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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

As far as benefits to mankind. So what? Just about everything humans do have no benefit to mankind. Life is just a matter of distracting yourself until you die. It helps to spend that time distracting yourself with pleasantness and if being gay makes someone happy then who are you or I to argue?

Then let Trump be if that is the case. Leave him alone. Distract yourself with pleasantries. Oh...and go gay if you want. It'll help pass the time until you die

And this case reveals the fundamental flaw in the current way gay rights are being fought for.

The problem is you simply can't legislate acceptance; that comes with much time passing and not court rulings.

For every victory there will be a set bake. Those that don't accept you aren't going to simply give up just because a court of 9 individuals make a rulling in your favor, your opposition will always find 9 other people to make a counter rulling. And so it will go forever adnoseam.

So sure force people to make you a cake they don't want to make you (Why would anyone want to even eat a cake made by some one who hates them?). It may feel good in the short term, but in the long term it just pushes people farther away from you.

If benefits where what was important to the gay community than that should have been what they fought for. Instead they fought over the definition of the word marriage.

To be clear I am an Atheist and the definition of marriage is irrelevant to me. I also support the idea that Gay couples should have the same benefit opportunities as strait couples. I'd actually go further to say that any two or more people should be able to form a union of familyhood for what ever reason and enjoy the benefits and pitfalls that come with it. If calling that "marriage" gets a bunch of biggets panties in a bunch ... just avoid that issue all to gather and call it something else. Sure it might not stuck it to the biggest as much, but it will be more easily insure benefits for all. And at the end of the day what's more important sticking it to a bunch of biggets or getting the benefits?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Trump? This thread isn't about him.

a reply to: Thorneblood

YUP.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

And that's the third time you've invented my side of the argument for me.

It was easy the way you framed it.

If "morals are the construct of humans," then it implies you are outside of that framework. Either you have no morals or you are not human or both.

I understand you chose those words in an attempt to sound superior, but well, you aren't evolved. None of us are.

a reply to: TheRedneck

well posted!
when you can't get the legislative branch to work for you the answer is not the executive or judicial
that is a short sited strategy and easily untied when the opposition retakes the majority
but hey we would have to start including civics in our public education again for people to understand that

originally posted by: bgerbger
a reply to: musicismagic

It doesn't really matter how you feel about it, the law says that members of the same sex can be married.

That is the law of the land.

For the Supreme Court to say they cannot receive the same benefits as other married people starts to undermine the whole foundation of what same sex marriage is.

As long as you're attaching government benefits to marriage, which we are... then marriage cannot be discriminatory. Remove the tax, legal, and financial bonuses from marriage and your argument would be able to stand.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

And that's the third time you've invented my side of the argument for me.

It was easy the way you framed it.

Duh! It's always easy to invent the other person's arguments. That's why strawman arguments aren't worth arguing.

If "morals are the construct of humans," then it implies you are outside of that framework. Either you have no morals or you are not human or both.

No. I am just being impersonal with my analysis.

I understand you chose those words in an attempt to sound superior, but well, you aren't evolved. None of us are.

Another strawman. I think I'm going to ignore you going forward.

PS: we are all evolved since we are all products of evolution.

a reply to: DanDanDat

I think you'll find it's less about allowing gays to marry in their terms and more about forcing everyone else to accept it as a marriage exactly on their terms.

You understand that there are many different social groups in the country and not all of them view marriage in the same way? There may be general agreement on what marriage is, but there is a reason why Jews don't go down the street to their neighborhood mosque to get married by the Imam ... It's because the two religions view marriage just differently enough that it doesn't work, and an imam is unlikely to agree to marry two Jews - or two Christians for that matter.

And an Imam shouldn't forced to marry them either. Those differences in how marriage is viewed are perfectly fine and acceptable, or at least they were before a certain group came along and decided that if they could get married, then they would force everyone to deal with their marriages on their terms, no matter how those social groups viewed marriage. No matter what the prevailing general feelings on the matter were.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nothing else would be new.

We have not evolved out of what we were since we came out of the caves. Some think we have moved beyond those days. We haven't. We're still cavemen at heart. Evolution doesn't work that way.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nature just is, but how many times do we make the argument that humans are outside of nature? Isn't the the excuse every time someone goes on and on about Global Warming? I am seeing some of the same voices now arguing about our "being part of nature" here that argue how we are outside of it and causing Global Warming there.

I never said that. We effect the climate. We couldn't effect something that we were "outside" of. So those people are bringing you a silly argument and your right to question them about that.

It's all nature, man

Again you are arguing that anything natural is good. My argument is that homosexuality is natural. I am not arguing on whether or not some people view it as evil or good.
Murder is natural. But so is being kind. love in all it's forms is natural.

Now if you want to talk about how I personally feel about homosexuality than we can talk about that.
I do not feel that homosexuality is wrong or bad in anyway. feeling love for another person is not evil.
Having butt sex is not evil. It doesn't hurt anyone , and it feels good.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree. Morals are just a false comfort and humans are just a step away from doing whatever they feel like.

originally posted by: musicismagic
i feel that marriage is between man and women
not between man and man and woman and woman
I say marriage
now
lets say a man wants to be "legally" attached to another man, give it a new name like "bond for the penis" or something like that, that way it will be known that they want recognition of putting their dicks up another mans you know what, so why not, it is all pure so why should we all get all hung up about it.
the same sex loves one another that is the way life is
a man hops on the rear end of another man, that is their love
a woman gets down an boogies on her female companion, that is there love

so like i said
man and wife= marriage
man plus man = I like to bone him like i own him
woman plus woman = lets adapt a child

I come from way back when.... Give that perspective, I've learned that my former views need not lock me into a forever mindset. Look around you. You seem hung up on a particular type of sex. Are you aware that other sexual practices such as the famed "69" position among married males and females are considered these days to be a normal sexual activity? Probably not. How about anal sex between a man and his female wife or companion, or the common BJ for a man by a woman (or maybe another man)? These practices are not pushing the envelope except, perhaps, closing the book of the Christian Bible that some like to tout.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Thorneblood

I dont know. I'm not against being gay...I just wonder if that 's mostly about sex.

No different then straight marriage.

Those in it define it.

All straight marriages are not the same or for the same reason.

a reply to: bgerbger

Conservatives playing identity politics again...

a reply to: bgerbger

just because tv shows make gay marriage the norm its not really given same rights and benifits as regular marriage in all fifty states and some states don't allow it but offer a similar but not same thing called a civil union. benefits that are given to married couples by employers like spousal life insurance and medical benefits for a same sex union are very hard to get if not impossible why because they hate gay people no its because gov has not made them yet. and no i am not against it i see no reason to stop any couple as long as they happy and over age of consent more power to them.

a reply to: bgerbger

i am a christian but the real reason religion so against homosexuality falls back on this chestnut GO FORTH BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. why is this an issue well if you ain't reproducing thats less TAXFREE CHURCH TITHES THEY GETTING. its not god hates homosexuals its the church won't have your offspring giving them money. worst thing founding fathers did was allowing churches to be tax free.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: TheRedneck


The problem here is that people pushing gay marriage went about it all wrong. Sometimes it matters how you do a thing. In politics, the idea is to build consensus, to convince others that your position is right. But that didn't happen. Instead of convincing others that marriage should be extended to all, they demanded that marriage would be extended to all, by court decision, like it or not, hahaha, in your face.

Would have never happened otherwise; people who remain willfully ignorant can’t be built a convensus with. Ideologues would refuse to ever accept gay marriage and we’d still be arguing the point for centuries to come.

There’s a point at which you must stop negotiating with ignorance and tell it to # off and join everyone else in the damned present.

Funny how I feel this way too, but usually about progressives.

That’s the funny thing about ignorance, those that truly embrace it will never see themselves wrapped in it, and round we go fighting once again.

a reply to: Thorneblood
First, I live in Texas and like you, disagree. At the same time though, per the Tenth Amendment, states have the right to make their own decisions above the Federal level. If I don’t like it, I could just relocate to another state who embraces my philosophy.

a reply to: ketsuko

No one is forcing a church to marry them though.