Equality Act in 2011) 'rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13]

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by jayshoota

Oh, so to you marriage is all about the sex?

If I might wade in a bit, no, marriage is not all about sex. BUT...God/Nature made a natural place where the two parts joined -- which conceived children under some circumstances if the timing is right. On the other hand, two females and/or two males have to -- to have sex -- do things that involve "toys" and entrances that are really exits!

But still...I have said before, I have nothing against gay people nor gay sex -- even though the thought disgusts me, personally -- if they want to do it. And I agree for sure, that genuine affection and love is the general rule with long-time gay partners.

My ONLY issue, is when it comes down to a redefinition of marriage. And of course, that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. This is just a travestry against nature...

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by jayshoota

Oh, so to you marriage is all about the sex?

No. I never said it was, but to imply that gay sex is like male-female heterosexual sex is disingenous at best. Sex is a natural part of marriage, and by that, I mean a marriage between a man and a woman.

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

If I might wade in a bit, no, marriage is not all about sex. BUT...God/Nature made a natural place where the two parts joined -- which conceived children under some circumstances if the timing is right. On the other hand, two females and/or two males have to -- to have sex -- do things that involve "toys" and entrances that are really exits!..........

Thank you for putting it so eloquently....LOL!!

[ReppingDFW]

Originally Posted by lessQQmorePEWPEW

the problem with your polling counterpoint is its made invalid when the vote actually hits the floor. why does everyone have an opinion on the matter but is too damn lazy to get out and vote??

1) either supporters of same-sex unions (as i am. i dont want homosexuals using the word marriage but am fine with them getting unions with the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples) are extremely lazy and cant be bothered to vote

or

2) the polls are biased

take your pick. if the polls were a real indication on how the majority of americans -who live in a country that is predominantly religious- feel on the issue, then the votes that have taken place would have passed and not been defeated.




i dont oppose it either. if you want to date a guy or girl, go for it. just keep it to yourself.

I pick the first one. Much of their support comes from the younger generation, and I think we know how often they come out to vote. I'm in my 20s, and I'm one of the few people I know of who votes. Older people tend to be staunchly opposite and come out to vote in larger numbers.

[lonestar2007]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

God/Nature made a natural place where the two parts joined -- which conceived children under some circumstances if the timing is right. On the other hand, two females and/or two males have to -- to have sex -- do things that involve "toys" and entrances that are really exits!

Delicately put there Reb. Nicely done. LOL

[ReppingDFW]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

True. And really, that is all I am saying. That is to say? What people say in opinion polls, might not be how they actually vote when it comes down to the nitty-gritty.

And I can honestly understand why and how you feel the way you do.

*reflecting* This is the thing that gets me, I guess. The calculated effort (as I see it) -- on the part of some -- to frame it all in terms of bigotry and hatred and "homophobia."

Well, I understand how you feel the way you do as well. I used to be pretty religious and was opposed to same-sex marriage, but as I drifted to questioning to agnostic to full-blown atheist, my views regarding it have taken a complete turn. The way I see it is that the government should not discriminate against homosexuals and should recognize full-flown same-sex marriage. HOWEVER, churches should NOT have to recognize or perform the marriages if it disagrees with their dogma.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Yes, I am. As in the way the question I responded to, was phrased. That is, I don't know of any straight people (as in my family/friends/aquaintances/) who hate gay people simply because they are gay. Are there straights out there who do? Of course there are. And I disagree with them. But on the flip side of the record? There are gay activists who hate straights, and will go out of their way to provoke them with disgusting displays of public behavior, and yes, even physical attacks. Don't think it doesn't happen...



I can easily believe this, JJG. It is kinda funny (not ha-ha funny, but interesting and worthy of commentary), that those states which most proclaim their liberalism and "tolerant" attitudes...are usually the most intolerant of all!

Well, I brought both points up because I've grown up around SEVERAL people who hate gays because they are gay. There's tollerance and ignorance everywhere, so that's why I didn't take what you said seriously.

Also, even though I was in NY which is a blue state, I was rural NY. That's where you mostly see it.... in small, less diverse communties. So you can't call an ENTIRE state Conservative, Liberal, Narrow-minded, or Open. It just depends on where you are.