God bless Texas

[The ClayTaurus]

You've just stated exactly what my problem with "gay marriage" is. I don't have a problem with gay people entering into a civil union in order to be on each others insurance or for death benefits or whatever, but there is absolutally no reason to call it a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman period and should stay that way.

I would prefer if marriage was used for the religious ceremony, and that civil union be used for the government recognition for a man and a woman. If the word "marriage" is sacred, then keep it sacred in the religious institution and remove it from the government institution.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You've just stated exactly what my problem with "gay marriage" is. I don't have a problem with gay people entering into a civil union in order to be on each others insurance or for death benefits or whatever, but there is absolutally no reason to call it a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman period and should stay that way.

But that's exactly the opposite of what the main argument against gay marriage is, which is that only a couple defined by a man and a woman can benefit from government benefits derived from being married. I happen to disagree, but to address the main topic, which is your post, the word "marriage" is a religious term, not a civic one. If anything, gays should be able to get "married" by any church that would allow it. It would fall under religious freedom. The issue is getting the government to acknowledge gay unions so that they can get benefits like couples health insurance and whatnot.

 

[GotZoom]

But that's exactly the opposite of what the main argument against gay marriage is, which is that only a couple defined by a man and a woman can benefit from government benefits derived from being married. I happen to disagree, but to address the main topic, which is your post, the word "marriage" is a religious term, not a civic one. If anything, gays should be able to get "married" by any church that would allow it. It would fall under religious freedom. The issue is getting the government to acknowledge gay unions so that they can get benefits like couples health insurance and whatnot.

So if the church down the street from you decided to start offering human sacrifices, you feel they should be allowed to do this under the phrase "Religions Freedom"?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

So if the church down the street from you decided to start offering human sacrifices, you feel they should be allowed to do this under the phrase "Religions Freedom"?

Gays getting married isn't the same as human sacrifices. C'mon lil' buddy. You know better than that.

 

[MissileMan]

So if the church down the street from you decided to start offering human sacrifices, you feel they should be allowed to do this under the phrase "Religions Freedom"?

I think what he's getting at is even a man and a woman can't get married without getting a state-issued license. Marriages aren't religious unions, they are civil unions. If they were religious unions, then gays could form their own church and marry themselves. If they were religious unions, a state couldn't mandate marriage licenses without violating "freedom of religion".

 

[manu1959]

But that's exactly the opposite of what the main argument against gay marriage is, which is that only a couple defined by a man and a woman can benefit from government benefits derived from being married. I happen to disagree, but to address the main topic, which is your post, the word "marriage" is a religious term, not a civic one. If anything, gays should be able to get "married" by any church that would allow it. It would fall under religious freedom. The issue is getting the government to acknowledge gay unions so that they can get benefits like couples health insurance and whatnot.

you can....the govt doesn't recognize leagally until you get a license though

 

[dilloduck]

You've just stated exactly what my problem with "gay marriage" is. I don't have a problem with gay people entering into a civil union in order to be on each others insurance or for death benefits or whatever, but there is absolutally no reason to call it a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman period and should stay that way.

Agreed--the word "marriage" is taken. Pick a word to symbolize a gay union and get ovet it. People who don't like the way something operates have always just found a new definition to describe a new thing. Don't like the way a church interprests the Bible? Define your new belief system using terms like Protestant, Clavinist, etc. Those who think the way you do will call themselves one too. I thought gay people were creative---can't they come up with a new word to describe a new "union". Demanding to use marriage is only meant to be a slap in the face. It has nothing to do with wanting to be accepted or tolerated.

 

[Avatar4321]

I never got a phone call, but I heard some guys on the radio trying to claim that the amendment could ban traditional marriage because of the wording. If anything, that might have hurt their chances to change people's minds. It was pretty plain stated, saying that marriage would be recognized as a union between a man and a woman. Don't see how it could be used to ban marriage altogether.

yeah some of the pro gay marriage groups created a pro family sounding group and started calling people to pretend as though the law would ban traditional marriage.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think divorce has cheapened the value of marriage in this country.

I agree

 

[Bullypulpit]

Texas Voters Approve Ban on Gay Marriage

Texas voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, making their state the 19th to take that step. In Maine, however, a proposal to repeal a new gay-rights law was trailing in early returns.

In California, voters had a chance to embolden or embarrass Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as they considered four measures he promoted as part of a power struggle with legislators and public-employee unions.

The contest in Texas was decided quickly _ the ban was receiving 75 percent of the votes in early returns. Like every other state except Massachusetts, Texas didn't permit same-sex marriages previously, but the constitutional amendment was touted as an extra guard against future court rulings.

The campaign had been enlivened over the past week because of a controversial tactic by the amendment's opponents, who argued in recorded phone calls to voters that the measure was so poorly worded that it could jeopardize traditional man-woman marriages. Amendment supporters denounced the effort as misleading.

In a local Texas election, voters in White Settlement, named 160 years ago after white settlers moved into a mostly Indian area, emphatically rejected a proposal to change the town's name to West Settlement. Some civic leaders felt the traditional name should be changed to lure business investment; more than 90 percent of voters in early returns disagreed.



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/08/D8DOLRV0H.html

Ya know...I just don't get it. There a re number of issues going unaddressed by government on everty level, from the local issues all the way up to national issues. But everybody seems obsessed by the idea of same-gender couples getting married.

Our infrastructure is crumbling...Our schools are decaying...Our healthcare system is in disarray...The federal budget deficit is spiralling out of control...And all folks can be bothered about is whether Bill and Bob can get married or not. But those issues can be difficult and painful as they might require some mental effort grasp and may require a roll-back of DUbbyuh;s disasterous tax-cuts to pay for. Same-gender marriage is simply an emotional hot-button issue used by unscrupulous right wing-nut politicians politicians to energize their equally right wing-nut base.

There is no evidence showing that allowing same-gender couples to either get married or share the same rights, responsibilities and priviledges married couples enjoy under civil unions causes any demonstrable harm to the individuals involved or to society at large. One would think that given the insistence of these same politicians that the family is the foundation of AMercan society, they would be supporting families regardless of whether a kid has a mom and dad, two dads or two moms. It's a family...get over it.

What I find most amusing though, is that were any one of these virulent anti-gay folks to spend an evening with a a couple of gay guys and a few beers, they'd be out of their closet the next morning.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ya know...I just don't get it. There a re number of issues going unaddressed by government on everty level, from the local issues all the way up to national issues. But everybody seems obsessed by the idea of same-gender couples getting married.

Our infrastructure is crumbling...Our schools are decaying...Our healthcare system is in disarray...The federal budget deficit is spiralling out of control...And all folks can be bothered about is whether Bill and Bob can get married or not. But those issues can be difficult and painful as they might require some mental effort grasp and may require a roll-back of DUbbyuh;s disasterous tax-cuts to pay for. Same-gender marriage is simply an emotional hot-button issue used by unscrupulous right wing-nut politicians politicians to energize their equally right wing-nut base.

There is no evidence showing that allowing same-gender couples to either get married or share the same rights, responsibilities and priviledges married couples enjoy under civil unions causes any demonstrable harm to the individuals involved or to society at large. One would think that given the insistence of these same politicians that the family is the foundation of AMercan society, they would be supporting families regardless of whether a kid has a mom and dad, two dads or two moms. It's a family...get over it.

What I find most amusing though, is that were any one of these virulent anti-gay folks to spend an evening with a a couple of gay guys and a few beers, they'd be out of their closet the next morning.

What I find amusing you are complaining about infrastructure crumbling but you support crumbling the oldest infrastructure we have to preserve society -the traditional family.

BTW If Democrats hadnt been screwing up our education and health care systems for the past 50 years we wouldnt have infrastructure problems.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The best thing for marriage would be for government to stop involving itself in it--gay, straight, harem, or otherwise. There is no logical reason for it.

If you want to lower the enormously high divorce rate and promote family values and all that, there's a much better way to do it. Create a society in which both parents aren't forced to work full time. When one parent can be a parent full time, it makes the whole teaching values thing a lot easier. God help us if we have to rely on the state to do it for us.

 

[007]

First of all, lets get something straight, there is NOTHING "gay" about a faggot. Two men licking each others balls and fingering each other up the ass is SICK, not "gay". This "gay" name crap was nothing more than a nicey, nicey little attempt by homo's at trying to "make themselves sound nicer". Queers are sick, and should seek help, not try and spread their disease.

Second, Texas. Yes, "THANK GOD FOR TEXAS"! It was another display by the majority of people of their utter disgust of faggots, and their attack on traditional marriage. And yes, I say "disgust of faggots". Why? Because I'm not afraid to say it. I could give a rats ass about P.C. when it comes to queers. They and their supporters can retort to me with every stinking one of their cute little names they brand "normal" people with. So fucking what. "I'm NORMAL", and I am the "MAJORITY", and I'm a voice of the majority that's not afraid to call a fag a fag. Homosexuality is a FILTHY, FILTHY sickness, and this cutsie, tootsie "gay" crap is just that. BULL SHIT! Call a queer a queer. Drop the "gay" crap. Fags aren't "nice" to you or I when we voice our opinion, the "normal" opinion. Hell no. They throw the best barrage of caustic, vile, shrill, invective name calling and character assisnation at you that they can muster. It borders on lunacy. It's a shout down. They expect you to shut the fuck up and cower. That has been their modus operandi, and to an extent, it has worked, on many. Not me. To hell with faggots, because hell is where they're headed.

Queers should take the civil union that's been offered to them and just GO AWAY. Get back in the damn closet where people don't have to be subjected to their SICK, SICK, SICK lifestyle choice.

 

[-Cp]

First of all, lets get something straight, there is NOTHING "gay" about a faggot. Two men licking each others balls and fingering each other up the ass is SICK, not "gay". This "gay" name crap was nothing more than a nicey, nicey little attempt by homo's at trying to "make themselves sound nicer". Queers are sick, and should seek help, not try and spread their disease.

Second, Texas. Yes, "THANK GOD FOR TEXAS"! It was another display by the majority of people of their utter disgust of faggots, and their attack on traditional marriage. And yes, I say "disgust of faggots". Why? Because I'm not afraid to say it. I could give a rats ass about P.C. when it comes to queers. They and their supporters can retort to me with every stinking one of their cute little names they brand "normal" people with. So fucking what. "I'm NORMAL", and I am the "MAJORITY", and I'm a voice of the majority that's not afraid to call a fag a fag. Homosexuality is a FILTHY, FILTHY sickness, and this cutsie, tootsie "gay" crap is just that. BULL SHIT! Call a queer a queer. Drop the "gay" crap. Fags aren't "nice" to you or I when we voice our opinion, the "normal" opinion. Hell no. They throw the best barrage of caustic, vile, shrill, invective name calling and character assisnation at you that they can muster. It borders on lunacy. It's a shout down. They expect you to shut the fuck and cower. That has been their modus operandi, and to an extent, it has worked, on many. Not me. To hell with faggots, because hell is where they're headed.

Queers should take the civil union that's been offered to them and just GO AWAY. Get back in the damn closet where people don't have to be subjected to their SICK, SICK, SICK lifestyle choice.

Couldn't have said it better myself bro! Would rep ya for that one, but it said I needed to spread it around first... : )

 

[Johnney]

You've just stated exactly what my problem with "gay marriage" is. I don't have a problem with gay people entering into a civil union in order to be on each others insurance or for death benefits or whatever, but there is absolutally no reason to call it a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman period and should stay that way.

before Jess and myself got married we had to file as domestic partners so she cuold benefit from my insurance.

 

[Johnney]

First of all, lets get something straight, there is NOTHING "gay" about a faggot. Two men licking each others balls and fingering each other up the ass is SICK, not "gay". This "gay" name crap was nothing more than a nicey, nicey little attempt by homo's at trying to "make themselves sound nicer". Queers are sick, and should seek help, not try and spread their disease.

Second, Texas. Yes, "THANK GOD FOR TEXAS"! It was another display by the majority of people of their utter disgust of faggots, and their attack on traditional marriage. And yes, I say "disgust of faggots". Why? Because I'm not afraid to say it. I could give a rats ass about P.C. when it comes to queers. They and their supporters can retort to me with every stinking one of their cute little names they brand "normal" people with. So fucking what. "I'm NORMAL", and I am the "MAJORITY", and I'm a voice of the majority that's not afraid to call a fag a fag. Homosexuality is a FILTHY, FILTHY sickness, and this cutsie, tootsie "gay" crap is just that. BULL SHIT! Call a queer a queer. Drop the "gay" crap. Fags aren't "nice" to you or I when we voice our opinion, the "normal" opinion. Hell no. They throw the best barrage of caustic, vile, shrill, invective name calling and character assisnation at you that they can muster. It borders on lunacy. It's a shout down. They expect you to shut the fuck and cower. That has been their modus operandi, and to an extent, it has worked, on many. Not me. To hell with faggots, because hell is where they're headed.

Queers should take the civil union that's been offered to them and just GO AWAY. Get back in the damn closet where people don't have to be subjected to their SICK, SICK, SICK lifestyle choice.

AMEN!
and GOD BLESS TEXAS for having open eyes

 

[Trigg]

But that's exactly the opposite of what the main argument against gay marriage is, which is that only a couple defined by a man and a woman can benefit from government benefits derived from being married. I happen to disagree, but to address the main topic, which is your post, the word "marriage" is a religious term, not a civic one. If anything, gays should be able to get "married" by any church that would allow it. It would fall under religious freedom. The issue is getting the government to acknowledge gay unions so that they can get benefits like couples health insurance and whatnot.

Yes, the word marriage is a religous term and for me it is for a man and woman. IMO if they'd stop calling it a marriage and started using civil union as their rallying cry they'd get less opposition, I could be wrong, but I at least wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What I find amusing you are complaining about infrastructure crumbling but you support crumbling the oldest infrastructure we have to preserve society -the traditional family.

BTW If Democrats hadnt been screwing up our education and health care systems for the past 50 years we wouldnt have infrastructure problems.

The "traditional family"...please be more specific. Are you referring to the polygamy traditional in many Middle-Eastern countries, Africa and the Indian sub-continent? What about the polyandry traditional to many nomadic cultures and still common in Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan, among others?

There are many family structures extant in the world. Families headed by same-gender couples are just a variation on a theme. It doesn't really matter what form a family takes so long ast it provides a supportive, loving and caring environment for all its members. But you. and others of your ilk, would prefer to see children living in a "traditional" family where they are physically and emotionally abused by alcohol and /or drug addicted "mommy and daddy" than in a safe and sane household headed by a same-gender couple. Your compassionate conservatism is a joke, and a poor one at that.

Oh, and BTW, if we had a rational society, infrastructure, health-care and education wouldn't be in the mess they're in.

 

[Bullypulpit]

First of all, lets get something straight, there is NOTHING "gay" about a faggot. Two men licking each others balls and fingering each other up the ass is SICK, not "gay". This "gay" name crap was nothing more than a nicey, nicey little attempt by homo's at trying to "make themselves sound nicer". Queers are sick, and should seek help, not try and spread their disease.

Second, Texas. Yes, "THANK GOD FOR TEXAS"! It was another display by the majority of people of their utter disgust of faggots, and their attack on traditional marriage. And yes, I say "disgust of faggots". Why? Because I'm not afraid to say it. I could give a rats ass about P.C. when it comes to queers. They and their supporters can retort to me with every stinking one of their cute little names they brand "normal" people with. So fucking what. "I'm NORMAL", and I am the "MAJORITY", and I'm a voice of the majority that's not afraid to call a fag a fag. Homosexuality is a FILTHY, FILTHY sickness, and this cutsie, tootsie "gay" crap is just that. BULL SHIT! Call a queer a queer. Drop the "gay" crap. Fags aren't "nice" to you or I when we voice our opinion, the "normal" opinion. Hell no. They throw the best barrage of caustic, vile, shrill, invective name calling and character assisnation at you that they can muster. It borders on lunacy. It's a shout down. They expect you to shut the fuck up and cower. That has been their modus operandi, and to an extent, it has worked, on many. Not me. To hell with faggots, because hell is where they're headed.

Queers should take the civil union that's been offered to them and just GO AWAY. Get back in the damn closet where people don't have to be subjected to their SICK, SICK, SICK lifestyle choice.

If anyone is sick here, it's you. Why don't you read your little rant aloud, and just see how bad-crazy it sounds. What are you afraid of?...That if same-gender couples are allowed to have families and lives like straight couples you're going to wake up queer the next morning? Gimme a break! And while you're at it why don't you provide proof of any demonstrable harm by same-gender couples in committed, long term relationships to either themselves or the community at large. Until then, just STFU, before you say something else stupid.

 

[Gunny]

Texas Voters Approve Ban on Gay Marriage

Texas voters Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, making their state the 19th to take that step. In Maine, however, a proposal to repeal a new gay-rights law was trailing in early returns.

In California, voters had a chance to embolden or embarrass Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as they considered four measures he promoted as part of a power struggle with legislators and public-employee unions.

The contest in Texas was decided quickly _ the ban was receiving 75 percent of the votes in early returns. Like every other state except Massachusetts, Texas didn't permit same-sex marriages previously, but the constitutional amendment was touted as an extra guard against future court rulings.

The campaign had been enlivened over the past week because of a controversial tactic by the amendment's opponents, who argued in recorded phone calls to voters that the measure was so poorly worded that it could jeopardize traditional man-woman marriages. Amendment supporters denounced the effort as misleading.

In a local Texas election, voters in White Settlement, named 160 years ago after white settlers moved into a mostly Indian area, emphatically rejected a proposal to change the town's name to West Settlement. Some civic leaders felt the traditional name should be changed to lure business investment; more than 90 percent of voters in early returns disagreed.



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/08/D8DOLRV0H.html

I wonder if there is ANY speculation as to which way the Missus and I voted?