So it begins: Texas Has the Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Not to get too philosophical or hung up on semantics, but nothing outside of nature can exist, so if something exists at all, then it is natural.

It's a completely moot point.

Not many people agree with me about this, so thank you.
We ARE nature. Nothing we do can be outside of nature.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Homosexuality is natural... Otherwise it wouldn't exist in nature and humans wouldn't be born gay.

yes...anomalies exist in any system. In that regard...you are right...gay is natural...in a sense...a natural anomaly. But is it natural in a real sense of the word. It is not. If it were...it would go against the concept of evolution.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm perfectly aware there are gay animals...they die off and so would a human gay civ...if it hadnt it's hetero cousins.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Honestly, if sex isn't specifically for reproduction it is just for entertainment regardless of who is boinking whom. I mean what is the point if you aren't making a baby except for satisfying our basic instincts?

What's the point of doing anything except to satisfy some sort of baser instinct? Humans are creatures of instinct.

Yeah! Screw having higher-level reasoning and the ability to think before we act...

What you just said is a tautology dressed up as wisdom. I could make that same argument about any action humans undertake. Including having children.

Having children is a little more complex than instinct. There's a bit of selective biology.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's sad watching our Constitution deteriorate in real time.

Welcome to the party. I've been saying that for years.

Oh, you're talking about marriage. Something that isn't in the Constitution, but doesn't stop people from trying to scribble it in there.

No. I'm talking about the SCOTUS allowing a state to discriminate against a group of people despite already ruling on this matter. Nice try with the weak sarcasm though. I'll give you a 5/10 for it.

You're talking about it without knowing any details. Did you notice in the article that there was no comment or dissent from any of the liberal justices? Methinks there some legal foundation for this. I have a few suspicions but I'd need to dig.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Legal discrimination is my favorite kind!

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Not to get too philosophical or hung up on semantics, but nothing outside of nature can exist, so if something exists at all, then it is natural.

It's a completely moot point.

Not many people agree with me about this, so thank you.
We ARE nature. Nothing we do can be outside of nature.

So murder/genocide, rape, and slavery are natural!

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: eNumbra

I gave several examples where states skirt federal laws which is exactly what the thread is about and states that restrict the second amendment are treating citizens unequally.

Chill out

You’re question “where do we draw the line for states rights?” Was an ignorant one.

You have example that sit on complete opposite ends of the spectrum of what is and isn’t acceptable and that you’d even include discrimination in the list is abhorant.

Until the federal government recognized gay marriage this will remain on the state's shoulders.
Hence states rights.

You say discrimination.
Well you can't discriminate against something that does not exist. Gay marriage does not exist federally.
States still control that and can change that or modify that.

The feds decided to not even listen to this case.
They would have to listen if this was not a state issue.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Evolution is merely the change of life over time. Homosexuality, being natural, is a product of evolution. Saying it "goes against the concept of evolution" is a nonsense statement and contradictory.

PS: Why do you ellipses so much? Can you please just use periods? It's distracting making it look like you are hesitating between every sentence you type.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Ok. That's a fair point and I cannot refute it. As it stands, it sounds unreasonable, but I will reel in my outrage a bit until I hear more about why this happened.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Yes, that is a correct use of the term "natural".

If it exists in any way, it is natural, you don't have to like it, it's just what the word means.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Not to get too philosophical or hung up on semantics, but nothing outside of nature can exist, so if something exists at all, then it is natural.

It's a completely moot point.

Not many people agree with me about this, so thank you.
We ARE nature. Nothing we do can be outside of nature.

So murder/genocide, rape, and slavery are natural!

Yes. We can find analogs in nature for every single one of those activities. Sometimes animals behave worse than humans do even.

I'm of the opinion that "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman and "domestic partners" can be anyone of any sex together in any number. Having sex of any kind or not shouldn't have any bearing on the matter. I'm sure there are many marriages where the couple isn't having sex of any kind.

Still the law has been interpreted by the SCOTUS that gay marriage is legal and therefore the law should be applied the same. However, things like insurance probably shouldn't be an issue unless it is unfairly applied to one or the other. That seems to be an issue with your employer. Marriage shouldn't entitle (or deny) anyone to anything outside of the laws governing marriage. I personally don't want that kind of legal entanglement, but then again there are prenuptial agreements as well, not to mention state laws that have different arrangements concerning property ownership, etc.

As far as having gay sex goes, there are sodomy laws on the books. Of course that includes straight couples, married or not, engaged in sodomy (that includes oral sex too). That is a whole other issue that should be addressed separately.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
Well, this thread is about to get wildly derogatory.....but what the hell?
Let's Play Justify your Hatred!
And here's today's contestants....let's see how they fare.

I'm just happy to live in a country where marriage equity is so not-contentious any more that we issued an anniversary postage stamp. I mean really...why do we still need to have this conversation?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evolution is merely the change of life over time.

well, to my understanding, it's not just change but change for the sake of survival of the species. Having a majority gay population in any species is surely not advantageous to survival of the said species.

In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859). Evolution by natural selection is a process demonstrated by the observation that more offspring are produced than can possibly survive...Thus, in successive generations members of a population are replaced by progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the biophysical environment in which natural selection takes place.

PS: Why do you ellipses so much? Can you please just use periods? It's distracting making it look like you are hesitating between every sentence you type.

I'm not hesistating, but noted. I'll try to refrain from it.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Top 7 answers on the board.

What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples?

Survey says...

#1 - Threat to the survival of humanity.

DING!

Thanks for playing our game, and remember to have your pets spayed and neutered.

Good night everybody!

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Legal discrimination is my favorite kind!

You mean like laws that give homosexuals more rights than heterosexuals? That's basically what the ruling by the 2015 SCOTUS ruling created.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: eNumbra

I gave several examples where states skirt federal laws which is exactly what the thread is about and states that restrict the second amendment are treating citizens unequally.

Chill out

The difference between this situation and gun laws is that gun laws effect everyone statewide. This law selectively effects a minority segment of the Texas population. That is called discrimination and is wrong.

Not everyone owns a gun either.

So it's the same.

a reply to: Thorneblood

#1 - Threat to the survival of humanity.

Having a majority gay population in any species is surely not advantageous to survival of the said species.

key words for the dyslexic people..."majority".

Good night everybody!

Night. You were really valuable for this one. From the get go.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

An adaptation can be harmful or beneficial to a species' survival demanding on many circumstances. Currently, homosexuality has no baring on the survival of the human species and many of the instances it occurs in nature it doesn't inhibit those species' survival. That particular animal may not breed, but the species itself lives on.

The only time homosexuality could even CONSIDERED to be negative on a species' survival rate is if that species is endangered and critically below its minimum viable population, but even that isn't definitive. It's not like gay animals can't reproduce or anything.