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

[Seawytch]

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.

I actually don't give two shits and a shake if siblings are allowed to legally marry. Don't care about polygamists either. If those folks think their civil rights are being violated, they have every right to petition the court to redress their grievances just like interracial couples, divorced couples, couples where one or more of the parties are incarcerated and gay couples did.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's discrimination at the govt level. I ain't down for that shit.
Same certificate but don't get Same employment benefits? Nice. How leftist of you guys.

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

Yes, equal protection is tyranny.

Still upset that you have to share the lunch counter with blacks?

 

[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?

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.

Societal harm?

Dafuq are you talking about, willis?

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.

 

[Chuz Life]

...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

This explains Trump' s election, huh.

 

[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

This explains Trump' s election, huh.

The polls were correct. Hillary won the popular vote by the margin predicted.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.

Yes they do and they didn't draw it at gays marrying.

 

[Chuz Life]

...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

This explains Trump' s election, huh.

The polls were correct. Hillary won the popular vote by the margin predicted.

How's that win been working out for her?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.

Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.

You, on the other hand seem to have a piss poor understanding of how things work. No one is saying that the gov. does not have the right to "draw the line" as you put it. Laws set limits on various rights all the time. That is why a guy can't marry his 12 year old niece.

HOWEVER, when those restrictions are challenged, the government must defend the need for them. In the case of same sex marriage, the defendants-those representing the states were unable to demonstrate a compelling government interest or even a rational basis ( those are legal terms in constitutional law-look them up) to allow the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman.

Now has we have said, if anyone thinks that sibling marriage, or interspecies marriage or anything else is a good idea, they are free to petition the courts the same way that gays did. But these are separate issues with different implications for society, law and the meaning of the family

 

[toobfreak]

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?

It doesn't hurt my feelings to just be more accurate. You don't plug a power cord into another plug, you plug it into a wall socket. Male and female. You don't park a car into another car, you park it into a garage. Male and female. When building a floor, you don't join a tongue and tongue, you join a tongue to a groove. Male and Female. When putting a chair together, you don't join a mortise to another mortise, you join a mortise to a tenon. Male and Female.

Male and female were made opposites so that they fit together, complete each other. They are made to attract each other so that they can join and perpetuate the species. They create the foundation of a stable family structure to raise young. This is just plain, simple, basic science. Why do you people deny it? Male and male and female and female is not right. Not natural. It doesn't work. It does not fit. I don't deny that that some people feel that way for whatever unnatural reasons, but it isn't normal, and no amount of forced laws or liberal perversions of the marriage laws in order to try to placate and integrate it into the "modern society" can change the fact that it is a perversion of nature. People used to seek help in order to try to understand their feelings, now they are wrongly told that they are perfectly normal and OK. It is not. It is one thing to just acknowledge that faction of society and TOLERATE it, accept it, quite a wrong thing though to institutionalize it and promote it as a healthy and normal life choice because now you are protecting it and promoting it at the expense of the natural order. When perversion takes precedence over the natural order, you end up with the social decay we have today. The word for it is DECADENCE, the final stage before societal collapse. BTW, if you ask a Muslim the main thing that drives them to attack the West, they will tell you it is revulsion over decadence of our society. We might want to occasionally listen to them, maybe they are telling us something we should know.

 

[mdk]

It doesn't hurt my feelings to just be more accurate. You don't plug a power cord into another plug, you plug it into a wall socket. Male and female. You don't park a car into another car, you park it into a garage. Male and female. When building a floor, you don't join a tongue and tongue, you join a tongue to a groove. Male and Female. When putting a chair together, you don't join a mortise to another mortise, you join a mortise to a tenon. Male and Female

Well if it's true for parking a car and carpentry than it must be true for marriage as well. lol

You don't have to support or approve of gay marriage, but at the end of the day what you support/approve of matters fuck all to their marriages. Also, I don't give a flying fig what Muslims the world over think how our society should operate. Should we give up booze and bacon to appease people that want to kill us anyway? Of course not.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.

Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.

You, on the other hand seem to have a piss poor understanding of how things work. No one is saying that the gov. does not have the right to "draw the line" as you put it. Laws set limits on various rights all the time. That is why a guy can't marry his 12 year old niece.

HOWEVER, when those restrictions are challenged, the government must defend the need for them. In the case of same sex marriage, the defendants-those representing the states were unable to demonstrate a compelling government interest or even a rational basis ( those are legal terms in constitutional law-look them up) to allow the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman.

Now has we have said, if anyone thinks that sibling marriage, or interspecies marriage or anything else is a good idea, they are free to petition the courts the same way that gays did. But these are separate issues with different implications for society, law and the meaning of the family

I see. So, because THEY could not give justification for where the line was drawn...noone else can either.

Got it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

The fucking point that obviously is sailing over your head is that the Government has the right to draw the line fucking "somewhere" between what it will and will not recognize as a marriage.

Let me tell you something Sparky, NOTHING on this topic is over my head. I have been dealing with these issues for a very long time.

You, on the other hand seem to have a piss poor understanding of how things work. No one is saying that the gov. does not have the right to "draw the line" as you put it. Laws set limits on various rights all the time. That is why a guy can't marry his 12 year old niece.

HOWEVER, when those restrictions are challenged, the government must defend the need for them. In the case of same sex marriage, the defendants-those representing the states were unable to demonstrate a compelling government interest or even a rational basis ( those are legal terms in constitutional law-look them up) to allow the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman.

Now has we have said, if anyone thinks that sibling marriage, or interspecies marriage or anything else is a good idea, they are free to petition the courts the same way that gays did. But these are separate issues with different implications for society, law and the meaning of the family

I see. So, because THEY could not give justification for where the line was drawn...noone else can either.

Got it.

You don't got nothing. You're not even making sense and it's clear that you are unable to understand the issue or have an adult conversation about it. If this is another example of your highest and best level of functioning, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

 

[danielpalos]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

Where is that power defined in the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

lol. Name the specific clause.

Why?

Do you disagree that the U.S. Government has the right to define what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for the purposes of immigration and naturalization laws?

Yes, marriage is a purely private Act, made Public only for full faith and credit purposes. We have government limited by a Constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

 

[Chuz Life]

The government has the right to decide / define the qualifications for marriage.

They may or may not decide to broaden it to include Gay unions... but they don't (or didnt) have to.

Where is that power defined in the Constitution?

Article 1 Section 8

lol. Name the specific clause.

Why?

Do you disagree that the U.S. Government has the right to define what it will and will not recognize as a "marriage" for the purposes of immigration and naturalization laws?

Yes, marriage is a purely private Act, made Public only for full faith and credit purposes. We have government limited by a Constitution.

Our limited Government has the right (and I would also say the duty) to draw the line on what it will and will not recognize as marriage... especially when it comes to naturalization laws and citizenship... bit I would argue that they have the same right in other areas as well.

So, the issue is not whether or not the Government has the right to draw the line. Clearly it does. The issue is "where" should the lines be drawn.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

 

[Chuz Life]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

 

[Chuz Life]

I think, beyond all that you just said, it's also about what's the ideal for our society and then promoting that ideal - even to the exclusion of all others.

The family unity is the building block for any modern society. And, the most ideal family unit model is naturally going to be the one which is the simplest, easiest and most sustainable way for that family unit to incorporate both a male and a female role model to any children produced.

The one man, one woman model is the simplest and easiest way to accomplish all those things and that is why it has remained the most ideal model for what a marriage is.... and it always WILL be.

Aside from the fact that children need a mother and a father is completely debunked horseshit, what would you propose, as a matter of public policy, about the fact that there are millions of kids in the care of gay individuals and couples across the country? Do you marginalize those families, take away benefits and deny them the ability to marry, thereby depriving the children of the opportunity to have two legal parents and the security, economic benefits and legal protection that goes with it?

Children can be provided for quite easily without the need to broaden, distort or change the definition and requirements for marriages.

Because you say so?? Another appeal to ignorance that does not even begin to address the issue that I raised

Does the government have the right to draw the line somewhere for what it will and will not recognize as a marriage?

Yes or no?