Civil Unions in Texas (Houston, Austin: to live, bars, gay friendly)

[Fillmont]

And again, I just want to point out: the history of marriage has never been only "one man and one woman."

That is quite a simplification of what marriage has meant throughout history and in different cultures.

[Nairobi]

I'm going to shoot this thread.

[doctorjef]

Originally Posted by Fillmont

As far as I know, the Bill of Rights makes no claim of any sort regarding marriage. In that regard, you're correct. Gay and lesbian American have every "right" to marry anyone of the opposite sex they so choose, and as such live with the same rights as straight folk.

The Declaration of Independence does make very clear that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, though. You seek to actively bar US citizens from both liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness (by means of marrying the consenting adult they wish to marry.)

So yes, your position is counter to several key ideals that we as Americans should hold dear. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Perhaps TexasReb is on board with one of his Confederate "heroes", Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Vice-President who categorically repudiated the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, declaring that it was manifest that men are not created equal (and you know which men he saw as unequal at that time) and that not all were entitled to liberty or the control of their own lives. Indeed, it was a common position of Southern politicians in the run-up to the Civil War to reject the claims of the Declaration as so much silly nonsense.

I truly am surprised, however, that TexasReb is at such pains to channel Michele Bachman.

By the way, in announcing at the Conservative Party conference last fall that his government would introduce legislation to replace civil partnerships with marriage equality, Prime Minister David Cameron said that he backed such legislation, "not in spite of being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative", going on to cite the values of family that would be strengthend by extending full marriage rights to same-gender couples. So British Conservatives are light years ahead of US Republicans.

[TexasReb]

Fillmont? Good and civil (no pun intended! LOL) and intelligent reply. However...

If you are going to invoke the "unalienable rights" aspect? Then how far -- in your opinion -- should it be extended? In my own, it is generally embraced and spelled out by the Bill of Rights (the first ten ammendments) of the Constitution...which is the actual law of the land.

But back to the point, how far should the "right" to pursue happiness extend? Do you really think the Founding Fathers had homosexual "marriage" or "right to artificially concieve babies" in mind when that general truth was written? Hell, if so? Then there is no logical stopping point. The concept of "pursuit of happiness" can mean literally ANYTHING. What if someones notion of pursuit of happiness means lowering the age of consent for boys and girls to consent to sexual relations? Hell, NAMBLA is all for it.

But again, there is NOTHING that I have said that goes against anything the Founding Fathers...especially via the Federalist Papers...would believe. The notion that marriage was anything but what it had always been, would have been dismissed as aburd if anyone went back in time and said different. Some things are so crazy that....welll....here is a great quote by Orwell:

"There are some things so ridiculous, that only an intellectual can believe them; no ordinary man could be such a damn fool." -- George Orwell

That is NOT a personal attack nor insult in the least, Fillmont (on the contrary, see my opening statement as to reply)...

Let me put it sorta like this. What if I wanted to "marry" my pet? If marriage is redefined as what it has always been defined as? What is your rationale for telling me a I can't make an arrangement with my sheep...?

Originally Posted by Fillmont

As far as I know, the Bill of Rights makes no claim of any sort regarding marriage. In that regard, you're correct. Gay and lesbian American have every "right" to marry anyone of the opposite sex they so choose, and as such live with the same rights as straight folk.

The Declaration of Independence does make very clear that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, though. You seek to actively bar US citizens from both liberty and the pursuit of their own happiness (by means of marrying the consenting adult they wish to marry.)

So yes, your position is counter to several key ideals that we as Americans should hold dear. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[doctorjef]

And with that last sentence, TexasReb now channels Rick Santorum.

For crying out loud, don't resort to such moronic arguments. Your pet doesn't have legal capacity to consent to marriage (nor does a child or your toaster). Adults have legal capacity (normally).

[Nairobi]

I'm sure some Confederate soldiers got it on with each other every now and then.

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Fillmont? Good and civil (no pun intended! LOL) and intelligent reply. However...

If you are going to invoke the "unalienable rights" aspect? Then how far -- in your opinion -- should it be extended? In my own, it is generally embraced and spelled out by the Bill of Rights (the first ten ammendments) of the Constitution...which is the actual law of the land.

But back to the point, how far should the "right" to pursue happiness extend? Do you really think the Founding Fathers had homosexual "marriage" or "right to artificially concieve babies" in mind when that general truth was written? Hell, if so? Then there is no logical stopping point. The concept of "pursuit of happiness" can mean literally ANYTHING. What if someones notion of pursuit of happiness means lowering the age of consent for boys and girls to consent to sexual relations? Hell, NAMBLA is all for it.

But again, there is NOTHING that I have said that goes against anything the Founding Fathers...especially via the Federalist Papers...would believe. The notion that marriage was anything but what it had always been, would have been dismissed as aburd if anyone went back in time and said different. Some things are so crazy that....welll....here is a great quote by Orwell:

"There are some things so ridiculous, that only an intellectual can believe them; no ordinary man could be such a damn fool." -- George Orwell

That is NOT a personal attack nor insult in the least, Fillmont (on the contrary, see my opening statement as to reply)...

Let me put it sorta like this. What if I wanted to "marry" my pet? If marriage is redefined as what it has always been defined as? What is your rationale for telling me a I can't make an arrangement with my sheep...?

The pursuit of happiness only goes as far as it does not impinge on the pursuit of happiness for others. I would argue that children and pets are incapable of giving true consent - there might be those who attempt to reason that they should, but the vast majority of people will rightfully deny them this.

However, for gay and lesbian Americans, no one else's pursuit of happiness will be impinged upon. There is literally no downside. (I hear talk of the morality of America going to the pits, but I don't buy this for numerous reasons.)

So with no one else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness impinged upon, why is gay marriage wrong? And why do you keep trying to deny others' liberty and pursuit of happiness? I think that your religious beliefs are the main driving force behind this. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for what the founding fathers believed: they wisely realized that life isn't static, and that they couldn't codify a set of laws to work for all time. They set up our government to be flexible to deal with what the future would hold. So in that sense, I don't rightly care what the founding fathers would think of gay marriage. What I do care about is that they were onto something special with the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" business. Besides, if things weren't flexible, and we were only going by what the founding fathers had in mind in the 1780s, a sizable portion of our population would still be in chains. Things do change.

[Fillmont]

Originally Posted by doctorjef

And with that last sentence, TexasReb now channels Rick Santorum.

For crying out loud, don't resort to such moronic arguments. Your pet doesn't have legal capacity to consent to marriage (nor does a child or your toaster). Adults have legal capacity (normally).

I am trying to be civil, but I will admit that having to argue against that slippery slope argument again did leave a really bad taste in my mouth.

It is so monumentally insulting to gay and lesbian people.

[Lakewooder]

OK, first we get somebody asking who is the man and who is the woman in a gay relationship, then some idea that gay people want to change their gender and now we get 'marry your pet'?

[TexasReb]

I am disappointed in YOU, DocJef. If you got something to say to me? Then step up to the plate and don't talk around me. Have that much guts at least...as I never have done that different with you. Geez. Grow a set of nuts in that regard. Like I mentioned, I consider you a friend...I sure do and will say it to anybody....but dammed it I am going to listen without replying you talking to someone else for my beneift...which is all it seems to be.

If you are so proud of being gay and all? Then talk to me -- directly -- like the man I know you are! We have never been afraid to do that? Why should we now.

Wanna talk about Alexander Stephens and his "cornerstone speech". That is fine (although it belongs on an historica thread...as it is), but we will also talk about his very good friend Abe Lincoln...who was clear that he beleived in white superiority and favored deportation of blacks to Liberia!

So which of us can get more morally and historically on the steps? I have no desire to...but I will definitely climb right up there is it comes to a pi$$ing off of them!

You are a good man, DocJ...and I never doubted that. I would stand up with you in a heart-beat if someone deliberately attacked you But don't go mistaking me for a "whole 'nother body"...as the whole saying goes.

Originally Posted by doctorjef

Perhaps TexasReb is on board with one of his Confederate "heroes", Alexander Stephens, the Confederate Vice-President who categorically repudiated the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, declaring that it was manifest that men are not created equal (and you know which men he saw as unequal at that time) and that not all were entitled to liberty or the control of their own lives. Indeed, it was a common position of Southern politicians in the run-up to the Civil War to reject the claims of the Declaration as so much silly nonsense.

I truly am surprised, however, that TexasReb is at such pains to channel Michele Bachman.

By the way, in announcing at the Conservative Party conference last fall that his government would introduce legislation to replace civil partnerships with marriage equality, Prime Minister David Cameron said that he backed such legislation, "not in spite of being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative", going on to cite the values of family that would be strengthend by extending full marriage rights to same-gender couples. So British Conservatives are light years ahead of US Republicans.