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.
What's that...wait for it....nope, the world didn't end. That may come as a shock to some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
Excellent news! Now lets make it more than just a token case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKAddict
Finally.
Hopefully Ken Paxton can stop being stupid and stop blocking their marriage.
This. I'm very happy for this couple, and look forward to the day when it's an option open to all Texans. It would be nice if we could grow up and walk into the 21st century, but it's of course more likely we will have to be drug there by order of the Supreme Court. How foolish these ignorant opponents will look in 20 years' time ... (well they already do, but still ...)
Can a 19 year old man in Texas marry a 90 year old man now?
I would view that as weird. But, that's just my opinion.
Should I or anyone else think that we have the right to judge people who make that choice? That's a question from a general point of view.
Thinking of how a Christian might consider it: should a human being judge other people (even for something they do out of love) when Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged"? (And many other similar quotes, at least in the King James version.)
I am puzzled why people so often take Old Testament verses to justify being cruel to other people, when there are other Old Testament verses that could be just as easily used to justify cruelty to people who they are not predisposed to persecute: people who eat shellfish, the milk of the mother with the flesh of the child (mixing beef with milk or chicken flesh with eggs). Or, for that matter, all the prescriptions on how to kiil men and women who have committed adultery or other sins.
To summarize, it is so easy for people to find reasons to assume that they speak for the ultimate authority. If I were a superstitious person, I would wonder, by their actions, if they had succumbed to the evil one.
=War Beagle;38508918]I want gay marriage to become legal for no other reason than I am tired of constantly hearing/reading about it.
Ditto on that, WB. Although I really don't want it to become legal in Texas, I know exactly what you are saying and agree with the sentiment.
I got to where I don't usually get into the "gay marriage" threads on the national forums, but I am a little more inclined when it comes to my native state. One reason for the former decision is that it is as predictable as that the sun rises in the east, that anyone who has the audacity to take the *gasp* apparently prehistoric belief that the traditional definition of marriage (a male and female) should remain just that, is going to be attacked as a "homophobe" and "bigot" That bunch comes swarming out like killer bees and army ants to slam anyone who disagrees with them.
They give lip service to the virtue of tolerance, yet they are anything but in their own methods. This ilk will gleefully use the power of the courts to force businesses to adhere to their values (i.e. as the case of forcing a private bakery to make a male topped wedding cake for a homosexual couple) just because they know they can.
Oh well, no need for me to get all worked up here. But yes, WB, I sure know what you are saying
=madrone2k;38810528]I would view that as weird. But, that's just my opinion.
And you would be right. It would be weird. But the point the poster made is valid. That is, if marriage is redefined as to now include a same sex couples, then there is no reason it cannot be defined as anything at all.
Quote:
Thinking of how a Christian might consider it: should a human being judge other people (even for something they do out of love) when Jesus said "judge not, lest ye be judged"? (And many other similar quotes, at least in the King James version.)
If you look at the context, it meant that if you judge someone else you will be judged by the same standard. It doesn't literally mean you have no right to make value judgments. If that were true, then there could be no criminal justice system.
And really? Most of us who object to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples couldn't care less what two or two dozen consenting adults do in their private sex lives. For myself, I am actually one of those conservatives who truly believes that a person cannot help their sexual orientation and I wish the same all the best in life. But it doesn't extend to going along with that I should be required to surrender my own moral values and business rights in order to accommodate a radical minority. On a related tangent, it seems it is no longer enough to tolerate (in the true sense of the word) alternative lifestyles as in live and let live...now it is almost demanded that the rest of us are required to celebrate it with them and gush and mush and parade and praise their "courage". Sorry, to hell with that. Tolerance is one thing. Coersion is another.
Quote:
To summarize, it is so easy for people to find reasons to assume that they speak for the ultimate authority. If I were a superstitious person, I would wonder, by their actions, if they had succumbed to the evil one.
The only ultimate authority is God (or the wisdom of nature if one prefers), so humans just have to do the best we can. And in a free society, it is the values of the majority that must be the essence of the written law. The only other alternative is that the law be mandated by unelected judges motivated by their own ideology.
If California or Massachusetts want to legalize gay marriage? Then hey, more power to them. No problem. But if Texas or Tennessee don't want to recognize it, then they (we) shouldn't be forced to.
And you would be right. It would be weird. But the point the poster made is valid. That is, if marriage is redefined as to now include a same sex couples, then there is no reason it cannot be defined as anything at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
I got to where I don't usually get into the "gay marriage" threads on the national forums, but I am a little more inclined when it comes to my native state. One reason for the former decision is that it is as predictable as that the sun rises in the east, that anyone who has the audacity to take the *gasp* apparently prehistoric belief that the traditional definition of marriage (a male and female) should remain just that, is going to be attacked as a "homophobe" and "bigot" That bunch comes swarming out like killer bees and army ants to slam anyone who disagrees with them.
Wait, let's be clear here - when you say "re-defining" marriage or the "traditional" definition, what definition are you using to start with? The Biblical one of a man and a woman? If so, then we'll have to go back to arranged marriages, people of different religious faiths not being allowed to marry, and stoning women to death if they cannot prove their virginity.
We'll also have to make sure women have children, because if they become widowed without having had kids, they'll have to marry their brother-in-law and be his sex slave.
Speaking of slavery, that will also have to make a comeback, because they Bible is very explicit about being able to own slaves and force them to marry. Polygamy will have to be allowed, as well as concubines.
And of course, it will also solve that pesky rape problem, because rapists will just have to marry their victim and pay her dad 50 shekels.
But hey, it'll simplify things because everything a woman owns will become the property of her husband, and she won't be able to open bank accounts, conduct any sort of business, or enter into contracts without her husband.
Doesn't the traditional definition of marriage sound wonderful!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
They give lip service to the virtue of tolerance, yet they are anything but in their own methods. This ilk will gleefully use the power of the courts to force businesses to adhere to their values (i.e. as the case of forcing a private bakery to make a male topped wedding cake for a homosexual couple) just because they know they can.
"They" meaning the Colorado state legislature who passed an anti-discrimination law, and "they" meaning the gay couple who were discriminated against in violation of that law, and "they" meaning the Colorado state court system who enforced the law that was on the books? Man, "they" are really out to get you just for fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And really? Most of us who object to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples couldn't care less what two or two dozen consenting adults do in their private sex lives. For myself, I am actually one of those conservatives who truly believes that a person cannot help their sexual orientation and I wish the same all the best in life. But it doesn't extend to going along with that I should be required to surrender my own moral values and business rights in order to accommodate a radical minority. On a related tangent, it seems it is no longer enough to tolerate (in the true sense of the word) alternative lifestyles as in live and let live...now it is almost demanded that the rest of us are required to celebrate it with them and gush and mush and parade and praise their "courage". Sorry, to hell with that. Tolerance is one thing. Coersion is another.
Be careful when you talk about "re-defining marriage" - it's already been pointed out that that may not work out so well.
No one is forcing you to approve of anything or give up your own moral values. You can sit at home and stew in a big bunch of hatred for equal rights. But when you venture out into the real world, yes, you have to subjugate personal beliefs on any number of things. I firmly believe I should be allowed to tar and feather anyone doing under the speed limit in the passing lane, but I have to subjugate that belief in the name of a fair and equitable society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The only ultimate authority is God (or the wisdom of nature if one prefers), so humans just have to do the best we can. And in a free society, it is the values of the majority that must be the essence of the written law. The only other alternative is that the law be mandated by unelected judges motivated by their own ideology.
How dare those judges enforce laws that everyone be treated equally and fairly! Damn their activism and ideology!
"Americans' support for the law recognizing same-sex marriages as legally valid has increased yet again, now at 55%...In 2011, support for gay marriage vaulted over the 50% mark for the first time, and since 2012, support has remained above that level."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
If California or Massachusetts want to legalize gay marriage? Then hey, more power to them. No problem. But if Texas or Tennessee don't want to recognize it, then they (we) shouldn't be forced to.
Damn those activist Founding Fathers!
"Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Ditto on that, WB. Although I really don't want it to become legal in Texas, I know exactly what you are saying and agree with the sentiment.
I got to where I don't usually get into the "gay marriage" threads on the national forums, but I am a little more inclined when it comes to my native state. One reason for the former decision is that it is as predictable as that the sun rises in the east, that anyone who has the audacity to take the *gasp* apparently prehistoric belief that the traditional definition of marriage (a male and female) should remain just that, is going to be attacked as a "homophobe" and "bigot" That bunch comes swarming out like killer bees and army ants to slam anyone who disagrees with them.
They give lip service to the virtue of tolerance, yet they are anything but in their own methods. This ilk will gleefully use the power of the courts to force businesses to adhere to their values (i.e. as the case of forcing a private bakery to make a male topped wedding cake for a homosexual couple) just because they know they can.
Oh well, no need for me to get all worked up here. But yes, WB, I sure know what you are saying
Rats. Tried to rep you for this, but...you know the drill.
Spot on. Most intolerant bunch of hypocrites I ever saw. They want tolerance and acceptance, but they'll attack most people who don't agree with their views.
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.
.
