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

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
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.

Well, you could try this:

"Male homosexuality is inborn and may be triggered by a gene carried by mothers, new findings suggest.

Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality as a trait would not last because it discourages reproductive sex with women and therefore procreation.

However a new study, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, found a correlation between gay men and their mothers and maternal aunts, who are prone to have significantly more children compared to the maternal relatives of straight men.

Researchers led by Andrea Camperio Ciani, from the University of Padova in Italy, say that the findings of the link between homosexuality and female fertility strongly support the "balancing selection hypothesis," which suggests that a gene which causes homosexuality also leads to high fecundity or reproduction among their female relatives."

www.medicaldaily.com...

So what's the conspiracy in this thread?

I thought this was a conspiracy site, not a civil rights advocate site. There is a lot of conspiracies out there we are missing out on because our conspiracy site is filled full of political BS.

If you have a political conspiracy great, bring it on! Otherwise, keep in on the dailymail type sites.

Bring back the conspiracies!!!!!

originally posted by: Thorneblood
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...

#2 - Unnatural

DING!

You know...this is really just about getting the sleepy sheep riled up, and normally I don't come back to threads like this...but I keep coming back to this one. Because you're #ing awesome. How is it that we're not friends already?

I live in Texas. And this is not upsetting anyone here so far as I can tell. I'll leave my personal opinion out of it. Wouldn't be the popular one anyway, I'm sure.

Thanks for the giggles.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

No one is forcing a church to marry them though.

I didn't say they were.

I did say they are forcing everyone who doesn't see their marriage exactly the same way they do to see it their way.

And as for churches, more and more the argument comes up that if churches won't do it the way people want them to, then they should lose their tax exempt status because they are being "given money" to discriminate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.

Hence why we see society fracturing.

We moved to post-moral, moral relativist framework. What that really means is that no one has morals anymore.

Moral relativists salve their consciences by saying, "I would never personally do thus and such because it is personally wrong for me." So they basically tell the world they won't get their own hands dirty. However, they turn around and then announce, "But, some people feel thus and such is OK for them morally, and who am I to judge?" At that point, a moral relativist is basically saying they are fine with someone else getting their hands dirty doing the same thing the moral relativist personally won't.

So the implication is that whatever thus and such is ... the moral relativist could stand right there and watch the other person in question carry on with thus and such without stopping them because they don't want to be mean and "judge" that person. The implication is that whatever thus and such is, the moral relativist is actually fine with it, just not fine with personally getting his or her own hands dirty.

And that is why we see so many people standing by and not intervening or even just filming and laughing while other people do horrible things right in front of them.

It doesn't speak well of either society or moral relativists.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And why is that a problem?

Well I don’t know, let’s just give everyone in the world regardless of citizenship access to our welfare program while we are at it right? What would be the problem with that? Oh and maybe because it was against the LAW?

a reply to: ketsuko

Well moral relativism describes morality in general. You can either accept that is reality and truth or you can lie to yourself and say that it comes from a higher source. Society is moving on from lying to itself. That doesn't mean we'll degrade into beating each other with clubs and throwing our # at each other tomorrow. There are still laws in place. Customs. Traditions. All these things go towards affecting human behavior.

And that is why we see so many people standing by and not intervening or even just filming and laughing while other people do horrible things right in front of them.

Oh please! People have always been terrible. Back in the Bible days the whole town would get involved with stoning someone regardless of it being justified or not. Morality being relative or not isn't stopping people from being immoral or awful people.

Humans can just be counted on to do anything. If you can think it, there is a human that has probably attempted it.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And why is that a problem?

Well I don’t know, let’s just give everyone in the world regardless of citizenship access to our welfare program while we are at it right? What would be the problem with that? Oh and maybe because it was against the LAW?

So what you are saying is that we should punish gay couples going forward because of the actions of liberal politicians from last year? And that doesn't sound unfair to you at all?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You say it doesn't mean we will, but there is undeniable evidence that we are in fact doing just that.

No.

Customs? Traditions? Those things are old, outmoded, and guided by that morality you say we "moving on from because it was always just a lie." Society is steadily excluding customs and traditions from the public square because they aren't "inclusive" these days.

Society is coming apart because those things you want to call lies were the glue that held us together.

And nothing has replaced them except materialism and narcissism. So we film others in horrible situations and laugh and ignore people who are being beat to death or bleeding out in the streets.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah yeah. I've heard this song and dance every year I've been on ATS. Even now, under the age of Trump, I don't think society is coming apart at the seams. If you think a god is necessary to build society, then you have too little faith in humanity.

So would this mean that same sex married couples would also be exempt from the debts that are generally the responsibility of the surviving spouse in the event that one of them dies ? If a spouse gets sick and leaves behind a large medical debt for example, are same sex married couples expected to to be responsible for those bills, yet be denied the deceased spouses benefits ? I think it has to be all the way or no way when it comes to the finances of a legally married couple.

opps

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And why is that a problem?

Well I don’t know, let’s just give everyone in the world regardless of citizenship access to our welfare program while we are at it right? What would be the problem with that? Oh and maybe because it was against the LAW?

So what you are saying is that we should punish gay couples going forward because of the actions of liberal politicians from last year? And that doesn't sound unfair to you at all?

I think you need to read the the source linked in the OP. If you have already and that’s what you take away from it then I can’t help you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

And why is that a problem?

Well I don’t know, let’s just give everyone in the world regardless of citizenship access to our welfare program while we are at it right? What would be the problem with that? Oh and maybe because it was against the LAW?

So what you are saying is that we should punish gay couples going forward because of the actions of liberal politicians from last year? And that doesn't sound unfair to you at all?

What part of gay marriage wasn’t legal at the time when the governor gave gay couples benefits that were only afforded to married couples don’t you understand?

Read my previous posts please.

originally posted by: bgerbger
So I thought it was recognized across the land that gay and lesbians have the same rights to marry as straight people, and access to the same benefits.
Thanks to our new conservative activist Supreme Court this is not the case. In what may be seen as the thin end of the wedge, the Supreme Court is allowing the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling to stand.

I think this is less about gay rights, and more about whether the state has any right to write it's own laws, free from interference from the federal government.

If the federal government can just tell the states what they must do, we may as well dissolve all state governments and just have one body in Washington to set the laws for all people in the land.

a reply to: AMPTAH

States can and do write their own laws all the time. A state law cannot run counter to a federal law though, just as a city law cannot contradict a state law.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: AMPTAH

States can and do write their own laws all the time. A state law cannot run counter to a federal law though, just as a city law cannot contradict a state law.

then please explain to me sanctuary cities....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
then please explain to me sanctuary cities....

They're illegal, what more is there to explain?

Just outlaw marriage all together. It's a pointless legal institution.

Beyond that, Texas should just end ALL spousal benefits.

Yep.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: AMPTAH

States can and do write their own laws all the time. A state law cannot run counter to a federal law though, just as a city law cannot contradict a state law.

Anyone can "write" any law. There's nothing stopping the writing of laws by the federal or state governments.

However, it is possible to write a law that contradicts another law. In such a case, we refer to the U.S. Constitution to determine which law is the valid one in the context. Since, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law" of the land. That's the one that matters in the end.

And, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that anything that is not specifically mentioned in that Constitution that is the jurisdiction of the federal government, is then relegated to the states to determine independently of the federal government. So, if the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant the power over some domain, whatever the federal lawmaker "write" there will always be subordinated to the state lawmakers own laws. That's the law of the land. That's how you get sanctuary cities.