Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[Eloy]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

That's none of my business.

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two years later and the busy-bodies are still whining about homos getting hitched.

You simpletons keep thinking it's about gays getting hitched. We will stay focused on the way the issue was pushed through the courts. (States Rights)

It is not about States' rights. It is about equal protection of the law.

Marriage and benefits is NOT what the founders and framers were talking about when they talked about "equal protection."


Try again.

Laws have to be applied equally, dear.

When a right is a qualified right (like the age to drive or to vote) - They are in fact "applied equally."

You either meet the requirements (qualifications) or you don't.

 

[Chuz Life]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

That's none of my business.

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

 

[toobfreak]

Texas needs to enter the 21st century.

If this is the 21st Century maybe better we stay in the 20th, where men were still men, women were still women and there were just two genders.

 

[toobfreak]

Texas is a backward shithole

You mean because it ain't a liberal shithole like where you live.

 

[Eloy]

Honestly, there is no good reason for anyone to be concerned about who marries whom.

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

That's none of my business.

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

 

[Chuz Life]

Should gay brothers or gay sisters be permitted to marry one another too?

That's none of my business.

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

 

[Eloy]

That's none of my business.

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax code which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your business or not - the policy is going to be written.

So, what's it going to be?

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.

Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?

Yes or fucking no?

 

[Eloy]

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.

Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?

Yes or fucking no?

Look, I have seen people on this board making very unkind comments about your posts. Although I disagree with you about everything, I have never been abusive to you but always respectful. Now you are using bad language to me even when I give you my opinion.

 

[Chuz Life]

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.

Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?

Yes or fucking no?

Look, I have seen people on this board making very unkind comments about your posts. Although I disagree with you about everything, I have never been abusive to you but always respectful. Now you are using bad language to me even when I give you my opinion.

I'll give a break then.

Welcome to the Iggy list.

Go waste someone else's time.

 

[mdk]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

Thank you for using the more proper term of "Married Same-Sex Couple." Helluva lot better than just "married couple."

Why? Does the latter hurt your tender feelings?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the hell is a pre natal gay?? Is there a in utero test for sexual orientation that I don't know about.?

You know, by constantly harping on the abortion thing you are only making yourself look foolish. You are using at least two types of logical fallacy to avoid a serious discussion of the actual topic, which obviously you're not up for.

This is what you're doing:


The rights of the unborn and the rights of gays are two entirely different matters

No explanation needed there

Are people Gay by choice or are they born that way?

Oh shit! Now you want to go off on another tangent....launch another red herring to avoid dealing with the legal issue at hand?? Are straight people straight by choice? Are you straight by choice. It is as stupid as stupid gets to think that gay is a choice. The only people who even bring it up any more are the bigots who claim that it's a choice in order to paint the "gay lifestyle " as something frivolous as an excuse to marginalize them.

The fact is that the courts have long held that it is an immutable characteristic . Even the lawyers defending the states that tried to ban same sex marriage knew better than to raise that as an issue because it would get kicked out of court.

You are becoming a bore. I must say that I am wholly unimpressed by the level of intelligence that you display, your grasp of the subject matter, and your ability to actually engage in a meaningful discussion or debate.

Son if you agree that no-one is gay by choice.... why did you skiff at the idea of prenatal gays and their having any rights?

Son? Let me tell you something. I'm 70 years old and have been around the block a few times. I don't know how old you are but I have the distinct impression that I'm dealing with a 20 something who lacks basic life skills and is afflicted with low information disease.

Now, why did I "skiff at the idea of prenatal gays" ? Because it was a stupid fucking question and off topic.

I'll tell you what. The subject of what is going on in Texas is kind of dead in the water until there are new developments there. Meanwhile, everything that can be said about it has been said. In addition, the author of that trash seems to have abandoned the thread so I don't suppose that he will mind if we change the topic.

So, lets make it about the issue of whether or not gay is a choice. However, I'm not going to do all of the work. You brought it up so lets start with you. Do you think that it's a choice? Start by stating your premise. It is a choice or it is not a choice? You are born gay or you are not? What exactly is meant by "born gay? Then present your argument to support your premise. Include sources to support your argument. That is how debate works .See if you can avoid logical fallacies and stay on topic in the process. Let's see what you've got. I suspect not much.

I was under the impression that most Gays believe they are born that way.

Do you agree with or disagree with them?

This is pretty much what I expected from you. I asked you what YOU believe and suggested that you formulate an argument to support your premise and I just get another question!

The subject of choice vs. not a choice, and born gay or not is far more complex than you seem to be able to fathom and does not lend itself well to simplistic yes or no answers as you seem to think. As I asked before, what does "born gay" really mean? When does a child become aware of their sexuality and how do they respond to the feeling that they have and why? What biological, social and environmental factors play into it. These are just some of the many questions that need to be explored.

If you want to have a serious question deal with the topic in an in depth way. I 'm not going to engage in a shallow tit for tat banter about it and if that is all that you're capable of just shove off. I have better things to do.

 

[Kondor3]

It is resistance against tyranny, so I'm down for it.

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

It is not trampling of rights to advance an agenda.

It is denying legal standing to sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals)... reversing the forcibly-imposed agenda of the Gay Mafia.

Why are you so upset and threatened by gays having rights that you can take for granted? They are just people who are more like the rest of us than different. What happened to you to make you so angry and obsessive . I can only conclude that you are by virtue of the fact that you are even here on this topic. Is there something about you that we should know that would help us to understand you? It might be helpful to let it out. Most people who are secure in their lives and identities do not have the need to lash out at others and demean and marginalize them, when they have done nothing to you.

Awwww... did I hit a nerve, precious?

No!! Not at all. I'm just fine. However, I do believe that I hit a nerve with you. You can't seem to deal with the issue in a rational way so you're trying to make it about me. Do you understand the psychological concept of projection? So again, I'll ask you, why are you so angry and what happened to you to make you that way? Please be honest, I'm here to help!

There is nothing irrational about labeling sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality) as sexual deviancy and perversion.

The Bible does that very nicely.

I am not angry.

I am disgusted.

As are vast numbers of your fellow countrymen.

Still, you are welcome to spin your Gay Agenda to your little heart's content.

It's just that it's falling on deaf ears, in relation to myself, and to a great many other Americans.

As can be evidenced by the large number of States that held Defense-of-(Traditional)-Marriage referendums, which passed, and which were overturned by activist judges.

That judicial activism is also now imperiled... and rightly so.

Witness the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Religious Principles defense, in refusing to serve sexual deviants and perverts.

You-and-yours are in for a rough ride in the coming months.

Much of the rest of the country - myself included - are going to enjoy the show, regardless of how it turns out.

Why?

Because you-and-yours shoved your miserable, nasty agenda down our throats, twisting the law in ways it was never intended to be twisted, and you got away with it.

And then you waved your victories in our faces across the country again and again and again - in a fine display of Liberal arrogance and ignorance.

That, too, is now at-risk.

It's gonna be great fun, watching you piss and moan, and wail and gnash your teeth, and emote all over yourselves, as this high drama and rich entertainment unfolds.

Enjoy.

The rest of us certainly will.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Trampling on rights for agenda. As I said, how leftist of you

It is not trampling of rights to advance an agenda.

It is denying legal standing to sexual deviants and perverts (a.k.a. homosexuals)... reversing the forcibly-imposed agenda of the Gay Mafia.

Why are you so upset and threatened by gays having rights that you can take for granted? They are just people who are more like the rest of us than different. What happened to you to make you so angry and obsessive . I can only conclude that you are by virtue of the fact that you are even here on this topic. Is there something about you that we should know that would help us to understand you? It might be helpful to let it out. Most people who are secure in their lives and identities do not have the need to lash out at others and demean and marginalize them, when they have done nothing to you.

Awwww... did I hit a nerve, precious?

No!! Not at all. I'm just fine. However, I do believe that I hit a nerve with you. You can't seem to deal with the issue in a rational way so you're trying to make it about me. Do you understand the psychological concept of projection? So again, I'll ask you, why are you so angry and what happened to you to make you that way? Please be honest, I'm here to help!

There is nothing irrational about labeling sexual deviancy and perversion (a.k.a. homosexuality) as sexual deviancy and perversion.

The Bible does that very nicely.

I am not angry.

I am disgusted.

As are vast numbers of your fellow countrymen.

Still, you are welcome to spin your Gay Agenda to your little heart's content.

It's just that it's falling on deaf ears, in relation to myself, and to a great many other Americans.

As can be evidenced by the large number of States that held Defense-of-(Traditional)-Marriage referendums, which passed, and which were overturned by activist judges.

That judicial activism is also now imperiled... and rightly so.

Witness the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Religious Principles defense, in refusing to serve sexual deviants and perverts.

You-and-yours are in for a rough ride in the coming months.

Much of the rest of the country - myself included - are going to enjoy the show, regardless of how it turns out.

Why?

Because you-and-yours shoved your miserable, nasty agenda down our throats, twisting the law in ways it was never intended to be twisted, and you got away with it.

And then you waved your victories in our faces across the country again and again and again - in a fine display of Liberal arrogance and ignorance.

That, too, is now at-risk.

It's gonna be great fun, watching you piss and moan, and wail and gnash your teeth, and emote all over yourselves, as this high drama and rich entertainment unfolds.

Enjoy.

The rest of us certainly will.

You're not angry ?? Listen to yourself!!

You are also delusional regarding public opinion. Your day is done pal.

 

[martybegan]

it is being an asshole. However civil asset forfeiture (which I disagree with) is a separate example of government overreach.

How is paying a fine worse than asset forfeiture?

When the fine is $149,000?

How do you figure, right winger? Asset forfeiture can include cash.

Yes, but how much of them are for $149k in cash?

Do you not really understand what asset forfeiture means?

I understand completely. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to inject it into this thread.

 

[Kondor3]

...You're not angry ?? Listen to yourself!! ...

Thank you for your feedback.

...You are also delusional regarding public opinion...

Thank you for your feedback.

...Your day is done pal.

Unbelievable arrogance... gotta love it... it's also your primary weakness in the context of a (very) temporary ascendancy... 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings and morality and tradition... woven into the very fabric of our society and culture and laws... are not to be denied... you have no idea how temporary and fragile your recent 'wins' actually are.

The current political climate does not exactly favor your cause, and a 5-4 SCOTUS (soon to be a 6-3) will hear related cases again and again, until decency and sanity prevail.

Time is done? Hardly, mine good colleague. The counter-punches are only now beginning, now that the political climate has changed for the better. Enjoy the ride.

 

[Seawytch]

I do not believe there is much popularity for such matrimonial incest. Brothers and sisters are already close members of the same family, already wedded.

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.

Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?

Yes or fucking no?

Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.

 

[Seawytch]

...You're not angry ?? Listen to yourself!! ...

Thank you for your feedback.

...You are also delusional regarding public opinion...

Thank you for your feedback.

...Your day is done pal.

Unbelievable arrogance... gotta love it... it's also your primary weakness in the context of a (very) temporary ascendancy... 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian teachings and morality and tradition... woven into the very fabric of our society and culture and laws... are not to be denied... you have no idea how temporary and fragile your recent 'wins' actually are.

The current political climate does not exactly favor your cause, and a 5-4 SCOTUS (soon to be a 6-3) will hear related cases again and again, until decency and sanity prevail.

Time is done? Hardly, mine good colleague. The counter-punches are only now beginning, now that the political climate has changed for the better. Enjoy the ride.

It's not arrogance, it is confidence.

• 64% of Americans say same-sex marriage should be legal
• For the first time, majority of Protestants support gay marriage
• Support for same-sex relations has also climbed, now at 72%

US Support for Gay Marriage Edges to New High

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If a pair of brothers or sisters wanted to marry one another (gay or not) just so they too can enjoy the benefits of "marriage". . . should they be legally permitted to do so?

On what basis would you deny them?

I believe it is bad law that gives tax breaks to people who have gone through a marriage ceremony.

If you want to discuss this any further, quit dodging the fucking question.

I'm surprised at your language.
I did not dodge the question. My answer criticizes politicians who meddle in peoples' lives by designing a tax cosde which gives advantage to people who have married. There are many ordinary people who live together and have families without getting married and given the rate of divorce in western countries one has to wonder what this marriage thing is all about. That is a full articulation of the answer I gave you. I have spelled it out for you.

Should a brother (gay or not) be permitted to marry his brother for the marital benefits?

Yes or fucking no?

Not until you petition the court and can demonstrate that there is no societal harm in allowing siblings to legally marry. Good luck with your legal battle.

Let me guess what's next. He will call you a hypocrite for not supporting sibling marriage while supporting gay marriage. An all to familiar pattern with these people who can do little more than dumb it down, demand simplistic yes or no answers, until we throw our hands up in frustration. The irony is that they don't want sibling marriage either.