Texas GOP wants to ban Homosexuality and Pornography (Atlanta, Magnolia: rent, movers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh man, is this thread going to hell in a handbasket in a hurry! LOL
But seriously, I "scanned" the "platform" and, although not a Republican (I am just a conservative Texas/Southern Independent) am in general agreement with most of it..on varying levels. It didn't take much insight to know that the "sodomy/gay marriage aspect is going to eventually get this thread shut down. So before it is, I want to get in my two-cents.
First of all, the OP statement that the Texas GOP is trying to "ban homosexuality" is just ridiculous; it is either -- as presented by the OP -- intentionally inflammatory or abbreviated in its presentation. What the platform seemed to say is, first of all, that the old Texas penal code statute against sodomy was constitutional and should be re-instated. Now, break here...
Personally, I think the old law was stupid and senseless and really, not even enforced much, if barely at all. And hell, for not the least of reasons that the wording of it would make many a man and wife "guilty"!
However, the law was not "unconstitutional". A law can be stupid -- and it was -- and still not violate the Bill of Rights or any other ammendment. So far as the marriage thing goes? I will state without qualm nor hesitation that I fully support the GOP platform that upholds the definition of marriage as an institution between a man and woman. That is only natural...and in some form or fashion, every society/nation that has ever existed had codified such into their norms and/or established law. There is something to be said for history as wisdom.
I don't care a solitary damn what two (or three or four or five to infinity) consenting adults do, but that doesn't translate into agreeing with that it is on par with the natural relationship of man and woman. And definitely not, when it involves children. That is, gay couples adopting and/or using artificial means (surrogate, etc) to "have" babies. There is just something very, very, wrong with this. It goes against every law of nature. A child needs a man and woman influence and nurturing. Never once, as someone smart once said, did nature say one thing and wisdom another.
The very idea that two men can properly raise a little girl, or two women a little boy, is just ludicrous at best, and an outrage against laws of nature at worst. And sure to reap horrible consequences....starting with those the child of such a social experiment, will experience. Only a man and woman can produce a child. Both, by nature, or by God, only have the right pairing parts to do so. And only the same can provide the secondary balance in raising the children.
So good for the Texas GOP if they summed it all up that way!
With all that expressed, I do want to say something else. And, seriously. Which is: I don't have anything in the world against gay people. Hell, I have a few friends -- both r/t and on C/D who are openly gay. In fact, one is almost as conservative as I am! LOL So this is not an issue of "homophobia" or some silly such BS as that...
It is just that I stand on one side of the question and they on the other. Nothing personal...and every one of us come short of moral perfection. Wayyyyy short. Straight or gay.
TexasReb, thanks for presenting your argument in a respectful manner. While I don't agree with most of it, it is at least nice to hear an opposing view without being defensive and over the top. I do have three points of clarification:
1) How can we say they aren't trying to ban homosexuality if they are taking away their right to show affection and be intimate?
2) This platform preaches small government and freedoms, yet wants to justify telling people what they can't do in their own homes between two connecting adults. Isn't that hypocritical or is there something I'm missing?
3) You mention the sodomy law was not unconstitutional. Does that somehow make it ok? If it his not unconstitutional, how so?
However, the law was not "unconstitutional". A law can be stupid -- and it was -- and still not violate the Bill of Rights or any other amendment.
Other than that pesky 14th Amendment - you know, the one guaranteeing that everyone gets treated the same under the law?
Aside from directly violating that, sure, it was totally Constitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
So far as the marriage thing goes? I will state without qualm nor hesitation that I fully support the GOP platform that upholds the definition of marriage as an institution between a man and woman. That is only natural...and in some form or fashion, every society/nation that has ever existed had codified such into their norms and/or established law. There is something to be said for history as wisdom.
I don't care a solitary damn what two (or three or four or five to infinity) consenting adults do, but that doesn't translate into agreeing with that it is on par with the natural relationship of man and woman. And definitely not, when it involves children. That is, gay couples adopting and/or using artificial means (surrogate, etc) to "have" babies. There is just something very, very, wrong with this. It goes against every law of nature. A child needs a man and woman influence and nurturing. Never once, as someone smart once said, did nature say one thing and wisdom another.
The very idea that two men can properly raise a little girl, or two women a little boy, is just ludicrous at best, and an outrage against laws of nature at worst. And sure to reap horrible consequences....starting with those the child of such a social experiment, will experience. Only a man and woman can produce a child. Both, by nature, or by God, only have the right pairing parts to do so. And only the same can provide the secondary balance in raising the children.
So should we also ban single parents from having kids? After all, they are missing that "essential element"?
Whatever. What can you expect from a state responsible for the Bush's and their ilk? Personally, I think we should give the territory back to the Mexicans.
TexasReb, thanks for presenting your argument in a respectful manner. While I don't agree with most of it, it is at least nice to hear an opposing view without being defensive and over the top. I do have three points of clarification:
1) How can we say they aren't trying to ban homosexuality if they are taking away their right to show affection and be intimate?
2) This platform preaches small government and freedoms, yet wants to justify telling people what they can't do in their own homes between two connecting adults. Isn't that hypocritical or is there something I'm missing?
3) You mention the sodomy law was not unconstitutional. Does that somehow make it ok? If it his not unconstitutional, how so?
Thanks in turn for a civil and respectful counter-reply. It is nice to be able to debate/discuss legitimate issues without getting into histronics and name-calling!
Here is my response:
1. For one thing, the state cannot "ban" homosexuality any more than the state can ban heterosexuality. Both will exist and always have. As it was, the old "sodomy law" in Texas, strictly applied, made technical criminals out of husband and wife if they wanted to have a little uhhh...fun. It was a dumb law and needed repealing.
And as it was, though, really, it wasn't enforced, anyway. No one cared. Most law officers -- nor the straight world -- gave/give much of a thought as to what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
But that last phrase is operative. Behind closed doors. Show all the intimacy you want behind closed doors or within private domain. That rule of common decency applies to both orientations.
Hells bells, I teach high school kids. I am not easily shockable. At one time in my life I thought having a "hickey" on my neck, or a black eye from a good fist-fight was a mark of a real man!. LOL What an idiot I was!
But anyway, people -- gay or straight -- slobbering over each other in public is disgusting and idiotic. Take it to the room.
That is not the real gist of what you are asking, anyway, it it? What I am thinking you are asking about is more to the point of why should not gay couples be allowed to hold hands or demonstrate other such mild displays of affection same as straights. Correct?
Well, nothing prohibits them from doing so (that I know of, anyway). But going against the norms of society comes with a price. Just as when I fly a Confederate Battle Flag, comes with a price if I believe that strongly about it.
In this instance, I totally reject the PC trend that it is the responsibility of straight people to re-adust our belief system on human sexuality to accomodate the demands of a certain "gay rights" sect.
2. See above, as to my position on much of this question. I think most people agree the law was stupid, archaic, and nobody cares. If it were introduced again, it wouldn't pass.
3. Again, a state law can be stupid or silly or outdated...but not be unconstitutional. The old Texas statute was the former type...but there was nothing unconstitutional about it (except that a majority later ruled it was...but ever read the minority opinion?). A soveriegn state -- by the proper legislative means and the 9th and 10th ammendments -- can regulate marriage laws, gun ownership, highway speed limits, or whatever, within their borders.
I have rambled enough. Time for a good ol' fashioned bacon sandwich!
Other than that pesky 14th Amendment - you know, the one guaranteeing that everyone gets treated the same under the law?
Aside from directly violating that, sure, it was totally Constitutional.
Moderator cut: off topic/personal
I said Moderator cut: off topic/personal -- that a child can only be conceived by the unique products of a man and woman. Even a "test-tube" baby or surrogate mother/father...still needs an egg and sperm. Simple at that. It doesn't mean that gay people cannot be, or are not, loving parent. That is not the issue.
Point is, that the natural relationship and essential neccessity to the human race ongoing depends upon a man and woman. No other way around it. Call it God, nature, common sense, or whatever....but never did any of the aforementioned contradict one another.
And -- whether you agree or not -- it follows that a helpless child needs the natural balance of a male and female influence. To think -- or worse, put into play otherwise -- is...hell, an abomination and even a crime against nature. A boy child raised by two women and think they can teach him all about what it is to become a young man? A girl child raised by two men and they know what to tell her about becoming a young woman?
I am not going to go on anymore with this...at least for now. The realization that some out there believe such is possible just makes me want to throw up..
Actions of Texas Gestapo do not surprise me anymore. Especially when it comes to things like homosexuality and pornography. That's where "small government" doesn't apply.
Are you aware there are laws specifying who (and how many) straight people are allowed to marry and not? NAMBLA and you both agree anyone should be able to marry anyone they want. If you had your way 80 year old rich homosexuals would be getting married to 17 year old gayboys.
LOL , NAMBLA is a Radical Gay Group , just like you have Radical right and left wing groups. Majority of the gay community , including myself do not think in that way and have age rules. Majority of the gay probably doesn't even know what NAMBLA is ,i didn't intill i joined this site. Infact there were alot of racial , and sexually things that i didn't know before i joined this site. As for 80 years going after teens in the gay community , that doesn't happen. But just like cougars you do see the older males go after the college gays......
Justme02 is certainly gay because he always speaks about this as this issue is the most important it is not.It's not a problem, but this issue is not essential at all.
I support the gay mariage and it's shameful Texas is anti-gay mariage..But some other issues are more important now, the economy particularly.
Texan Republicans can be intolerant, it's sad, but theu are great politicians about economy.They overcame all the other states in wind generation too, without job-killing policies à la California.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was a dumb law and needed repealing.
