# Court Let Us Down Again!



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

Faith, Family, and Friends. Lets fight the good fight brothers!
Sad day in history.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

I need to get a copy of the Liberal Constitution.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

The bad guys always win and the good guys always loose.


----------



## fishingcacher (Mar 29, 2008)

The Supreme court is broken. There should be term limits. The congress should have them too!

On a side note I bet the IRS is licking their chomps!

I remember someone at work who was not married wanted to add their dog as their domestic partner so the dog could get medical and dental benefits.

By the SCOTUS logic all states with marijuana laws should recognize the right for people from Colorado to carry a limited about of the drug.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

God is the author of marriage and he said it is between a man and a woman. That is the authority that we need to obey.


----------



## O2BFSHN (Jul 25, 2013)

The lack of term limits is a good thing. That is the only chance that the members of the court don't inject their own politics into their jurisprudence. Also, consider the terrifying result if the general populous was allowed to select the members of the SCOTUS.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

KeeperTX said:


> God is the author of marriage and he said it is between a man and a woman. That is the authority that we need to obey.


What if the church in my neighborhood "Resurrection something or other" wants to marry gays? Which they do.
Why do your religious beliefs trump those of that church? Does your church have doctrine authority over other churches?

Why don't the couples get to define what they wish to call "marriage"?

There shouldn't be second class citizens in the US of A.


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

Gay marriage was legalized and the sun came up. It'll probably come up again tomorrow and the next day as well. Move on. I personally don't approve of the gay lifestyle but I'm not going to lose sleep over it either


----------



## Deany45 (Jul 24, 2011)

The decision yesterday was absolutely unconstitutional. This one, I don't have a problem with. Let the people live their lives and the government should stay out. This decision affects me 0%.


----------



## smokinguntoo (Mar 28, 2012)

Pretty good argument that Roberts might have been blackmailed. Think of Hastert. Who would have thunk it?

SG2


----------



## GulfCoast1102 (Dec 30, 2013)

spuds said:


> What if the church in my neighborhood "Resurrection something or other" wants to marry gays? Which they do.
> Why do your religious beliefs trump those of that church? Does your church have doctrine authority over other churches?
> 
> Why don't the couples get to define what they wish to call "marriage"?
> ...


It isn't a "my views trump yours" issue.

If the "church" in your neighborhood is agreeing to "marry" gays, the "pastor" is in sad shape. The Bible is quite clear about marriage. Plane language doesn't require some fancy interpretation.

The Bible is also quite clear about "leaders" who lead their flock astray. Much is expected of those who lead.


----------



## Crowhater (Jul 21, 2014)

We all need to stop listening to this stuff, we give them a voice by acknowledging them. Homosexuals do not make up 1% of the worlds population, the best way to stop its spread is to not give it any attention. God will sort all of this out you just have to have faith. MTV did more to push the homosexual agenda than anyone and they brainwashed kids into thinking it was OK with shows like the Realworld. The next step was to call anyone that did not agree with the gay lifestyle a HOMOPHOBE. Well most Americans are so beat up by the PC police they instantly recoil from any confrontation for fear of being labeled something like a homophobe or racist, sexist, etc.

How I deal with this in my house is simple, there will be no Homosexuals on TV, radio, computer, period. My children know it is a sin and that we do not condone that lifestyle.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

spuds said:


> What if the church in my neighborhood "Resurrection something or other" wants to marry gays? Which they do.
> Why do your religious beliefs trump those of that church? Does your church have doctrine authority over other churches?
> 
> Why don't the couples get to define what they wish to call "marriage"?
> ...


Then if that church calls themselves Christians, I would have to say they are a false church because Christ would never officiate a gay wedding. Churches and people will do whatever they want. They can call it marriage if they want, but that doesn't make it a marriage. What does God say in the bible?

And nobody is calling gays 2nd class citizens except you.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Crowhater said:


> We all need to stop listening to this stuff, we give them a voice by acknowledging them. Homosexuals do not make up 1% of the worlds population, the best way to stop its spread is to not give it any attention. God will sort all of this out you just have to have faith. MTV did more to push the homosexual agenda than anyone and they brainwashed kids into thinking it was OK with shows like the Realworld. The next step was to call anyone that did not agree with the gay lifestyle a HOMOPHOBE. Well most Americans are so beat up by the PC police they instantly recoil from any confrontation for fear of being labeled something like a homophobe or racist, sexist, etc.
> 
> How I deal with this in my house is simple, there will be no Homosexuals on TV, radio, computer, period. My children know it is a sin and that we do not condone that lifestyle.


Says I gotta spread, Amen!


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

GulfCoast1102 said:


> It isn't a "my views trump yours" issue.
> 
> If the "church" in your neighborhood is agreeing to "marry" gays, the "pastor" is in sad shape. The Bible is quite clear about marriage. Plane language doesn't require some fancy interpretation.
> 
> The Bible is also quite clear about "leaders" who lead their flock astray. Much is expected of those who lead.


If the church rules over marriage then why is the government involved at all?

What kind of free country is this when you have to go get a license\permission to marry someone?

My opinion is that the government should have no rule over marriage or personal relationships.


----------



## Fishnut (May 21, 2004)

It's just been a very bad week for Americans who love the Confederate flag, hate Obamacare, and oppose same-sex marriage.


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

Marriage is practiced in all faiths and cultures. It's not exclusively a Christian ritual and all shouldn't be held to Christian ideals (which are themselves debatable).


----------



## Billygoat (Feb 1, 2013)

This ruling doesn't affect my life in the slightest... I don't see why I'd be upset over it.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

gettinspooled said:


> If the church rules over marriage then why is the government involved at all?
> 
> What kind of free country is this when you have to go get a license\permission to marry someone?
> 
> *My opinion is that the government should have no rule over marriage or personal relationships*.


This is 100% what I believe.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Only God's Law Matters.....


----------



## Centex fisher (Apr 25, 2006)

Doesn't affect me at all. I'm just sick of them whining about it. Shut the F up and live your life. They will be judged.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

txjustin said:


> This is 100% what I believe.


I agree. The churches should also be free to endorse whatever lying politician they choose to. Their preaching should not be restricted by the state.


----------



## fishinmajician (Jun 20, 2006)

For those who think that this doesn't affect them at all, think again. May or may not be in your lifetime but the judgement is coming.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Forget about the gay issue altogether, the real question is should the federal government have the right to trump a state constitution? What about state's rights? That's the real loss here, more federal control over what should be state and/or local issues. There is no guarantee in the constitution to the "right" to get married, whether straight, gay, polygamist or human/animal unions. Truly, it's not a case the Supreme Court should have ever heard and the ruling was wrong.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Gay Americans now have the same rights as straight Americans. Just horrible.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Crowhater said:


> We all need to stop listening to this stuff, we give them a voice by acknowledging them. Homosexuals do not make up 1% of the worlds population, the best way to stop its spread is to not give it any attention. God will sort all of this out you just have to have faith. MTV did more to push the homosexual agenda than anyone and they brainwashed kids into thinking it was OK with shows like the Realworld. The next step was to call anyone that did not agree with the gay lifestyle a HOMOPHOBE. Well most Americans are so beat up by the PC police they instantly recoil from any confrontation for fear of being labeled something like a homophobe or racist, sexist, etc.
> 
> How I deal with this in my house is simple, there will be no Homosexuals on TV, radio, computer, period. My children know it is a sin and that we do not condone that lifestyle.


Absolutely. Same here. If any of that comes up the channel is changed and they hear a considered matter of fact opinion of the matter from me.


----------



## Pivo and kolache (Mar 13, 2014)

Where's that guy with the link to that Paul Harvey recording.....he needs to post that on a couple more of these threads.....


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Society has to have guidelines and laws for people to have a functioning society. Marriage was/is a tenet of MANY religions. Early society here in America was purposefully designed to TAKE AWAY consolidating power of a single group.

Government got involved in marriage for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost, it was to protect elements of human nature that helped build a growing and prospering society. Henceforth, the GOVERNMENTS rational of marriage being one man and one woman. In the eyes of the government, as least up until today, was EQUAL for EVERY man and EVERY woman. EVERYONE is entitled to seek out marriage if they so wish........as long as it was a single man and a single woman entering into the union as defined by societal norms and the religion of their choice.

This decision is MUCH, MUCH larger than gays...........getting married. I do not support gay marriage, and that lack of support is not based on religious reasons.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Fishnut said:


> It's just been a very bad week for Americans who love the Confederate flag, hate Obamacare, and oppose same-sex marriage.


Brick by brick the great house crumbles...

Divide and conquer. 1000 bullets from every direction and only 1 target, always the same:

The WASP/C


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Billygoat said:


> This ruling doesn't affect my life in the slightest... I don't see why I'd be upset over it.


Exactly my feelings. If they want to marry, why do I care? My only concern on the issue is whether the Supreme Court, and by extension the federal government, has the right to force states to allow gay marriage.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

ShadMan said:


> Exactly my feelings. If they want to marry, why do I care?* My only concern on the issue is whether the Supreme Court, and by extension the federal government, has the right to force states to allow gay marriage.*


You mean in the same manner they struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage?


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

We all know the; Islamics, Hindi's, Buddahists, Neo-Paganism's, Wiccan's, Native American Religion's, Bahaism'ers, New Ager's, Sikhism's, Scientologist's, Humanist's, Deismist's, Taoismer's, Druidism-ists, Zoroastrianism-ists, Eckankar'ists, Cao Santeria Daism'ers, Rastafarianism-ists, Shintoism'ers, The Druze'rs, Satanist's, Voodoo-ers, and the Gay's, are all going to he77. Because they're not following the teachings of Jesus to the letter. I think the Jew's get a break. Because after all, they're God's chosen people. So now what?

I'm sure the Apostle Paul would be sitting front row in all of our Christian Churches. Marveling at their; HD TV's, Sound Systems, Air Conditioned Coffee Shops, Well Dressed Preacher's, Perfectly Orchestrated Choir's, Fancy Web Sites, and whatnot. He'd be taking notes to tell those "old school churches". You know them, they're the; Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, and a few more I'm sure. How their not doing right. How their focus on building the Body of Christ. Out in the open air, or in a cave, is not the way to do it. That their sacrifices to be accountable to each member of the "Body". And to know each members heart, and their personal sacrifices, being jailed or killed for their beliefs. Really isn't necessary. All they need to do is pitch in in a few pieces of Silver, or a shekel or two. To build a proper church to worship in. This way 1,000's can hear the true Word every Sunday from 10 am -1pm. And Wednesday nights 6:30-9:00 pm.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

I don't understand gays at all. I also think they are a much smaller percentage than they try to make us believe. At the same time, I don't think the SCOTUS is supposed to follow the Christian bible, are they? 

As I have stated here several times, I have a couple of Lesbian neighbors. They keep their home up and have never hurt me in any way. They work, pay taxes and the other things contributing members of society do. Me having an imagination, I bet the founding fathers would have shaken their heads and wondered "how will they produce field hands?" But I don't think the constitution was intended to prevent them from being together either.


----------



## OnedayScratch (May 23, 2012)

Gotta have divorce decrees for gays now. When they go and split the tool box down the middle, I guess the pitcher gets the nut drivers?

The states should police themselves plain and simple. The reason it made it to the scotus level is because the plaintiff didn't get the answer they were looking for.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

When they marry is one the wife or are they both husbands? Then for the first dance how do they determine who leads?


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Gays have existed since the beginning of time. Get over it. Let people live their lives, we have much bigger issues than this.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Don't care about queers. The government needs to secure the borders and get out of debt.


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

The bigger consequence will be the losses of freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the first amendment.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

ACbob said:


> The bigger consequence will be the losses of freedoms supposedly guaranteed in the first amendment.


How so?


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Game-Over said:


> How so?


Also curious...


----------



## revag12 (Jul 5, 2005)

Kudos to all of you teaching your kids not to be gay! Unfortunately, if your kid is gay, no amount of teaching is going to make them straight. While I don't particularly enjoy the excessive amount of gayness that seems to be common on tv these days, it is not going to turn your kids gay.

What is much more concerning was the court's ruling on Obamacare. Basically, there are issues with the law, but we will just let them slide. That is much scarier to me.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Game-Over said:


> How so?


Religious institutions will eventually be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays despite their beliefs because they have a "constitutionally guaranteed right" to marriage.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

bg said:


> Religious institutions will eventually be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays despite their beliefs because they have a "constitutionally guaranteed right" to marriage.


I think we will see churches, whether willfully or forcefully, lose their tax exemption status due to not marrying gays.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Now they can legally be just as miserable, oops, as happy as the rest of us.


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

Mont said:


> Now they can legally be just as miserable, oops, as happy as the rest of us.


Yep.:rotfl:


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

I've always said when heterosexual marriages become entirely loving, respectful, non neglecting, good child rearing unions, then we can tell gays they can't be married. 

Its just not a big deal to me, if they are happy and not hurting anyone why should it matter. I don't understand it, but it it's their life, not mine.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*Religious institutions will eventually be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays despite their beliefs because they have a "constitutionally guaranteed right" to marriage.*

Huh?

Like the way Jewish Temples have been forced to perform Catholic wedding ceremonies? The way Catholic Churches have been forced to perform Mormon wedding ceremonies? The way Baptist Churches have been forced to perform nude weddings? Like that?

I don't know how it works in your world, but my Catholic Church has a bunch of rules about getting married in their Church. Be in good standing as a Catholic, baptized a Christian, and in some churches, promise in advance to raise your currently unborn offspring as Catholics.

They won't even let me into the Mormon Temple. Sure, they had a special visitors day before they opened and the Temple was dedicated, but after that, they exclude non-Mormons.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. That means the state can't restrict my ownership. It does not mean you have to sell me a gun.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> I think we will see churches, whether willfully or forcefully, lose their tax exemption status due to not marrying gays.


I hope they will allow this simple solution. Unfortunately most totalitarian states ruled by tiny minorities don't work that way.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Ernest said:


> *Religious institutions will eventually be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays despite their beliefs because they have a "constitutionally guaranteed right" to marriage.*
> 
> Huh?
> 
> ...


So this explains your fatalism.


----------



## couchtater (Jun 10, 2006)

I can't wait for gay divorce court on TV. Might be my favorite new show.


----------



## O2BFSHN (Jul 25, 2013)

gettinspooled said:


> If the church rules over marriage then why is the government involved at all?
> 
> What kind of free country is this when you have to go get a license\permission to marry someone?
> 
> My opinion is that the government should have no rule over marriage or personal relationships.


The Court's ruling today supports your opinion. They ruled that the Federal or State gov. can't prevent you from entering into a relationship based upon your sexual orientation. All their ruling does is afford those who so choose to enter into a same sex marriage the SAME protections that those of us married to opposite sex enjoy. IE. tax breaks, medical power of attorney, community property rights in TX, real estate ownership rights, etc. None of those benefits that the government confers upon me because I married my Wife have anything to do with why I chose to stand before God and make a vow to her. I do enjoy those benefits though and there is no compelling governmental interest (this is the test for constitutional scrutiny in this circumstance) for discriminating against people entering homosexual marriages.

Those benefits do not define or validate my marriage and the extension thereof to homosexuals likewise doesn't degrade my marriage.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

O2BFSHN said:


> The Court's ruling today supports your opinion. They ruled that the Federal or State gov. can't prevent you from entering into a relationship based upon your sexual orientation. All their ruling does is afford those who so choose to enter into a same sex marriage the SAME protections that those of us married to opposite sex enjoy. IE. tax breaks, medical power of attorney, community property rights in TX, real estate ownership rights, etc. None of those benefits that the government confers upon me because I married my Wife have anything to do with why I chose to stand before God and make a vow to her. I do enjoy those benefits though and there is no compelling governmental interest (this is the test for constitutional scrutiny in this circumstance) for discriminating against people entering homosexual marriages.
> 
> Those benefits do not define or validate my marriage and the extension thereof to homosexuals likewise doesn't degrade my marriage.


Well said.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

O2BFSHN said:


> The Court's ruling today supports your opinion. They ruled that the Federal or State gov. can't prevent you from entering into a relationship based upon your sexual orientation. All their ruling does is afford those who so choose to enter into a same sex marriage the SAME protections that those of us married to opposite sex enjoy. IE. tax breaks, medical power of attorney, community property rights in TX, real estate ownership rights, etc. None of those benefits that the government confers upon me because I married my Wife have anything to do with why I chose to stand before God and make a vow to her. I do enjoy those benefits though and there is no compelling governmental interest (this is the test for constitutional scrutiny in this circumstance) for discriminating against people entering homosexual marriages.
> 
> Those benefits do not define or validate my marriage and the extension thereof to homosexuals likewise doesn't degrade my marriage.


You left out:

The chief justice notes that the Constitution does not take a position on "any one theory of marriage," and says the court's decision orders "every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage."


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

This country has lost its moral compass.


----------



## Deany45 (Jul 24, 2011)

ShadMan said:


> Exactly my feelings. If they want to marry, why do I care? My only concern on the issue is whether the Supreme Court, and by extension the federal government, has the right to force states to allow gay marriage.


Agree 100%


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

ShadMan said:


> Exactly my feelings. If they want to marry, why do I care? My only concern on the issue is whether the Supreme Court, and by extension the federal government, has the right to force states to allow gay marriage.


As someone else stated, the same way they had to force states to allow interracial marriages. These were once against the law as well.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Ernest said:


> *Religious institutions will eventually be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays despite their beliefs because they have a "constitutionally guaranteed right" to marriage.*
> 
> Huh?
> 
> ...


You can be a gay Baptist, or Catholic, or Mormon. The argument will be that you're violating their civil rights by not allowing them to have the religious ceremony they would be afforded if they were not a same sex union, despite the fact that the behavior is sinful. It'll get tested in the courts, maybe they'll rule correctly that the churches have the right to not condone behavior that they believe to be sinful but I doubt it. The service providers that have refused to work for same sex marriages (bakers, florists, etc.) have not fared well in their court battles. If they aren't forced to perform the ceremonies, then they'll lose their tax exempt status, somehow churches will be punished for not performing same sex marriages.

Let's discuss it again in 10 or 20 years and see how it's all worked out.


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

Scalia's take.....

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...urt-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF?ocid=U219DHP


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Mr. Breeze said:


> Scalia's take.....
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...urt-is-americas-ruler/ar-AAcaHNF?ocid=U219DHP


I agree with Justice Scalia.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

bg said:


> You can be a gay Baptist, or Catholic, or Mormon. The argument will be that you're violating their civil rights by not allowing them to have the religious ceremony they would be afforded if they were not a same sex union, despite the fact that the behavior is sinful. It'll get tested in the courts, maybe they'll rule correctly that the churches have the right to not condone behavior that they believe to be sinful but I doubt it. The service providers that have refused to work for same sex marriages (bakers, florists, etc.) have not fared well in their court battles. If they aren't forced to perform the ceremonies, then they'll lose their tax exempt status, somehow churches will be punished for not performing same sex marriages.
> 
> Let's discuss it again in 10 or 20 years and see how it's all worked out.


In some states is has already been determined by the courts that service cannot be denied to gays marriage. Remember the cake bakery that was forced to pay a huge fine for denying to bake a cake for gays? 
It's only going to be worse from here on.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

In Dallas County, John F. Warren, the county clerk, said once he had reviewed the ruling with his legal counsel, he expected to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples â€œwithin a few hoursâ€ if it was determined they were allowed to do so. He planned to extend the hours at the downtown office in Dallas to accommodate any crowds.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No, some states prohibit refusing to serve people based upon orientation. That's a state law. Passed by the state. As in state's rights. 

You don't get to demand state's rights when you like the result and kick it to the curb when you don't.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

I would have rather they just outlawed marriage and made all marriages null and void rather than bastardize the whole institution.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Ernest said:


> No, some states prohibit refusing to serve people based upon orientation. That's a state law. Passed by the state. As in state's rights.
> 
> You don't get to demand state's rights when you like the result and kick it to the curb when you don't.


Fine, then neither do you. Either it's a state issue or it isn't. Sounds like it was when it was convenient to the same sex groups but not when it wasn't. I'm all for it remaining a state issue in all ways, which is what I've said all along.

Now religious freedom is mentioned in the constitution so any state law that restricts that would be a federal issue, although I wouldn't expect this court to uphold that if they had to choose between the "rights" of same sex couples and the rights of the churches.


----------



## pevodog (Aug 10, 2014)

I am repulsed by homosexual activity and am tired of hearing about it. But, if people think gays getting married will destroy the social fabric of this country they are wrong. Divorce, heterosexual infidelity, an unwed pregnancies are what truely screws up kids.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

congrats - gays just got the right to loose half their stuff in a divorce!


----------



## slabmaster (Jul 28, 2012)

ChuChu said:


> In Dallas County, John F. Warren, the county clerk, said once he had reviewed the ruling with his legal counsel, he expected to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples â€œwithin a few hoursâ€ if it was determined they were allowed to do so. He planned to extend the hours at the downtown office in Dallas to accommodate any crowds.


The news at 12 here showed court rooms full of people waiting to perform marriage CEREMONIES. I thought TX state law required a 72 hr waiting period after receiving a marriage liscense unless you are active military or had completed Texas premarital course? How are they doing this?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

If its state's rights, then Texas will be forced to recognize gay marriage performed in other states. Full faith and credit clause. 

Texas doesn't get to say a car tile, judgment, or marriage from another state is not recognized (with a few exceptions). So, if its state's rights, then Texas already recognizes gay marriage (or will be forced to recognize gay marriage), and the recent decision doesn't really change the landscape. 

And, whether an action violates the full faith and credit clause is an issue for ... Federal Courts because it an matter of Federal Law and a Constitutional Question. Leading you right back into the Federal system and the exact same result from this Supreme Court. 

End result - absent a change to the Federal Constitution, the state's rights argument leads to the exact same result. The exact same result.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

The exact same result?


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Ernest said:


> If its state's rights, then Texas will be forced to recognize gay marriage performed in other states. Full faith and credit clause.
> 
> Texas doesn't get to say a car tile, judgment, or marriage from another state is not recognized (with a few exceptions). So, if its state's rights, then Texas already recognizes gay marriage (or will be forced to recognize gay marriage), and the recent decision doesn't really change the landscape.
> 
> ...


Then California must recognize a CHL from other states. They don't, despite the 2nd amendment, so...

But, if it was a Supreme Court Case based on the question of full faith and credit in the constitution and we ended up with states having to recognize it from other states, I could live with that, then the court has ruled on something they have the authority to decide, a constitutional question. What they've done today was a gross violation of state's rights, there is no guarantee to a right to marriage, of any kind, in the constitution. Nor is there any language allowing the federal government to regulate it.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spuds said:


> What if the church in my neighborhood "Resurrection something or other" wants to marry gays? Which they do.
> Why do your religious beliefs trump those of that church? Does your church have doctrine authority over other churches?
> 
> Why don't the couples get to define what they wish to call "marriage"?
> ...


Churches set their own doctrines, mostly to accommodate their flock and make things easy for them, including welcoming homosexuals. It is all about the almighty dollar. If attendance falls, so does the income. It is no longer about GOD's WORD, it is about tickling the ears of the people. Very sad. Homosexual behavior is condemned by God, and marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.


----------



## Bozo (Jun 16, 2004)

Gays marrying is not a sin in my reading. Homosexual sex is a sin. So, a person promising to love, honor and cherish another is not sinful. I would think it is quite the contrary. However, homosexual sex is sinful. Marriage does not mean having sex. (I think most of us know how that works; wedding cake changes the drive of a gal).

Anyway, I have never heard a gay person say they are saving their virginity for marriage, so the sin is happening whether they are married or not. Marriage isn't creating a sin, the sex is. And the same goes for all of us heterosexuals that are having sex out of wedlock. I am guilty of that sin as I am sure the majority of us are. What makes my sin less than Bruce and Bryans sin? Nothing as far as I am concerned. 

I'm surely not casting the first stone.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*Then California must recognize a CHL from other states.*

No, a CHL gives you only a license to carry in certain areas of your own state. Just like a license to sell alcohol. Just because I can sell alcohol by the drink in Texas, that does not mean that same license allows me to open a bar in California.

The Supreme Court did rule on a Constitutional Question. That was the question before them, was within their jurisdiction, and they ruled. So live with it. You don't get to make up your own definition of Constitutional question.


----------



## Frontier21 (Apr 30, 2014)

How many people on this thread don't want the government regulating our guns or healthcare? I know I sure don't. Now how hypocritical is it to approve of them telling people who they can and cannot marry? This is less government telling people how to live their life and that's a good thing even if it doesn't benefit me.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Ernest said:


> The Supreme Court did rule on a Constitutional Question. That was the question before them, was within their jurisdiction, and they ruled. So live with it. You don't get to make up your own definition of Constitutional question.


And what, specifically, was that question. I realize he's part of the minority but Scalia, and 3 other justices, agree with me. This court made a decision based on social pressure, not good constitutional law. We all know it did.

Again, I could care 2 licks whether a couple of gays have a legally recognized marriage but, that's a state question, not a federal one. This ruling undermined state's rights and there's no way around that.

I know you like to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary so you'll counter this as well but we both know this was a social ruling and not a legal one.


----------



## FREON (Jun 14, 2005)

Rack Ranch said:


> Sad day in history.


Agreed!! Just ONE of many unfortunately during Obama's terms!!!


----------



## SaltMan (Jun 15, 2012)

bg said:


> Forget about the gay issue altogether, the real question is should the federal government have the right to trump a state constitution? What about state's rights? That's the real loss here, more federal control over what should be state and/or local issues. There is no guarantee in the constitution to the "right" to get married, whether straight, gay, polygamist or human/animal unions. Truly, it's not a case the Supreme Court should have ever heard and the ruling was wrong.


bg is on point! Do y'all really care if gays get married?! If so, your priorities are off kilter. We should all be looking at this as another push towards more government control.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*This court made a decision based on social pressure, not good constitutional law. We all know it did. *

I don't presume to know what may have motivated this decision beyond what was written in the opinion. I don't even personally know the Justices. So, any answer I would provide would be baseless speculation, right?


----------



## Bozo (Jun 16, 2004)

SaltMan said:


> bg is on point! Do y'all really care if gays get married?! If so, your priorities are off kilter. We should all be looking at this as another push towards more government control.


Not on point. Read article 4 section 1.


----------



## JJGold1 (May 6, 2010)

..


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

GulfCoast1102 said:


> It isn't a "my views trump yours" issue.
> 
> If the "church" in your neighborhood is agreeing to "marry" gays, the "pastor" is in sad shape. The Bible is quite clear about marriage. Plane language doesn't require some fancy interpretation.
> 
> The Bible is also quite clear about "leaders" who lead their flock astray. Much is expected of those who lead.


Condemning other Christians is sad. That is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent, people like you saying that your beliefs are the only true religion like the Church of England tried to do.

Homosexuality didn't even make the ten commandments, the Judao-Christian ethos on how to live your life.

The argument can be made that lying is worse than homosexuality.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Bozo said:


> Not on point. Read article 4 section 1.


Read Justice Scalia's dissent, he addresses that far better than I can.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf Starts on Page 69, ironically.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*Scalias dissent*

Scalia sounds like a Mullah explaining why the sacred Koran permits beheading infidels on a local case by case basis. The way our system works he is wrong.

I don't want to worry when I drive from Texas to Mississippi that my rights as an American have changed. Okay driving across little European countries but not okay here.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

This country is officially morally dead...


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spuds said:


> Condemning other Christians is sad. That is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent, people like you saying that your beliefs are the only true religion like the Church of England tried to do.
> 
> Homosexuality didn't even make the ten commandments, the Judao-Christian ethos on how to live your life.
> 
> The argument can be made that lying is worse than homosexuality.


The views are not what are stated by GulfCoast1102, myself or anyone else. This is GOD's view. He created the marriage arrangement, and created a WOMAN, as a compliment and helper for Adam. He did not created another man. If two men or two women want to have some sort of union, I have no problem with that. Call it a UNION. But I have a HUGE problem calling it a marriage. It is not a marriage and it is blasphemous IMO to call it a marriage.

Please be clear, this is not my opinion, it is God's opinion, and I will stand by what His Word says. Man's laws, verdicts, amendments, whatever, NEVER trump God's laws.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Anyone that thinks 2 men screwing each other in the butt is normal? 

Is probably a homer themselves. 

Yes our country is morally bankrupt.


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

that's an awful lot of whine!


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Johnboat said:


> Scalia sounds like a Mullah explaining why the sacred Koran permits beheading infidels on a local case by case basis. The way our system works he is wrong.
> 
> I don't want to worry when I drive from Texas to Mississippi that my rights as an American have changed. Okay driving across little European countries but not okay here.


So you feel the same about Chief Justice Roberts dissent? Starts on Page 40, if your interested. It really should have been left to states and electorate, not a SCOTUS decision.

Your rights already change when you cross state lines. Ok to have a loaded gun in your car's passenger compartment in Tx and La, not in Al. Can't remember offhand about Ms, but you get the point.


----------



## artys_only (Mar 29, 2005)

Sad state of this country ! May god have mercy on them , it is not marriage, call it what ever but not that .. Its the man in the White House that started all of this and will go down as a sad time in our history .. Supreme Court bunch of idiots . Just my .o2


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

DSL_PWR said:


> This country is officially morally dead...


Oh, it wasn't when we were legally allowed to own another person?


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Bocephus said:


> Anyone that thinks 2 men screwing each other in the butt is normal?
> 
> Is probably a homer themselves.
> 
> Yes our country is morally bankrupt.


I think walking down the street with a garbage can on my head wearing a clown outfit isn't normal... Doesn't mean I have the right to tell anyone they can't do it.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

jc said:


> that's an awful lot of whine!


Glitter.com- Free shipping.


----------



## Kingofsabine18 (Oct 29, 2008)

Here's my view on the whole thing. 


Should I throw chicken on a chain or calciseau brew saltwater assassins tomorrow evening?


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*That was a matter for the States*



rugger said:


> Oh, it wasn't when we were legally allowed to own another person?


That too was a matter to be decided on a state by state basis. Scalia is living in pre 1865 America.

Whether its gun rights or gay rights no State bubbas can deprive an AMERICAN of certain rights.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

may God Bless my children and grandchildren to have to live in this world. When laws, rules, and structure are eliminated the result is chaos. History shows that lawless societies become extinct - Rome? IT makes me sick to my stomach -


----------



## DANO (May 23, 2005)

I can see posts from some of the peter puffers around here as to which pair of crocks they will wear to their wedding or if they should manscape. This country has gone to hell in a handbasket,... :rotfl:


----------



## chunker59 (Jul 20, 2011)

Billygoat said:


> This ruling doesn't affect my life in the slightest... I don't see why I'd be upset over it.


It's because Fox News doesn't approve.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Johnboat said:


> That too was a matter to be decided on a state by state basis. Scalia is living in pre 1865 America.
> 
> Whether its gun rights or gay rights no State bubbas can deprive an AMERICAN of certain rights.


What rights, specifically, are those?


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

txjustin said:


> What rights, specifically, are those?


Well, there's a list called the Bill of Rights, as a starting point...


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

Nothing was taken from the states. Marriage is a fundamental right. Rights arent voted on and are not subject to the whims of the majority.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

Fishnut said:


> It's just been a very bad week for Americans who love the Confederate flag, hate Obamacare, and oppose same-sex marriage.


Yep bad week for you guys. Judging by the rapidly changing demographics, could be a bad few decades in your future. Of course, those of us who prefer a more open and inclusive society should be pretty happy.


----------



## Deany45 (Jul 24, 2011)

Obamacare- absolute disaster. 
Confederate flag- ridiculous argument. It doesn't cause people to hate.
Gay Marriage-. I couldn't care less. Let people live their lives as long as they aren't hurting others.


----------



## Count Dragula (May 22, 2012)

First of all if same sex marriage is ok and to be accepted, then why didn't all this happen decades to a century or better ago??? Only until we have what's in charge of this country does all this insanity and perverseness get rammed down our throats. Is Texas really a "United State"?
Second the Laodicean church era is just as lukewarm if not worse than its ever been. So nothing should surprise anyone who knows, regarding how this latest zinger is passively accepted.
Lastly for now, some posts here suggest underlying agenda's. I couldn't agree with you more. On the other hand simple passive minds condition easily ya know...Shame another civil wars brewing.... but then how else is martial law implemented, and second amendment rights violated or stripped. I see nothing but history repeating itself. We'll have only our faith to cling to.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Outearly said:


> Well, there's a list called the Bill of Rights, as a starting point...


I must have missed the marriage amendment...


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

bjones2571 said:


> Yep bad week for you guys. Judging by the rapidly changing demographics, could be a bad few decades in your future. Of course, those of us who prefer a more open and inclusive society should be pretty happy.


You sir are clueless. Check back in when you are more mature and have lived life. My question to you is: where does the open and inclusive society end? Answer? It doesn't. So ultimately it ends in chaos.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

It is a fact that some on here don't know the difference between fact and opinion.


----------



## chunker59 (Jul 20, 2011)

ah, chaos. Bill O'Reilly's favorite word.


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

txjustin said:


> I must have missed the marriage amendment...


You didn't miss it, it isn't necessary. The equal protection clause (the last little bit of the first section of the fourteenth amendment - see below) made the Supreme Court decision a no-brainer. The dissenters are just grandstanding, there's no way the law could have been applied differently.

*Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## grayson (Oct 21, 2011)

chunker59 said:


> ah, chaos. Bill O'Reilly's favorite word.


yeah it is a real word - look it up and report back here what the definition is


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

rugger said:


> I think walking down the street with a garbage can on my head wearing a clown outfit isn't normal... Doesn't mean I have the right to tell anyone they can't do it.


Well it's obvious you have a lot sugar in your tank.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

rugger said:


> Oh, it wasn't when we were legally allowed to own another person?


Densest argument always given on this subject. AT THAT TIME they were not considered PERSONS, but actually thought to be related to apes. The Tulane medical school library had a number of 100 year old books that waxed scholarly on the apelike skull of the *****, extra bones in the feet and spine, the protruding lips, the recessed forehead and the like that were used to build the point that they were not fully human. When medical science proved that they were, the laws were changed.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

grayson said:


> You sir are clueless. Check back in when you are more mature and have lived life. My question to you is: where does the open and inclusive society end? Answer? It doesn't. So ultimately it ends in chaos.


I don't getcha, why would we want an open and inclusive society to end? .:headknock

You guys lack of intellectual honesty is really disturbing. I always thought you guys had a couple of screws loos, but man Faux News has turned your brains to mush.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

Marriage is between a man and a women
A civil union is between two what evers

Your DNA determines your sex not what you add or take off.
Many veterans still consider themselves men even if their manhood was blown off in combat.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

For all here that think this ruling and lifestyle is no big deal I have a question for you ...

Who do YOU choose to offend ...

Our Father in heaven or the ISD's and VISD's ??

Please think carefully before you answer.

*MB*


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> Densest argument always given on this subject. AT THAT TIME they were not considered PERSONS, but actually thought to be related to apes. The Tulane medical school library had a number of 100 year old books that waxed scholarly on the apelike skull of the *****, extra bones in the feet and spine, the protruding lips, the recessed forehead and the like that were used to build the point that they were not fully human. When medical science proved that they were, the laws were changed.


Oh man, the dog doo is getting pretty deep around here. Lol. I've noticed that much of what you say is complete nonsense. Oh, the slaves didn't really know that they were enslaving humans? HA! You are completely full of it.


----------



## essayons75 (May 15, 2006)

bjones2571 said:


> Yep bad week for you guys. Judging by the rapidly changing demographics, could be a bad few decades in your future. Of course, those of us who prefer a more open and inclusive society should be pretty happy.


Liberals will never be happy until everyone has misery and chaos like them.


----------



## H2 (Jan 11, 2005)

Obamacare- absolute disaster. Will go down as the biggest boondoggle in American history.

Confederate flag- ridiculous argument. I couldn't care less ( not a member of Kappa Alpha)if you want to fly it ,knock yourself out.

Gay Marriage-. I couldn't care less.


----------



## whiskey1 (May 8, 2014)

bjones2571 said:


> I don't getcha, why would we want an open and inclusive society to end? .:headknock
> 
> You guys lack of intellectual honesty is really disturbing. I always thought you guys had a couple of screws loos, but man Faux News has turned your brains to mush.


We get it. You're on a roll because you're getting subsidized insurance, you can marry your boyfriend, and you can facebook about how race relations have improved since Obama took down that dam flag.


----------



## Hunter11 (Jun 26, 2008)

We just saw a picture of the White House tonight. Sickening....We have to be the laughing stock of the world.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

essayons75 said:


> Liberals will never be happy until everyone has misery and chaos like them.


Really? Sure seems a lot more positive lifestyle to live to be inclusive and love and respect ones fellow man than to live a life of fear and bigotry? If anything, being a right wing knucklehead seems to be a life of misery.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

bjones2571 said:


> Really? Sure seems a lot more positive lifestyle to live to be inclusive and love and respect ones fellow man than to live a life of fear and bigotry? If anything, being a right wing knucklehead seems to be a life of misery.


Where's your answer ??

For all here that think this ruling and lifestyle is no big deal I have a question for you ...

Who do YOU choose to offend ...

Our Father in heaven or the ISD's and VISD's ??

Please think carefully before you answer.

*MB*


----------



## whiskey1 (May 8, 2014)

bjones2571 said:


> Really? Sure seems a lot more positive lifestyle to live to be inclusive and love and respect ones fellow man than to live a life of fear and bigotry? If anything, being a right wing knucklehead seems to be a life of misery.


Well, give us some insight to this land of Rainbows and Unicorns.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Count Dragula said:


> First of all if same sex marriage is ok and to be accepted, then why didn't all this happen decades to a century or better ago??? Only until we have what's in charge of this country does all this insanity and perverseness get rammed down our throats. Is Texas really a "United State"?
> Second the Laodicean church era is just as lukewarm if not worse than its ever been. So nothing should surprise anyone who knows, regarding how this latest zinger is passively accepted.
> Lastly for now, some posts here suggest underlying agenda's. I couldn't agree with you more. On the other hand simple passive minds condition easily ya know...Shame another civil wars brewing.... but then how else is martial law implemented, and second amendment rights violated or stripped. I see nothing but history repeating itself. We'll have only our faith to cling to.


Divide and conquer. Its what's for future.

Have any of the liberals really thought what will happen if all the hundreds if not thousands of small nuances of morality we use subconsciously all the time get singled out and changed? By lawyers? Chaos!!

Before one by one these time honored principles are changed on a dime why doesn't anyone seriously consider WHY were they there in the first place? Like family, age of consent, natural marriage? Murder? Theft? Lying? Why if these are so unfair or hateful or bigoted why did nearly ALL OF US accept all these without a second thought until the media got to work on it?

If having homosexual parents who dish on each other in front of their kids have no effect on the kids at the say 1% level, than a WHOLE NATION of children raised with "two daddys" will be no different because 0 x 200 million STILL equals 0. Mores are at least partially formed by society and polygamy is a great example. Most in our country consider it odd or wrong but we are the same genetic humans that in a Mormon upbringing would think just the opposite.

By FAR, the greatest win for homosexuality was that it is rigidly cast in stone, genetically determined, not changeable without extreme effort that is usually unsuccessful, etc. Wonder what the media will start on next. Child sex?? Watch for it. It's just around the corner. Sexual predator? No, just his "choice" is 13 year olds.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

donf said:


> I'm just curious, are you one if those gay boys that's been on the news?
> One of those guys that want to marry another guy?
> Tell ya what, you pick a bar, I'll get there first. You bring a couple of friends and I'll have the bar stools turned upside down so you'll be comfortable.
> Deal?


Haha, no I'm not gay, but sounds like you may get off on that. Sicko!


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Outearly said:


> You didn't miss it, it isn't necessary. The equal protection clause (the last little bit of the first section of the fourteenth amendment - see below) made the Supreme Court decision a no-brainer. The dissenters are just grandstanding, there's no way the law could have been applied differently.
> 
> *Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I knew someone was gonna bring that up. However, I happen to think the feds have NO business in marriage at all.

Now, before you make an incorrect assumption, I'm a Libertarian.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

bjones2571 said:


> Haha, no I'm not gay, but sounds like you may get off on that. Sicko!


Me neither. Just like girls. 
So how about the bar meeting with your buddies and the upside down bar stools .
You like that?


----------



## pevodog (Aug 10, 2014)

_ Jesus replied, â€œMoses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery_

Where is the anger for people that get a divorce?


----------



## jmbrittain (May 28, 2011)

So if the amendments of the constitution can't be infringed upon by states, and if one states it's legal to have a CHL or as of Jan 1st an Open Carry permit. Now by precedent set by SCOTUS its reciprocal in all 50 states. So you want to marry who you want? Fine, But Let me Carry what/when I want! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Leo (May 21, 2004)

What a surprise! This has turned into basically a name callin conversation. I don't really care if the court made it legal or not. It doesn't affect me, my family, or anyone I know. Why should you? Societies evolve and this is part of that evolution. Get over it and move on.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

bjones2571 said:


> Oh man, the dog doo is getting pretty deep around here. Lol. I've noticed that much of what you say is complete nonsense. Oh, the slaves didn't really know that they were enslaving humans? HA! You are completely full of it.


You sir are ignorant of history. Bet you forgot all about those 2/3 and 3/4 laws too. Ignorance is bliss. This is last response to you.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> You sir are ignorant of history. Bet you forgot all about those 2/3 and 3/4 laws too. Ignorance is bliss. This is last response to you.


Ha! Are you trying to refer to the 3/5th compromise? Nope didn't forget about it. lol And I know that there was literature of the type you described, but to say that the slavers thought blacks were a subhuman race, and once they "found out" that they were a human the slavery stopped is complete horse ....


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

On Time Too said:


> You sir are ignorant of history. Bet you forgot all about those 2/3 and 3/4 laws too. Ignorance is bliss. This is last response to you.


"Ignorant of history". "Ignorance is bliss"

Do you mean the 3/5ths compromise Mr. History professor? El oh el!


----------



## jimk (May 28, 2004)

Chief Justice Roberts stated in his dissent, "If you are among the many Americansâ€"of whatever sexual orientationâ€"who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. . . . But do not celebrate the *Constitution*. It had nothing to do with it."


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Game-Over said:


> "Ignorant of history". "Ignorance is bliss"
> 
> Do you mean the 3/5ths compromise Mr. History professor? El oh el!


Yes well didn't have time to look up the EXACT number...

But nothing changed for blacks first 350 years until the "ape" talk was dropped. Even the black elite such as WEB DuBois recognized there were differences, as the OP on another thread indicated.

But this thread is about the nonsense ruling by the court this AM, which will have sweeping repercussions regardless of what liberals are saying. Religious freedoms will change further, which will harm Christians and other religions with like thinking on this subject.

Remember in communism, it took one entire generation in Russia and Eastern Europe to realize, "oh yeah you guys were right..." .


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

DANO said:


> I can see posts from some of the peter puffers around here as to which pair of crocks they will wear to their wedding or if they should manscape. This country has gone to hell in a handbasket,... :rotfl:


EVERY man should manscape that has nothing to do with being gay. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> Yes well didn't have time to look up the EXACT number...
> 
> But nothing changed for blacks first 350 years until the "ape" talk was dropped. Even the black elite such as WEB DuBois recognized there were differences, as the OP on another thread indicated.
> 
> ...


Wait, are you equating gay marriage with communism?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> Wait, are you equating gay marriage with communism?


I am not sure how that could be done you'll have to explain.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

On Time Too said:


> Yes well didn't have time to look up the EXACT number" .


 But you did have time to call someone else "ignorant of history":rotfl:

Now, after bringing up the "2/3 and 3/5 laws" you want to redirect to what this thread was "about"? Excuses, excuses....Move along, nothing to see here. Just par for the course with people like you.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Game-Over said:


> But you did have time to call someone else "ignorant of history":rotfl:
> 
> Excuses, excuses....Move along, nothing to see here, just par for the course with people like you.


Because their post suggested they were.


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

He's often wrong but never in doubt.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

On Time Too said:


> Because their post suggested they were.


And yours suggested otherwise? Again....:rotfl:


----------



## RLwhaler (Sep 10, 2005)

donf said:


> I'm just curious, are you one if those gay boys that's been on the news?
> One of those guys that want to marry another guy?
> Tell ya what, you pick a bar, I'll get there first. You bring a couple of friends and I'll have the bar stools turned upside down so you'll be comfortable.
> Deal?


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Watch for a gradual increase in TV programming involving homosexual "love", and gay "gotchas", little homosexual inuendos that will just appear out of nowhere while you're watching ordinary TV with your children.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

smokinguntoo said:


> Pretty good argument that Roberts might have been blackmailed. Think of Hastert. Who would have thunk it?
> 
> SG2


I'm beginning to think there may be many in our government who have been blackmailed. Too much of what's going on simply does not make sense whatsoever!

www.solarscreenguys.com


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

shaggydog said:


> The views are not what are stated by GulfCoast1102, myself or anyone else. This is GOD's view. He created the marriage arrangement, and created a WOMAN, as a compliment and helper for Adam. He did not created another man. If two men or two women want to have some sort of union, I have no problem with that. Call it a UNION. But I have a HUGE problem calling it a marriage. It is not a marriage and it is blasphemous IMO to call it a marriage.
> 
> Please be clear, this is not my opinion, it is God's opinion, and I will stand by what His Word says. Man's laws, verdicts, amendments, whatever, NEVER trump God's laws.


Wow, I'm glad that God granted you authority to speak for him but denies Christians who don't believe homosexuality is any worse than lying, don't speak for him.

Once again this is what the founding fathers brilliantly set up the constitution to prevent. The Constitution worked! Freedom won!


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

On Time Too said:


> Watch for a gradual increase in TV programming involving homosexual "love", and gay "gotchas", little homosexual inuendos that will just appear out of nowhere while you're watching ordinary TV with your children.


That has already happened. While I don't agree with their lifestyle, I'll tolerate it...to an extent.
Yes, for some that don't agree with it and have young ones, it can be cumbersome. Having to monitor shows and language further than the parental controls already allow. 
But, the silver lining; I get to take them outside more and have a reason to force the lil lady outside with them as well


----------



## Baffin Bay (Jul 26, 2011)

I would think if you are an attorney that you would be all for this. New cases and money coming in the door.


----------



## normanflynn (Aug 30, 2005)

Just some of my thoughts. 

Being **** is a most if the time a genetic defect, I wish it didn't happen to folks and I hate for my kids to ever see it. 

I don't want the government to tell me what I can or cannot smoke, drink, say, what flag I can or can't fly. Don't want the government to tell me I have to serve cake or pizza to homos if I choose not to, or brown people, green people, tall fat or short people. 

In other words the government should let me do what ever the hell I want to do as long as I don't harm any other people doing it. 

We need the government to stay out of the morality business. That is what churches and family are for. 

So saying all this, in order to stay consistent, I have to say let the homos marry up and be as miserable as the rest of us. 

And- I am a Christian. But there are cultures all over the world that marry two people together that never heard of a Christian. It's not just a Christian thing. 

A **** marriage should not be performed or acknowledged by Christians IMHO 

Okay I'm through rambling 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Outearly said:


> You didn't miss it, it isn't necessary. The equal protection clause (the last little bit of the first section of the fourteenth amendment - see below) made the Supreme Court decision a no-brainer. The dissenters are just grandstanding, there's no way the law could have been applied differently.
> 
> *Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Equal protection has NOTHING to do with this argument. NO ONE is being denied the RIGHT to marry. ANY Man who wishes to do so CAN!!! Any Woman who wishes to do so CAN!!! They (either man or woman) just have to follow the RULES/LAWS set forth by the State they wish to marry in. And by and large, those rules/laws are that one man can marry one woman, and one woman can marry one man. How is ANYONE being denied equal protection? The government, until recently, didn't give two chits what you did sexually with someone of legal age............wait, why have legal age? What if your 14 yr old daughter decides that she makes better decisions than mom and dad, and sleeps with men she meets on-line? Do YOU support equal protection for your 14 yr old daughter? Why or why not? Daughter is entitled to those protections under your quoted 14th amendment.

See the slippery slope? I doubt it.........most of you guy's who are saying "it doesn't affect me..." are to far gone to be able to understand "Unintended Consequences".


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-lit-rainbow-colors-supreme-court-ruling-011752467--politics.html


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> The government, until recently, didn't give two chits what you did sexually with someone of legal age


You are woefully mis-informed. Heck, up until SCOTUS struck down the law, it was illegal to engage in oral sex in Texas.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> You are woefully mis-informed. Heck, up until SCOTUS struck down the law, it was illegal to engage in oral sex in Texas.


And how many convictions have there been for oral sex in Texas.......EVER? Stick to the topic at hand please.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Stick to the topic at hand? You are the one that claimed "up until recently the government didn't give two chits what you did sexually with someone of legal age"

Now that it's been shown that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about you want to "stick to the topic at hand"?

Typical. Even more so when you factor in your moving of the goal posts to "convictions". Keep throwing stuff at the wall, maybe something will stick.


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Why can't states that want just get out of the marriage business altogether? Issue no licenses, perform no civil ceremonies for anyone, period. Does the ruling say that states *are required to perform marriages* or just recognize gay marriages.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

kenny said:


> Why can't states that want just get out of the marriage business altogether? Issue no licenses, perform no civil ceremonies for anyone, period. Does the ruling say that states *are required to perform marriages* or just recognize gay marriages.


The ruling requires states to recognize gay marriage. The possibility of Texas getting out of the marriage license business is one proposal that the legislature is considering.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> Stick to the topic at hand? You are the one that claimed "up until recently the government didn't give two chits what you did sexually with someone of legal age"
> 
> Now that it's been shown that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about you want to "stick to the topic at hand"?
> 
> Typical. Even more so when you factor in your moving of the goal posts to "convictions". Keep throwing chit at the wall, maybe something will stick.


That's the best you got? It's called debate. I brought forward a comment someone made. I brought forth an argument against the comment, and made others. You jump in with conjecture (look the word up), and ZERO supporting comments.

Who is moving the goal post? Just because YOU can't back up a comment YOU made..............I am moving the goal post :rotfl:

Better check who is throwing chit, at least my chit has a basis in grounded arguments.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Grounded arguments? Your comment about the gov not caring what adults did sexually is the farthest from being a grounded argument you can get. It is absolutely incorrect. 

Zero supporting documents huh? Ok, try reading Lawerence v. Texas. You will quickly learn exactly how FOS you are. The only person operating under conjecture here is you. Your argument is based on misinformation and a complete lack of facts. That is almost the textbook definition of "conjecture"....There is no debating that.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> Grounded arguments? Your comment about the gov not caring what adults did sexually is the farthest from being a grounded argument you can get. It is absolutely incorrect.
> 
> Zero supporting documents huh? Ok, try reading Lawerence v. Texas. You will quickly learn exactly how FOS you are. There is no debating that.


So ONE (1) case is a means to support ALL? ONE overzealous prosecutor who want's to be God, is enough proof for you to extrapolate that ALL government EVERYWHERE is out to check up on, and if need be, prosecute people who have deviant sex? If the deviant sex (male female, male male, female female) is done within public view (very broad tern there) then YES, prosecute. If done behind closed doors (in private, noted in Lawrence vs Texas) there is protection.

And I ask again, how many convictions pre and post Lawrence vs Texas? Extrapolating the number of total sexual cases (of all types) brought forward, and the number involving PRIVATE, consensual, of legal age, parties.............the government does not give two chits what you do sexually.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

There you go moving the goal posts to convictions again. Are you so misinformed that you do not realize there were laws in almost every state prohibiting certain sexual acts between consenting adults up until recently? Many of them are "still on the books" so to speak. Yes they are unenforceable due to SCOTUS, but to make the claim you did is ridiculous. 

Stop moving the goal posts, anyone with half a brain can see that 
"The government, until recently, didn't give two chits what you did sexually with someone of legal age". Is complete BS.

What is even more telling is that you ask for convictions "post Lawrence". You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

This ruling is about much more than gay folks being able to get married. It opens up to litigation, areas of societal norms that ONE person can deem objectionable. Couple that with a group or individual who simply live to litigate, and you have scenarios that may take decades to play out, but have outcomes that will impact your kids and grand-kids. 

Government SHOULD NOT be involved in marriage for anyone. But they are for reasons beyond religious overtures.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> There you go moving the goal posts to convictions again. Are you so misinformed that you do not realize there were laws in almost every state prohibiting certain sexual acts between consenting adults up until recently? Many of them are "still on the books" so to speak. Yes they are unenforceable due to SCOTUS, but to make the claim you did is ridiculous.
> 
> Stop moving the goal posts, anyone with half a brain can see that
> "The government, until recently, didn't give two chits what you did sexually with someone of legal age". Is complete BS.
> ...


So Your telling me that if two people (no matter the sex) have oral sex in public view (very broad term again) they would not / could not be charged because of Lawrence vs Texas? Maybe YOU should stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## fishin shallow (Jul 31, 2005)

I guess divorce rates will rise shortly. How many rushed out to get hitched cause it was the latest fad


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> So Your telling me that if two people (no matter the sex) have oral sex in public view (very broad term again) they would not / could not be charged because of Lawrence vs Texas? Maybe YOU should stop embarrassing yourself.


what? Are you kidding me? I have suggested no such thing. You seem to be having a hard time following your own arguments. You went from laws banning certain sexual activities to laws prohibiting lewd behavior in public. Those are two different concepts....There you go moving the goal posts yet again!

Again, YOU claimed that up until recently the gov had no interest in what adults did sexually. I called BS. You are 100%, without a doubt, completely wrong. There is no "debating", no "conjuncture"(other than your own). It is a FACT that states all across this country had laws on the books that prohibited certain sexual acts between adults.

To put it in terms a 3 year old can understand...you are flat out wrong. If you would like to educate yourself you can start here:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

I know it's wiki, but I have a hard time believing you would be able to follow anything more advanced after seeing how you operate on this thread. Read up, and then come back and try to claim the gov wasn't interested in consenting adults sexual activity.


----------



## fultonswimmer (Jul 3, 2008)

******** solution*

Wait till good ole boy Rick gets elected as our next Pres and Ted Cruz as his running mate and they will send all these "folks" down to guard the border....that is if Rick can figure out where that is!


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> what? Are you kidding me? I have suggested no such thing. You seem to be having a hard time following your own arguments. You went from laws banning certain sexual activities to laws prohibiting lewd behavior in public. Those are two different concepts....There you go moving the goal posts yet again!
> 
> Again, YOU claimed that up until recently the gov had no interest in what adults did sexually. I called BS. You are 100%, without a doubt, completely wrong. There is no "debating", no "conjuncture"(other than your own). It is a FACT that states all across this country had laws on the books that prohibited certain sexual acts between adults.
> 
> ...


I DID say the government DID NOT CARE. You said they did, and here is your EXACT post "You are woefully mis-informed. Heck, up until SCOTUS struck down the law, it was illegal to engage in oral sex in Texas." I asked about convictions. You start ranting about moving the goal post and looking for something that will stick. I refute with who is moving the goal post. You bring forward Lawrence vs Texas. I point out that a single case, with a God complex prosecutor, does not equate with mass monitoring of bedroom activity. You totally overlook the fact that this is one case, and rant on.

Lawrence vs Texas is about consenting, legal aged, adults, in private and what they do together being legal. I agree with the law. Just because a law is on the books of a particular state, does not mean people are being charged. Could they be? Sure, anything is possible. I asked for proof people were being charged as a basis for YOU claiming the government was very involved in folks sexual relations. You supplied a link to pages of laws on the books of states, but nothing about actual cases. Do you think for one minute, if gays were being charged and convicted for sodomy, oral sex or other deviant sex acts, that it would not be covered 24/7 in today's media?

The government does not care unless underage, by coherision, or in public view.


----------



## cubera (Mar 9, 2005)

On Time Too said:


> Watch for a gradual increase in TV programming involving homosexual "love", and gay "gotchas", little homosexual inuendos that will just appear out of nowhere while you're watching ordinary TV with your children.


Gradual you say?
Where have you been lately.
Even adds on obscure channels have been cramming it at us for quite a while now.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> I DID say the government DID NOT CARE. You said they did, and here is your EXACT post "You are woefully mis-informed. Heck, up until SCOTUS struck down the law, it was illegal to engage in oral sex in Texas." I asked about convictions. You start ranting about moving the goal post and looking for something that will stick. I refute with who is moving the goal post. You bring forward Lawrence vs Texas. I point out that a single case, with a God complex prosecutor, does not equate with mass monitoring of bedroom activity. You totally overlook the fact that this is one case, and rant on.
> 
> Lawrence vs Texas is about consenting, legal aged, adults, in private and what they do together being legal. I agree with the law. Just because a law is on the books of a particular state, does not mean people are being charged. Could they be? Sure, anything is possible. I asked for proof people were being charged as a basis for YOU claiming the government was very involved in folks sexual relations. You supplied a link to pages of laws on the books of states, but nothing about actual cases. Do you think for one minute, if gays were being charged and convicted for sodomy, oral sex or other deviant sex acts, that it would not be covered 24/7 in today's media?
> 
> The government does not care unless underage, by coherision, or in public view.


W.T.F?

So now a law does not indicate a governmental interest in policing certain actions? A law does not impose governmental authority without convictions? The threat of a conviction does not cause people to modify their actions?

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am sorry, but I can't really justify continuing this "debate". If you are going to continue to claim that laws do not show a governmental interest in policing certain actions, then I'm out. There is no way to reason with such a ridiculous statement other than to say it is flat out wrong.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Game-Over said:


> W.T.F?
> 
> So now a "law on the books" does not indicate a governmental interest in policing certain actions? A law does not impose governmental authority without convictions? The threat of a conviction does not cause people to modify their actions?
> 
> Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I am sorry, but I can't really justify continuing this "debate". If you are going to continue to claim that laws do not show a governmental interest in policing certain actions, then I'm out. There is no way to reason with such a ridiculous statement other than to say it is flat out wrong.


Are LEOs and DAs considered part of our government? If so, wouldn't a lack of their enforcement of laws equate to not really caring?


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

DAs routinely charged people with "carnal crimes" up until recently. Some were even charged 10 years AFTER Lawerence...the exact opposite of what Shrimpy claims. It was only recently that the laws were not given much attention, again, the opposite of shrimps claim

I suggest it shows that DAs realized that it is almost pointless to bring charges due to a lack of evidence. Unless someone witnessed the act in the bedroom/private space and was willing to testify then how do u convict? Do you charge both (or more) actors with the hope that they all don't plead the 5th?

DAs don't usually bring cases that they have almost zero chances of getting a conviction.

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why the government would pass a law if it had no interest in policing the actions within the scope of that law.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Game-Over said:


> DAs routinely charged people with "carnal crimes" up until recently....the exact opposite of what Shrimpy claims. It was only recently that the laws were not given much attention, again, the opposite of shrimps claim
> 
> I suggest it shows that DAs were hesitant to bring charges due to the lack of evidence. Unless someone witnessed the act in the bedroom/private space and was willing to testify then how do u convict? Do you charge both (or more) actors with the hope that they all don't plead the 5th?
> 
> ...


Pandering to their constituents and pressure from busy body religious groups within the state legislatures.
The same reason the gay marriage thing has played out for so long.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> Pandering to their constituents and pressure from busy body religious groups.
> The same reason the gay marriage thing has played out for so long.


I know you aren't suggesting that laws don't show a governmental interest in people's behavior? They may be pandering, they may be bowing to pressure, but they still passed those laws. To claim that when the gov passes a law it is not demonstrating an interest in policing behavior is being intellectually dishonest at best.


----------



## whiskey1 (May 8, 2014)

Game-Over said:


> I know you aren't suggesting that laws don't show a governmental interest in people's behavior? They may be pandering, they may be bowing to pressure, but they still passed those laws. To claim that when the gov passes a law it is not demonstrating an interest in policing behavior is being intellectually dishonest at best.


You done digging your hole yet? I don't care how many laws are on the books, unless its enforced, it's not an area of interest.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Just so we are clear W1. You believe that when the gov passes a law, it does not demonstrate a governmental interest in policing behavior?


----------



## Reel Cajun (Aug 1, 2006)

"How I deal with this in my house is simple, there will be no Homosexuals on TV, radio, computer, period. My children know it is a sin and that we do not condone that lifestyle."

X10


----------



## Talmbout (Apr 13, 2013)

Maybe soon I will be able to marry my beloved Labrador retriever dog Suzie. At least I am a male and she is a female. After all, it is all about love.


----------



## whiskey1 (May 8, 2014)

Game-Over said:


> Just so we are clear W1. You believe that when the gov passes a law, it does not demonstrate a governmental interest in policing behavior?


It means that govt could express genuine long term interest or it could mean that govt was satisfying a ruling.

Either way, genuine interest is seen via enforcment.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Game-Over said:


> I know you aren't suggesting that laws don't show a governmental interest in people's behavior? They may be pandering, they may be bowing to pressure, but they still passed those laws. To claim that when the gov passes a law it is not demonstrating an interest in policing behavior is being intellectually dishonest at best.


Fair enough, I'll retract that statement. 
As to the charging and prosecution of "carnal crimes", i was basing my opinion off of my exposure. I haven't read of any charges or convictions of CCs, so, I may have been under-informed(?). Or, it just isn't publicized as much as other crimes. Either way, I'll bow out of this one for the time being.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

whiskey1 said:


> Either way, genuine interest is seen via enforcment.


Would you have no problem with passing new state gun laws if the TX AG declares he will not enforce them? The act of the legislature in passing such a law would not indicate to you a governmental interest in regulating gun ownership?

Spurger, GTS anti sodomy laws and you will come across people being charged for such crimes as recently as 2013. Of course those recent charges were thrown out due to Lawrence, but there are plenty of examples of pre lawerence charges.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Get over it, it's done. Want the world to be a better place? It only takes two things-
1) Treat everyone with respect regardless of their gender, race, religion, sexual preferences, or color.

2) Be kind to everyone.

Those are Christian principles, live them.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Pocketfisherman said:


> Get over it, it's done. Want the world to be a better place? It only takes two things-
> 1) Treat everyone with respect regardless of their gender, race, religion, sexual preferences, or color.
> 
> 2) Be kind to everyone.Alot of miserable
> ...


X2 Threads like this makes you realize how miserable and angry some folks are. Live and let live.


----------



## whiskey1 (May 8, 2014)

Game-Over said:


> Would you have no problem with passing new state gun laws if the TX AG declares he will not enforce them? The act of the legislature in passing such a law would not indicate to you a governmental desire to regulate gun ownership?


Stop acting like a complete douchebag. You knew exactly what Shrimpy meant when he posted his original statement. Yet, you're determined to prove him wrong.

For example, up until about 2008 it was illegal for a woman (and probably you) to own a certain number of dildos. Did you see the dildo police running around handing out citations prior to this? No you didn't. Why? Because govt wasn't interested.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Not interested?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/

Of course the charges were dropped, but an arrest doesn't fall into the "not interested" category in my book. What about yours?


----------



## whiskey1 (May 8, 2014)

One case from 2004. That's what you call interest?

Lmao


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Here is the most recent case about anti sodomy laws that a google search produced:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/

Think Progress is probably the LAST place I would look to find ANY type of information about anything, but it clearly DEFENDS my point. PUBLIC sex acts, whether intended to be seen or not, are illegal, no matter Lawrence vs Texas. The carnal crime, in and of itself, was thrown out. But doing it in PUBLIC, even hidden in a parked car at night, is grounds for prosecution.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

spurgersalty said:


> That has already happened. While I don't agree with their lifestyle, I'll tolerate it...to an extent.
> Yes, for some that don't agree with it and have young ones, it can be cumbersome. Having to monitor shows and language further than the parental controls already allow.
> But, the silver lining; I get to take them outside more and have a reason to force the lil lady outside with them as well


Right on.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> Here is the most recent case about anti sodomy laws that a google search produced:
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ti-sodomy-law-declared-unconstitutional-2003/
> 
> Think Progress is probably the LAST place I would look to find ANY type of information about anything, but it clearly DEFENDS my point. PUBLIC sex acts, whether intended to be seen or not, are illegal, no matter Lawrence vs Texas. The carnal crime, in and of itself, was thrown out. But doing it in PUBLIC, even hidden in a parked car at night, is grounds for prosecution.


You are the only person who brought up public acts.....after claiming the gov was not interested in sexual acts between adults. Once again, moving goal posts

No one is arguing that public sex acts aren't illegal. Why are you trying to move in that direction?

Whiskey, there are more than one instance of the "dildo police" arresting people. Start here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> Not interested?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/
> 
> Of course the charges were dropped, but an arrest doesn't fall into the "not interested" category in my book. What about yours?


Read the whole article......she over stepped her bounds by giving instructions on it's (sex toys) use (per the article). TOTALLY different grounds.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> Read the whole article......she over stepped her bounds by giving instructions on it's (sex toys) use (per the article). TOTALLY different grounds.


Texas obscenity laws used to say that possession of 6 or more obscene items was a crime. Here are a couple more instances of the "dildo police" in action

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/793846/posts


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> You are the only person who brought up public acts.....after claiming the gov was not interested in sexual acts between adults. Once again, moving goal posts
> 
> No one is arguing that public sex acts aren't illegal. Why are you trying to move in that direction?
> 
> Whiskey, there are more than one instance of the "dildo police" arresting people. Start here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_obscenity_statute


And Lawrence vs Texas is the ONE and only case, where a prosecutor went forward with a case where the charged were, by MOST standards, doing their acts in PRIVATE (one of the gentleman's apartment).

AGAIN, the government does not give two chits.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Call and WRITE Congressmen*

I called and WROTE my Congressmen after viewing the Lighted White House !! This is a TRAVESTY and a miscarriage of judgement by the HIGHEST COURT in our nation and an emasculation of that once revered court !!! -

THE FIX was OBVIOUSLY in and as such we not longer have a WORKING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of three separate but EQUAL branches.

Obviously THIS ADMINISTRATION knew of the decision long before it was announced to get that lighting set up for the day it was handed down

DO YOU GUYS REALIZE that this country is OVER ?? 

Bullets over ballots to follow SOON !!!


----------



## dan_wrider (Jun 21, 2011)

Game-Over said:


> Texas obscenity laws used to say that possession of 6 or more obscene items was a crime. Here are a couple more instances of the "dildo police" in action
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/793846/posts


I bet the pop up ads on your pc are going to be hilarious after your recent Google search history.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

"The dildo police"
#nympholivesmattertoo


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

joe schmidt said:


> Just some of my thoughts.
> 
> Being **** is a most if the time a genetic defect, I wish it didn't happen to folks and I hate for my kids to ever see it.
> 
> ...


 Thank you for your thoughts and I agree with most of them. However homosexuality is NOT HEREDITARY. That is only a theory, and like the theory of evolution, is connected with an agenda that furthers the aims of an elite class.

Homosexuality has never been proven to be directly genetic. To win this argument would be a major victory for the left and they act like they've already won it. The most recent scholarly articles call it "epigenetic", which means there are individuals who may be predisposed to homosexuality and when exposed to APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, become homosexual but if they don't get this exposure THEY DO NOT BECOME HOMOSEXUAL.

Therefore, the argument that gay TV shows, propaganda and other environmental influences have no effect on people is wrong, and could influence persons who would otherwise be heterosexual into the dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

fishin shallow said:


> I guess divorce rates will rise shortly. How many rushed out to get hitched cause it was the latest fad


I have personal friend who is a divorce lawyer who says exactly this will happen. He is quite happy right now.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

*"Thank you for your thoughts and I agree with most of them. However homosexuality is NOT HEREDITARY."

*Gotta agree with you there.. As I understand it..homos are not gonna 'reproduce' anything.... unless something is going on that I 
wasn't aware of......


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> And Lawrence vs Texas is *the ONE and only case, where a prosecutor went forward with a case where the charged were, by MOST standards, doing their acts in PRIVATE *(one of the gentleman's apartment).
> 
> AGAIN, the government does not give two chits.


Wrong again.

Would you consider a motel room private?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96592

How about 
http://www2.law.mercer.edu/lawreview/getfile.cfm?file=51310.pdf

There are more cases out there should you have the desire to look for them and educate yourself.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

The pro **** folks keep saying that homos have been around forever, well so has cancer .


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Like I said earlier, gay marriage is the side issue. The bigger issue is what this ruling opens up precedent wise going forward.

Now, there is NO REASON a Texan, who is LEGALLY licensed to Conceal Carry, should not be allowed to carry ANYWHERE in the USA. There is NO specific mention of marriage in The Constitution or Bill of Rights. There IS specific mention of the RIGHT to own fire arms. 

Gays could previously marry in other states before yesterday, but other states did not have to accept that license, states rights issue. 

Why should LEGAL gun owners NOT be allowed to carry EVERYWHERE? Gays getting married must be accepted EVERYWHERE, why not gun owners?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Shrimpy26 said:


> Like I said earlier, gay marriage is the side issue. The bigger issue is what this ruling opens up precedent wise going forward.
> 
> Now, there is NO REASON a Texan, who is LEGALLY licensed to Conceal Carry, should not be allowed to carry ANYWHERE in the USA. There is NO specific mention of marriage in The Constitution or Bill of Rights. There IS specific mention of the RIGHT to own fire arms.
> 
> ...


Because both of these restrictions had/have the same target.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

Game-Over said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> Would you consider a motel room private?
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96592
> ...


Both of these cases involve some degree of implied force or coercion, definite areas of governmental interest........don't you agree.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Shrimpy26 said:


> Both of these cases involve some degree of implied force or coercion, definite areas of governmental interest........don't you agree.


Both cases involved consensual sex. No conviction for rape or other "force" was obtained. The defendants were convicted under anti-sodomy laws....just as in Lawrrence, the case you claimed was the "one and only".

As far as gov interest into sexual acts between consenting adults in private, here is a quote from one of the decisions:

â€œSimply put, commission of what the Legislature determines as an immoral act, even if consensual and private, is an injury against society itself,â€ Justice Chet Traylor wrote for the majority. â€œA violation of the criminal law of this state is not justified as an element of the â€˜libertyâ€™ or â€˜privacyâ€™ guaranteed by this stateâ€™s constitution."


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spuds said:


> Wow, I'm glad that God granted you authority to speak for him but denies Christians who don't believe homosexuality is any worse than lying, don't speak for him.
> 
> Once again this is what the founding fathers brilliantly set up the constitution to prevent. The Constitution worked! Freedom won!


I didn't say anything about lying, because this thread was not about lying, it was about homosexuality and gay marriage. I speak for God only in the sense that I try to study His Word the Bible and help people to understand what it teaches. In that respect I do try to speak for him.

When you speak of the founding fathers and the Constitution and people speaking for or against the ruling on gay marriage, please understand you are seeing things from a human standpoint, not God's standpoint. This is human thinking, not God's. The ruling made by the supreme court is man's law, it is certainly not God's law.

I will always try to follow man's law, AS LONG AS, it is not in conflict with God's law. If there is a conflict I will always side with Jehovah, God. Remember when it comes to God and His laws and principals, there is no straddling the fence. There are two sides, God's and Satan's. Whose side are you on?


----------



## chazbo (Sep 7, 2006)

Dont worry, gay marriage will be repealed when they intitute Sharia law...


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> Thank you for your thoughts and I agree with most of them. However homosexuality is NOT HEREDITARY. That is only a theory, and like *the theory of evolution*, is connected with an agenda that furthers the aims of an elite class.
> 
> [/URL]


LOL, keep it coming.


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

.


----------



## w_r_ranch (Jan 14, 2005)

chazbo said:


> Dont worry, gay marriage will be repealed when they intitute Sharia law...


Yep, they'll probably throw Game-Over off the roof or the Williams Tower... :rotfl:


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

rugger said:


> LOL, keep it coming.


I will. Explain to me how the rocks and sand came alive. On their own. With no outside help.


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> I will. Explain to me how the rocks and sand came alive. On their own. With no outside help.


So, not a science or a history buff, huh?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

bjones2571 said:


> So, not a science or a history buff, huh?


I am. I practice science daily, and like history.

Are you?


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)




----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Yes. Some men you just can't reach.


----------



## surf_ox (Jul 8, 2008)

So is the SCOUS going to say the states can't outlaw marijuana next. 

It's biblical and not judicial. Period. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Count Dragula (May 22, 2012)

Just watched 1st one in harris county. Instantly gave me a sick feeling in my stomach. Its just wrong, and more proof end times are near, as man pushes god further away. "I now pronounce you husband and husband" its just retarded. Not even close to advanced as they want us to believe.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Had to work late and just left downtown Houston. The cheering half clad homos prancing in the street blocking traffic waving the rainbow flag was sickening. I felt sad and strangely lonely as I did when the obamination was reelected.


----------



## S-3 ranch (May 26, 2004)

*You make me sick*



On Time Too said:


> Had to work late and just left downtown Houston. The cheering half clad homos prancing in the street blocking traffic waving the rainbow flag was sickening. I felt sad and strangely lonely as I did when the obamination was reelected.


You must be a caveman , the type of attitude is just plain not justified by sound proof


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

I blame it all on our collective unwillingness to stand up against the Left's Politically Correct Movement before it gained momentum and power. Remember the Flintstone cartoon series? 

When you're with the Flintstones
Have a yabbadabba-doo time
A dabba-doo time
We'll have a gay old time

Remember the Christmas carol, Deck the Halls?

"Don we now our gay apparel..."

He who controls the language, controls the discussion ... and ultimately the reality. We let them re-define "gay", among millions of other words. We should not be too surprised in their success at redefining "marriage". 

We let them, through inaction! When Obama admitted the Left's intent was to "fundamentally change America", it wasn't a news flash. It was their history!


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

Maybe you should reconsider where God stands on the gay issue.

Rainbow over downtown Houston right before the start of pride parade downtown. LOL!

http://www.facebook.com/KHOU11/phot...69116414061/10154069024429062/?type=1&theater


----------



## bubbas kenner (Sep 4, 2010)

Count Dragula said:


> Just watched 1st one in harris county. Instantly gave me a sick feeling in my stomach. Its just wrong, and more proof end times are near, as man pushes god further away. "I now pronounce you husband and husband" its just retarded. Not even close to advanced as they want us to believe.


Your right brother God did say that this would be the end of mankind.
In my house Gods words are the most important rock we stand on all else is sinking sand.Could you imagine no more babies being born He created us and He rules us.I want my grankids to have grankids to have grandkids.
I have read most of this thread and waited patiently for a proper reply.PEASE out.We are all sinners but He has the final judgement and a scale.God loves all.


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

After reading a few of these posts, I am so glad the USA is not a theocracy.

Equally I am upset with the Court. Marriage and health care are not mentioned in the Constitution. IMO, that is a states' rights issue.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

It was written long ago that " The Rainbow " was a symbol from " Yahweh " ... It was a promise , and a reminder to be passed on by the few who were saved ... ( Thoes who were the faithfull and with blind faith had not turned their backs on him ... ) that the world would not be Distroyed by a flood again. There's nothing about it NOT being destroyed again !! Just not with a flood.

The rainbow symbol has been hijacked .... Gods symbol is now being used buy the sons and daughters of lucifer as a petulant in your face expression of total rejection of gods rules and they hope this offends him.

Just a thought " If you turn your back God don't be surprised when he turns his back on you ".

*MB*


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Ox Eye said:


> I blame it all on our collective unwillingness to stand up against the Left's Politically Correct Movement before it gained momentum and power. Remember the Flintstone cartoon series?
> 
> When you're with the Flintstones
> Have a yabbadabba-doo time
> ...


While I agree with you in principle, I do think your examples are not right for the purpose. When "The Flintstones" and "Deck the Halls" were written, gay meant happy, not queer. But we have sat back on our heterosexual butts and let them change the meaning of "gay".


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

smokinguntoo said:


> Pretty good argument that Roberts might have been blackmailed. Think of Hastert. Who would have thunk it?
> 
> SG2


 If he was blackmailed, wouldn't ya think he would have voted with the majority on this one?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-owens-caps-gay-marriage/2015/06/27/id/652541/#


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

BubbaKenner and MB: I am a Ph.D. scientist, much to the dismay of radicals on this board and a matter of fact believer in intelligent design. Clueless evolutionists never even question why life only exists on Earth and not elsewhere in the solar system. All planets including the gas giants have had "4.5 billion years" to "develop" life. They aren't really interested in science, just need an explanation that lets them make their own decisions of right and wrong. The first serious question faced by mankind in the Bible was to make our own decisions vs following God. 

Remember He said the second destruction would be by fire. When King Hussain and his buddy Kerry give Iran the bomb, I wonder how they will use their new power.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spuds said:


> Maybe you should reconsider where God stands on the gay issue.
> 
> Rainbow over downtown Houston right before the start of pride parade downtown. LOL!
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/KHOU11/phot...69116414061/10154069024429062/?type=1&theater


Man created the rainbow as a symbol of gays, not God. You seem to get very confused on God's laws and principals vs man's laws and principals. His thoughts are exactly right in every respect. Man's, not so much.


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

On Time Too said:


> BubbaKenner and MB: I am a Ph.D. scientist, much to the dismay of radicals on this board and a matter of fact believer in intelligent design. Clueless evolutionists never even question why life only exists on Earth and not elsewhere in the solar system. All planets including the gas giants have had "4.5 billion years" to "develop" life.


It seems to me there is a clueless PhD that assumes the earth is the only planet in the universe where life exists. Even if you believe in intelligent design, you can't presume that said intelligence only designed life on our earth. It doesn't even make sense to assume such a thing.

Education, intelligence, and common sense are not mutually inclusive.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

To the folks who say it doesent affect them so they really dont care. Just look around you lose a little here and a little there and now almost all of it is gone. Its time to get off the politically correct mode and make a stand.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Gottagofishin said:


> It seems to me there is a clueless PhD that assumes the earth is the only planet in the universe where life exists. Even if you believe in intelligent design, you can't presume that said intelligence only designed life on our earth. It doesn't even make sense to assume such a thing.
> 
> Education, intelligence, and common sense are not mutually inclusive.


Sorry, but you are completely illogical. My sympathies.

Put 100 goldfish bowls on a Wal-Mart parking lot and put a goldfish only in the one closest to you, the only one which you can see very well. You can't see the others very well, but what will you assume about the other 99? Sorry the but "well, its just gotta be, don't it? Jes makes sense, don't it?" argument does not hold water with me. I need proof.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> "well, its just gotta be, don't it? Jes makes sense, don't it?" argument does not hold water with me. I need proof.


 Sounds a whole lot like the argument that one has to make in order to espouse intelligent design..


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Sounds a whole lot like the argument that one has to make in order to espouse intelligent design..


Not really. All backward steps we have made as we search for ever more elementary subatomic particles are real, actual observations. The trouble is we keep finding more. Just when we think we have found the smallest, most elementary particle we find out its made up of components too.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> Not really. All backward steps we have made as we search for ever more elementary subatomic particles are real, actual observations. The trouble is we keep finding more. Just when we think we have found the smallest, most elementary particle we find out its made up of components too.


 Keep throwing BS out, maybe you'll find somebody that'll fall for it.

Intelligent design requires an intelligence. You're making an assumption that it exists simply to explain something which you can observe, but can't fully explain. It's an observation coupled with either religion or a simple mathematical probability. Much like the assumption that there's life on other planets results from observations on this planet, coupled with the sheer weight of the odds: out of a few billion planets, what's the odds that there's only one that managed to produce life? In both cases, those miniscule mathematical probabilities really start to just approach the point where Occam's razor begins to apply. The belief in either the the absence of life on other planets or the concept of a "natural" evolution both require an almost religious disregard of a spectacular factor of improbability. Can we prove either? Absolutely not. At some point, however, it if walks like a duck....


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Keep throwing BS out, maybe you'll find somebody that'll fall for it.
> 
> Intelligent design requires an intelligence. You're making an assumption that it exists simply to explain something which you can observe, but can't fully explain. It's an observation coupled with either religion or a simple mathematical probability. Much like the assumption that there's life on other planets results from observations on this planet, coupled with the sheer weight of the odds: out of a few billion planets, what's the odds that there's only one that managed to produce life? In both cases, those miniscule mathematical probabilities really start to just approach the point where Occam's razor begins to apply. The belief in either the the absence of life on other planets or the concept of a "natural" evolution both require an almost religious disregard of a spectacular factor of improbability. Can we prove either? Absolutely not. At some point, however, it if walks like a duck....


You sir are quite the master of BS, and your lengthy circular haze of confusion above is really silly. Occams razor involves assumption, of which we make very little in our work.

I'm confused why you insult everybody. Was your mother mean to you growing up?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> You sir are quite the master of BS, and your lengthy circular haze of confusion above is really silly. Occams razor involves assumption, of which we make very little in our work.
> 
> I'm confused why you insult everybody. Was your mother mean to you growing up?


Please tell me who I insulted there.

That was my point: Belief in Intelligent design requires an assumption. Prove that there is an intelligence designing the evolutionary process. You can't do it.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

You're actually right. There are several theories, 3 to be exact, and there has been no eye witness to any of them. 

I'll reprint my response to Ernest from another thread:

"Ernest: Evolution is a theory. It is not a fact. I believe in intelligent design, but to be fair we can call it a theory also. 

So now we have two theories, or even three if we combine the two, which is known as "theistic evolution". This theory states that after initial creation the system became autonomous and began to evolve from there. 

So we have several competing theories about the origin of life and existence not one of which has been witnessed hence they are all theories. 

So take your pick. Which flavor do you like? Don't bog us down in dreary explanations. Just tell us why you need to believe one way or another."


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> You're actually right. There are several theories, 3 to be exact, and there has been no eye witness to any of them.
> 
> I'll reprint my response to Ernest from another thread:
> 
> ...


Which basically flies in the face of:



On Time Too said:


> Sorry the but "well, its just gotta be, don't it? Jes makes sense, don't it?" argument does not hold water with me. *I need proof.*


I'm still interested in finding out who I insulted..


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

What does extra-terrestrial evolution have to do with Obama care and gay marriage? Did those yahoo's in DC pass a law that says gay space aliens have to buy insurance off the exchange in order to get their free Obamaphone?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bobby Miller said:


> What does extra-terrestrial evolution have to do with Obama care and gay marriage? Did those yahoo's in DC pass a law that says gay space aliens have to buy insurance off the exchange in order to get their free Obamaphone?


Yes.


----------



## TexasFlats (Mar 29, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> Not really. All backward steps we have made as we search for ever more elementary subatomic particles are real, actual observations. The trouble is we keep finding more. Just when we think we have found the smallest, most elementary particle we find out its made up of components too.


And we will always continue to find smaller particles.

Size and time are irrelevant.


----------



## SeaAg (Oct 31, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> BubbaKenner and MB: I am a Ph.D. scientist, much to the dismay of radicals on this board and a matter of fact believer in intelligent design. Clueless evolutionists never even question why life only exists on Earth and not elsewhere in the solar system. All planets including the gas giants have had "4.5 billion years" to "develop" life. They aren't really interested in science, just need an explanation that lets them make their own decisions of right and wrong. The first serious question faced by mankind in the Bible was to make our own decisions vs following God.
> 
> Remember He said the second destruction would be by fire. When King Hussain and his buddy Kerry give Iran the bomb, I wonder how they will use their new power.


Science doesn't attempt to explain why, which is prolly why intelligent design is generally not accepted by the scientific community. What kind of scientist are you?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Bobby Miller said:


> What does extra-terrestrial evolution have to do with Obama care and gay marriage? Did those yahoo's in DC pass a law that says gay space aliens have to buy insurance off the exchange in order to get their free Obamaphone?


:rotfl: I'm at work. Thanks I needed that. Gay space aliens...:rotfl:


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Speaking to Followers of Christ here*

Jesus spoke on authority when he held up a Roman coin and asked his disciples what image did they see on it? Caesar they all said and Christ said "then give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is Gods."

Stand opposed to evil men, tell them about the Good News For Mankind and DUST your heels when government is wrong - Fall down on our knees and seek Gods will, ALL of this is in Gods control - it makes me heartsick to see whats happening to this country, our ONLY remedy is to seek Gods counsel - not mans !!

This is now law of the land, sponsored by none other than the father of lies, steadfastly oppose the sin of this government, and pray for REMOVAL of the evil men in office - I suspect our Creator wants for US to seek his face in prayer - is it bad enough yet Christian to drive you to your knees?

GOD ANSWERS PRAYER !!!!!


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Which basically flies in the face of:
> 
> I Need Proof.


 No, it doesn't! I'm constantly seeking proof. We just don't have everything yet.


----------



## roundman (May 21, 2004)

LOL


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

What's next? 

Women voting? 

Hell in a hand basket I tell ya.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

TrueblueTexican said:


> GOD ANSWERS PRAYER !!!!!


Yes He does. You would really be surprised how many past great scientists referenced God in their journal notes, asking for guidance and for him to reveal his creation to their determined efforts. Einstein, van Leeuwenhoek, and many others.

My favorites:

Carl Sagan (1934-1996) 
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
_"_Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> No, it doesn't! I'm constantly seeking proof. We just don't have everything yet.


Okay, so we've established you WILL accept something without proof. Now who did I insult?


----------



## 2GemsRanch (Jun 27, 2015)

Hmmm


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SLIME123 said:


> Hmmm


 Outstanding first post. Are you always this long-winded?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Okay, so we've established you WILL accept something without proof.


 Why is that so surprising? We all drive 2 lane roads and accept without proof that the oncoming traffic will stay in their lane.

My main purpose is to establish that evolution is no more than a theory and I think an illogical one given the complexity and order of the universe. Folks who tell me it made itself I just ask them how and they can't ever answer but I guess they just want to believe there is no God. What's wrong with the idea of a creator anyway?



dwilliams35 said:


> Now who did I insult?


 I remember some not so friendly responses on other threads but I'll forgive you!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> Why is that so surprising? We all drive 2 lane roads and accept without proof that the oncoming traffic will stay in their lane.
> 
> My main purpose is to establish that evolution is no more than a theory and I think an illogical one given the complexity and order of the universe. Folks who tell me it made itself I just ask them how and they can't ever answer but I guess they just want to believe there is no God. What's wrong with the idea of a creator anyway?


 It's not surprising: I'd worry about anybody that can't take something on faith from time to time. It was just inconsistent with your insistence, so to speak.



On Time Too said:


> I remember some not so friendly responses on other threads but I'll forgive you!


 So you can't find it either, huh?


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Well, since I can't make the sun come up in the west tomorrow morning, it is obvious I am not in control. Following that logic, there is a greater power. But to think it is a fact that it must be exactly as a Catholic .... or a Jew .... or any other specific faith says.... may possibly be a bit narrow minded. I doubt anyone will be judged too harshly if they follow the Golden Rule. Yes, it is just opinion, but I think it possible that one may be judged harshly by being evil and hateful to a peaceful person.


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

fishingcacher said:


> The Supreme court is broken. There should be term limits. The congress should have them too!


There should be an age limit as well. There comes a time when you get too old and feeble minded to feed yourself, much less decide on complicated matters. You see it in every day life, the decline in the ability of people to function on even simple matters. Some of the SC justices clearly have gone past their "sell by" date.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

MikeV said:


> There should be an age limit as well. There comes a time when you get too old and feeble minded to feed yourself, much less decide on complicated matters. You see it in every day life, the decline in the ability of people to function on even simple matters. Some of the SC justices clearly have gone past their "sell by" date.


I can certainly see the arguments for term-limiting justices, but every time this comes up, I can't help but think about the old adage "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it"... There's some very good reasons for the Justices having a life term; the framers of the Constitution recognized them. We're definitely in one of the rough spots of the Court's history, but it's still not the political trainwreck that it would be if we were changing justices out on average every year or so.. We've currently got appointments going back to Reagan on the court: let's say you term limit it to ten years: We're now on the sixth year of Obama's presidency. Can you say "instant sympathetic majority"? Right now Obama's agenda is pulling this off with five republican appointees; can you imagine where we'd be if he had the opportunity to appoint the same number and still have three years worth' of a presidency left to screw things up?


----------



## 2GemsRanch (Jun 27, 2015)

dwilliams35 said:


> Outstanding first post. Are you always this long-winded?


This was a test. Yrying to see if i have my profile correct. My profile pic didnt show up. You guys are hardcore. I will try to do better on next one. When i tried to repost, message was that i had to wait 2 hours. Is this always the case?


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

spuds said:


> There shouldn't be second class citizens in the US of A.


A number of credit card companies refused to process orders for companies that sell guns, because it violates their principles.
Google, and Yahoo, etc. have said that they will not allow anyone to sell merchandise with a Confederate flag, because it goes against their principles.
But a baker can't refuse to bake a cake with two grooms, based on his/her own beliefs.

I think a lot of people are seeing a double standard here. And there is a pretty good case to be made that this process is simply creating a different group of second-class citizens.

As for this thread about the Court "letting us down"? The sun rises in the East every morning. I try not to be amazed about that, either.

When our kids were small, we told them that they could be anything they wanted to be when they grew up... except a politician. Politically appointed judges are no different.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Now who did I insult?


 Found one!! Post 5, What Happened at the Dike.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

SLIME123 said:


> This was a test. Yrying to see if i have my profile correct. My profile pic didnt show up. You guys are hardcore. I will try to do better on next one. When i tried to repost, message was that i had to wait 2 hours. Is this always the case?


 The time limit goes away once you get some posts under your belt, and we determine that you're not a democrat or some other kind of undesirable type.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

pocjetty said:


> A number of credit card companies refused to process orders for companies that sell guns, because it violates their principles.
> Google, and Yahoo, etc. have said that they will not allow anyone to sell merchandise with a Confederate flag, because it goes against their principles.
> But a baker can't refuse to bake a cake with two grooms, based on his/her own beliefs.
> 
> *I think a lot of people are seeing a double standard here.* And there is a pretty good case to be made that this process is simply creating a different group of second-class citizens.


Wow !! Somebody who can think! Thanks! If this isn't proof of an agenda, what more do you need?!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> Found one!! Post 5, What Happened at the Dike.


 Try again.

"So, are you admitting that you're a jerk, or just a potlicker? "

That wasn't an insult, it was a question. Was he just being rude in the face of the possibility of someone being hurt or killed, or was he just trying to snag somebody's fishing spots. Purely informational, not insulting at all. Something of a smartass question, but that's what my fans expect from me.

Best thing I can figure is that you saw my statement "Intelligent design requires an intelligence" and briefly thought that was an insult, rather than a reference to an intelligent diety or reasonable facsimile thereof... I'm good with that, albeit somewhat amused. I do try to make an effort not to get dragged into the "insult fest" that goes on around here: that shouldn't be confused with any attack on an argument, of course.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Bay lice with no life jacket.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

shaggydog said:


> Man created the rainbow as a symbol of gays, not God. You seem to get very confused on God's laws and principals vs man's laws and principals. His thoughts are exactly right in every respect. Man's, not so much.


I'm pretty sure God knew what he was doing for all the pride partiers. It doesn't matter who has a license to the symbolism.
I've lived near downtown Houston for 37 years and have never seen a rainbow form nearby over downtown. The fact that God put one there just prior to the pride parade and right after the landmark Supreme Court ruling, has to be more than a coincidence.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spuds said:


> I'm pretty sure God knew what he was doing for all the pride partiers. It doesn't matter who has a license to the symbolism.
> I've lived near downtown Houston for 37 years and have never seen a rainbow form nearby over downtown. The fact that God put one there just prior to the pride parade and right after the landmark Supreme Court ruling, has to be more than a coincidence.


You really need to just turn off KPFT and pay more attention to all the rainbows.. You'll feel better.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

spuds said:


> I'm pretty sure God knew what he was doing for all the pride partiers. It doesn't matter who has a license to the symbolism.
> I've lived near downtown Houston for 37 years and have never seen a rainbow form nearby over downtown. The fact that God put one there just prior to the pride parade and right after the landmark Supreme Court ruling, has to be more than a coincidence.


We saw a rainbow over the dike,what you recon that meant.?


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Sounds a whole lot like the argument that one has to make in order to espouse intelligent design..


I don't subscribe to the "young Earth" theories that the world is 6,000 years old, nor anything similar. But the idea that the entire universe might be something more than a cosmic accident? That's no more a leap of faith than any of the other theories.

At least I understand now why you are always such a miserable, defensive person. You're a religious zealot. But your religion won't admit that it's a religion. That kind of cognitive dissonance is very stressful.

All life begins as a single cell. So at that point in existence, where are all the complex instincts stored?  DNA can't store enough to explain it. Lots of lame theories have failed Recently, they have suggested that there must be a second code stored within DNA, that is "as yet not understood". So we don't know anything about it, can't see it, but we accept that it must be there, because that's the only thing that could explain what we see, and not conflict with our beliefs. Sounds exactly like your complaints about religion.

Physics? For years we had Einstein referring to paired electrons as "spooky action at a distance". Sommerfield's Constant proved to be not-so-constant, at different points in space and time. (Which has implications that suggest that we could very well be the only life in the universe, after all.) We didn't like that. So then we got Dirac's equation, and all the things that requires us to take on faith. BTW - have you checked the status of the Big Bang Theory lately? (Oops.)

My point is, when you dig beneath the surface, our current science requires every bit as much of a leap of faith as does religion. The idea that there might be an orderly intelligence behind a very orderly existence? Why is that so offensive? Never mind - I know why. It's because it contradicts your religion.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

On Time Too said:


> You're actually right. There are several theories, 3 to be exact, and there has been no eye witness to any of them.
> 
> I'll reprint my response to Ernest from another thread:
> 
> ...


There is a 4th theory ....

It's called " The BS Theory " ...

Some people really have no idea what is real or imaginary so they call BS on every Theory they disagree with ...

And after all it's only a Theory so ... #4 could also be called BS ... LOL.

Just keeping it real 

*MB*


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

pocjetty said:


> I don't subscribe to the "young Earth" theories that the world is 6,000 years old, nor anything similar. But the idea that the entire universe might be something more than a cosmic accident? That's no more a leap of faith than any of the other theories.
> 
> At least I understand now why you are always such a miserable, defensive person. You're a religious zealot. But your religion won't admit that it's a religion. That kind of cognitive dissonance is very stressful.
> 
> ...


How does "all life begin as a single cell" if an egg is fertilized by one sperm to create baby?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

spuds said:


> I'm pretty sure God knew what he was doing for all the pride partiers. It doesn't matter who has a license to the symbolism.
> I've lived near downtown Houston for 37 years and have never seen a rainbow form nearby over downtown. The fact that God put one there just prior to the pride parade and right after the landmark Supreme Court ruling, has to be more than a coincidence.


Actually, since Jesus called Satan the "Ruler of this world" I think you may be right. 
It was no coincidence.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

On Time Too said:


> Actually, since Jesus called Satan the "Ruler of this world" I think you may be right.
> It was no coincidence.


Funny thing, Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuals.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

spuds said:


> Funny thing, Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuals.


No, that goes back to the Old Testament, and now, you've opened a can of worms.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

pocjetty said:


> I don't subscribe to the "young Earth" theories that the world is 6,000 years old, nor anything similar. But the idea that the entire universe might be something more than a cosmic accident? That's no more a leap of faith than any of the other theories.
> 
> At least I understand now why you are always such a miserable, defensive person. You're a religious zealot. But your religion won't admit that it's a religion. That kind of cognitive dissonance is very stressful.
> 
> ...


 Well, not quite sure what to say here....

I've been a pretty firm proponent of the concept of Intelligent Design since well before somebody gave it a name. It used to get me in trouble with my grandmother back when I was in high school when I brought up the point that the basic order of the evolutionary process paralleled pretty closely the account in Genesis, once you disposed of the idea that God's day must necessarily be the same 24 hours that our system has settled upon. She did relent somewhat once I explained of my belief in God's guiding hand in that evolutionary process, consistent with my relatively devout Christian beliefs.

The entirety of my posts here have simply been that OTT's post stating: _ "Sorry the but "well, its just gotta be, don't it? Jes makes sense, don't it?" argument does not hold water with me. I need proof."_ regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life was inconsistent with his own profession of belief in Intelligent Design, as it would also require accepting something on faith in the absence of scientific proof. That's an indictment of questionable logic, not an indictment of the concept of either creationism or Intelligent Design, or whatever they want to call it this week..

Sorry if that would rob you of a chance to rake me over the coals about something today, but I'm sure there will be another opportunity tomorrow.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spuds said:


> Funny thing, Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuals.


 They did have a pretty rough go of it with his dad, though...


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

dwilliams35 said:


> You really need to just turn off KPFT and pay more attention to all the rainbows.. You'll feel better.


I do feel better, thank you very much, now that all our Gay and lesbian friends can live their lives with the same dignity and grace that our heterosexual friends enjoy.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

TrueblueTexican said:


> Jesus spoke on authority when he held up a Roman coin and asked his disciples what image did they see on it? Caesar they all said and Christ said "then give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is Gods."
> 
> Stand opposed to evil men, tell them about the Good News For Mankind and DUST your heels when government is wrong - Fall down on our knees and seek Gods will, ALL of this is in Gods control - it makes me heartsick to see whats happening to this country, our ONLY remedy is to seek Gods counsel - not mans !!
> 
> ...


1 John 5:19 19â€¯We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

The removal of the evil men in office, will be replaced with evil men that are controlled by Satan. The only hope is when Jesus is ruling "on Earth as it is in heaven".

Leaders of countries are allowed those positions by God, but until after Armageddon, when Jesus Christ begins his rule, the world will vacillate.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

dwilliams35 said:


> They did have a pretty rough go of it with his dad, though...


No more so than liars, cheats or divorsees.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spuds said:


> I do feel better, thank you very much, now that all our Gay and lesbian friends can live their lives with the same dignity and grace that our heterosexual friends enjoy.


 They pretty much could do that last week too, if they would have just gotten over their victim complex..


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spuds said:


> No more so than liars, cheats or divorsees.


 Well, evil is evil, no matter what form it takes, right?


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

dwilliams35 said:


> Well, evil is evil, no matter what form it takes, right?


Not my place, nor YOUR place, to judge.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spuds said:


> I'm pretty sure God knew what he was doing for all the pride partiers. It doesn't matter who has a license to the symbolism.
> I've lived near downtown Houston for 37 years and have never seen a rainbow form nearby over downtown. The fact that God put one there just prior to the pride parade and right after the landmark Supreme Court ruling, has to be more than a coincidence.


Yea, OK, Right. Some people are clueless.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spuds said:


> Not my place, nor YOUR place, to judge.


 I never claimed that right. It is pretty plainly spelled out in a book that I've got a few of around here, though. It's pretty obvious that it was considered evil or sinful in no uncertain terms at the time..


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

shaggydog said:


> Yea, OK, Right. Some people are clueless.


Strange, when an event goes in favor of the religious, accompanied by some coincidental sign, its called the blessing of god. Yet, when the same happens with something they disagree with, its purely coincidental.


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

If the homers think that because of the SC decision suddenly everyone is going to buy into their perversion, that everyone is going to think they are the same as hetero married couples, they are mistaken.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

spuds said:


> Funny thing, Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuals.


Brush up on your Bible. He did, just not directly:

Matthew 5:17
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. _*I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets*_. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

It sounds like he agreed with them.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spuds said:


> Funny thing, Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuals.


1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 9â€¯Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit Godâ€™s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality (men who lie with men), 10â€¯thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit Godâ€™s Kingdom.

The above is Paul's inspired word to the Corinthians.

8â€¯Now we know that the Law is fine if one applies it properly, 9â€¯recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, 10â€¯sexually immoral people, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome teaching 11â€¯according to the glorious good news of the happy God, with which I was entrusted.

Many references to homosexuals and homosexual practices found in the Bible. Sorry, but condemns such practices.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

*What will this do to kids who are adopted by *********?*

I agree that people should be free to love whomever they want. What I don't agree with is giving them the right to take innocent little children and deprive them of a father or a mother. And also at the same time tell these children that sodomy is perfectly fine. Here is what somebody who was raised in that environment has to say about it.



. said:


> Heather Barwick, who was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner, wrote in an essay this week that same-sex "marriage" is not the same as normal marriage between a man and a woman, that the traditional family is best, and that while growing up she "ached every day for a dad."


http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/woman-raised-lesbian-couple-i-ached-every-day-dad


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

spurgersalty said:


> Strange, when an event goes in favor of the religious, accompanied by some coincidental sign, its called the blessing of god. Yet, when the same happens with something they disagree with, its purely coincidental.


But, It could be from the Ruler of This World.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> Strange, when an event goes in favor of the religious, accompanied by some coincidental sign, its called the blessing of god. Yet, when the same happens with something they disagree with, its purely coincidental.


Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about. I look at this as a subtle attack by government on religion. It has great meaning to me, not because I am afraid of it, but because if it the beginning of an attack on religion, there is much more in store. It is found in revelation, but I am sure you would not understand.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spurgersalty said:


> Strange, when an event goes in favor of the religious, accompanied by some coincidental sign, its called the blessing of god. Yet, when the same happens with something they disagree with, its purely coincidental.


 I'd actually call it a blessing from God no matter what. I'd tend to be a bit more skeptical if you asked if i considered said blessing a divine endorsement of any given event, especially one where leather chaps and dog collars seem to be one of the favored attire du jour..


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

spuds said:


> No more so than liars, cheats or divorsees.


They are all burning in hell. Because that is my interpretation. Therefore it is correct. God told me so.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pick44 (Mar 20, 2009)

Some of you are quoting the bible to help in your opinion about gays...that's okay. Everyone is different and we are all not made the same, including how our brains work.

But you should also know that the bible forbids a lot of things which you may be doing... here is a small list. Look up the verses:
Lev 10:6
Lev 10:9
Lev 10:11
Lev 11:13-20
Lev 19:19
Lev 19:28
Lev 19:31
Deut 22:5
Deut 22:20-21
Deut 23:1
1 Corr 14:34-35


So, if you eat shrimp, are not a virgin, wear clothing made up of two types of fabric; wear pants if your a woman, or a skirt ( kilt if your Scottish), if you drink and then go to church; if you allow your women to talk in church; if you cut your beard; if you cut the corners of your hair, talk back to your parents, have tattoos...you are to be stoned, killed, not allowed in church, abomination to God, etc. 

Women had it bad in those days. Just think. The bible said you should stone your own daughter if she were not a virgin. Deut 22:21. How many of you guys were a virgin when you got married? The bible lets you have a pass if your a guy.... Except in Lev 20:10. If you are caught having relations with another man's wife you are to be put to death. Yep, that;s what it says.
I like Jesus when he met sinners ( which are all of us). Remember the lady caught in adultery....As Jesus said...Who among you without sin, cast the first stone.

Personally I think gays should have the same legal rights as everyone in the USA. I would prefer they call it a civil union as Pope Francis has recently come out and said, but that is not what the SC said.

Matt 21:31 sort of tells it like it is. Jesus will judge the heart.

Opinions are needed and what you believe is what makes America great. We are free to disagree and that is okay.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

pick44 said:


> Some of you are quoting the bible to help in your opinion about gays...that's okay. Everyone is different and we are all not made the same, including how our brains work.
> 
> But you should also know that the bible forbids a lot of things which you may be doing... here is a small list. Look up the verses:
> Lev 10:6
> ...


Jesus sort of simplified all this. "I forgive you, now GO AND SIN NO MORE."


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Still don't quite understand why the bible should even get mentioned when discussing legislation...


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

On Time Too said:


> But, It could be from the Ruler of This World.


And just who would that be?


shaggydog said:


> Sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about. I look at this as a subtle attack by government on religion. It has great meaning to me, not because I am afraid of it, but because if it the beginning of an attack on religion, there is much more in store. It is found in revelation, but I am sure you would not understand.


I would understand perfectly, seeing as I was brought up southern Baptist.
It's eerily similar to the posts where someone narrowly evaded death and everyone chimes in about how their God was watching over them. But, when someone doesn't make it, "it was just their time". Is that to mean God wasn't watching over them, or, we get to decide who was in good standing with him?


dwilliams35 said:


> I'd actually call it a blessing from God no matter what. I'd tend to be a bit more skeptical if you asked if i considered said blessing a divine endorsement of any given event, especially one where leather chaps and dog collars seem to be one of the favored attire du jour..


And you would be the exception to the rule then, D.


On Time Too said:


> Jesus sort of simplified all this. "I forgive you, now GO AND SIN NO MORE."


.....but, beware my followers, for they be judgemental and condemn you to hell.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

rugger said:


> Still don't quite understand why the bible should even get mentioned when discussing legislation...


Because the laws of our land are based on the Bible and religious freedom is a guaranteed right that the SCOTUS spit on. Allowing gay marriage goes against every religious teaching known to man. But Texas is not going to allow Texans constitutional rights to be removed so easily. Attorney General Ken Paxton today made the following statement and issued an opinion in response to questions about the impact of Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that redefined marriage:

â€œFriday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live.

â€œIndeed, for those who respect the rule of law, this lawless ruling presents a fundamental dilemma: A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.

â€œNow hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:

â€œPursuant to the Courtâ€™s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever â€" only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.

â€œImportantly, the reach of the Courtâ€™s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.â€

â€œIn the Attorney Generalâ€™s opinion my office issued in response to Lt. Governor Patrickâ€™s request for guidance, we find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech. This opinion concludes that:

â€œCounty clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
â€œJustices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.â€
â€œIt is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.

â€œTexas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Courtâ€™s ruling.â€


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

rugger said:


> Still don't quite understand why the bible should even get mentioned when discussing legislation...


Because this country was founded on religion, never mind the fact there is to be no institution of a national faith/religion.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

pick44 said:


> Some of you are quoting the bible to help in your opinion about gays...that's okay. Everyone is different and we are all not made the same, including how our brains work.
> 
> But you should also know that the bible forbids a lot of things which you may be doing... here is a small list. Look up the verses:
> Lev 10:6
> ...


The Mosaic Law (scriptures cited in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) was done away with in 33CE. Principals apply, but the law no longer applies.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> I would understand perfectly, seeing as I was brought up southern Baptist.
> It's eerily similar to the posts where someone narrowly evaded death and everyone chimes in about how their God was watching over them. But, when someone doesn't make it, "it was just their time". Is that to mean God wasn't watching over them, or, we get to decide who was in good standing with him?
> 
> That is not what I believe. I do believe God answers prayers, if those prayers are in accordance with His will. But the scriptures are clear that problems befall us all.
> ...


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Spirit said:


> Because the laws of our land are based on the Bible and religious freedom is a guaranteed right that the SCOTUS spit on. Allowing gay marriage goes against every religious teaching known to man.


I have a lot of respect for you and the things you post on this board, but on this issue, I am going to have to disagree. The constitution starts off by saying "We the People." The omission of God or any reference to a specific religion in the constitution was not by accident. United States was formed to be a country free to all beliefs, or lack thereof.

In no way does this ruling affect you or anybody's personal life as a religious person. Nobody can force a church to marry someone, and nobody can force you to be accept or be tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. The constitution exists to give every person, regardless of gender, skin color, sexuality, etc the same rights that everyone else is granted. The right to be legally married, in my opinion, falls into these rights.

In fact, it is stated in the first amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Thomas Jefferson himself referred to the 1st amendment as a "wall of separation between church and state."

Again, nobody is barring you from practicing any religion you choose. The constitution of the United States does not serve to uphold beliefs found in a specific religion.

By the way, many religions are accepting of gay marriage. As a free country, that is their right. You may disagree with them, and that is your right as well.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> The constitution starts off by saying "We the People." The omission of God or any reference to a specific religion in the constitution was not by accident. United States was formed to be a country free to all beliefs, or lack thereof.


No you're wrong. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and not other and God wasn't omitted, his name is prevalent on our currency as it says: In God We Trust.

The Constitution simply prevents a "State Religion" as was imposed on those who lived in England.

TH


----------



## Poon Chaser (Aug 22, 2006)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Trouthunter said:


> No you're wrong. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and not other and God wasn't omitted, his name is prevalent on our currency as it says: In God We Trust.
> 
> The Constitution simply prevents a "State Religion" as was imposed on those who lived in England.
> 
> TH


Yes, it was. And those principles upon which it was founded are still held in high regard by both the believers, and, the pure of heart non believers. Yeah, much to the dismay of the holy rollers, those that choose not to believe still have character

Religion should not be a part of this discussion. It is a constitutional matter, and only that.
Waiting for the "God given right" wave now.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

rugger said:


> I have a lot of respect for you and the things you post on this board, but on this issue, I am going to have to disagree. The constitution starts off by saying "We the People." The omission of God or any reference to a specific religion in the constitution was not by accident. United States was formed to be a country free to all beliefs, or lack thereof.
> 
> In no way does this ruling affect you or anybody's personal life as a religious person. Nobody can force a church to marry someone, and nobody can force you to be accept or be tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. The constitution exists to give every person, regardless of gender, skin color, sexuality, etc the same rights that everyone else is granted. The right to be legally married, in my opinion, falls into these rights.
> 
> ...


I agree that the founding fathers were careful to make sure no religion was favored and in fact it was written to make it illegal to attempt to establish a religion - as it should be. But the Ten Commandments, less the no other Gods and Sabbath references, are the foundation of most of the laws throughout this nation. That is all I was saying - not saying that makes one religion or group of people more favored. Maybe there are religions that endorse gay marriage, I'm just not familiar with them so if I overspoke, it wasn't intentional.

Unless the SCOTUS clarifies this ruling, as it stands, it trumps religious freedom. It means that only a person who doesn't practice a traditional faith can serve in an office that issues marriage licenses or performs marriage ceremonies or they will be forced to go against their religious faith as part of their duties. I am hoping that a clarifying rule will be issued as it was with the ACA to protect religious freedom.

The statement from our AG will give Texas office holders protection....for now.


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Hey, I know what, let's take down the PFLAG.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Trouthunter said:


> No you're wrong. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and not other and God wasn't omitted, his name is prevalent on our currency as it says: In God We Trust.
> 
> The Constitution simply prevents a "State Religion" as was imposed on those who lived in England.
> 
> TH


What's written on the dollar is not the constitution. In fact, it wasn't even printed on the dollar until the 50's. Also, it does not specify a religion, or a certain view on God. In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

Secondly, isn't the "state religion" that we were protecting ourselves from essentially the same thing that many Christians are trying to impose on others today? Passing legislation that backs or upholds the beliefs of a certain religion is essentially exactly what Sharia law is and exactly what England had in place prior to the revolution.

There is no doubt that many of the founders were religions people. That being said, I believe that they were extremely diligent to maintain that government and religion remain separate.

So once again, I disagree.


----------



## Ted Gentry (Jun 8, 2004)

Quote by rugger:
In no way does this ruling affect you or anybody's personal life as a religious person.  Nobody can force a church to marry someone, and nobody can force you to be accept or be tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle.  The constitution exists to give every person, regardless of gender, skin color, sexuality, etc the same rights that everyone else is granted. The right to be legally married, in my opinion, falls into these rights.

You sure about that, seems like a bakery in Colorado suffered from what you claim to be protected?

Each of your statements, seem to contradict one another. Which way is it?


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

rugger said:


> The right to be legally married, in my opinion, falls into these rights.


Except that marriage is not a Right. Rights do not require the assistance or permission from someone else. With marriage, even the common law variety, those things are required from at least one other person.


----------



## donaken (Nov 25, 2010)

There fixed it!!


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

I think its clear from the depth and thought of Ken Paxton's statement that we have a great deal to fear. 

When you feed a shark a little bloody fish, does he smile and go away? No, he comes back ravenous for more with a whetted appetite. These sharks will not go away either. 

This terrible decision will have multiple repercussions as Big Gay goes after jobs and situations that don't pander to their lifestyle of abnormal sex. There will be losses of jobs and businesses fueled by greedy lawyers eager to jump on the **** bandwagon to make a quick buck on this brand new type of discrimination. 

The media has been so effective in selling homosexuality to the masses that most don't even remember that not so long ago up to the 1940s and 50s it was considered the quintessential sexual disorder. 

I think there will be some real troubles ahead and this battle is far from over. Homosexuality is normal now we finally figured it out after 1000's of years! Yay! So whats going to be your rationale to object or disagree with a required "gay studies" class for our junior or high school students, to remediate the poison taught to them by their dumb straight parents???


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Ox Eye said:


> Except that marriage is not a Right. Rights do not require the assistance or permission from someone else. With marriage, even the common law variety, those things are required from at least one other person.


See 1967 Loving V Virginia ruling...


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

On Time Too said:


> I think its clear from the depth and thought of Ken Paxton's statement that we have a great deal to fear.
> 
> When you feed a shark a little bloody fish, does he smile and go away? No, he comes back ravenous for more with a whetted appetite. These sharks will not go away either.
> 
> ...


Darn good post!


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Most of us have seen that old commercial on Youtube that warns little children about gays. It even says that homosexuals are sick. 

Too bad that TV now has brainwashed most folks into thinking that it's normal.


----------



## Shrimpy26 (Oct 25, 2013)

On Time Too said:


> I think its clear from the depth and thought of Ken Paxton's statement that we have a great deal to fear.
> 
> When you feed a shark a little bloody fish, does he smile and go away? No, he comes back ravenous for more with a whetted appetite. These sharks will not go away either.
> 
> ...


The above highlighted should scare the H3LL out of everyone. Gays being able to get married is secondary. The courts are being used to dsimantle what, for YEARS, has been impenetrable. There are far, far reaching tentacles of what COULD fall under this decision.

Someone in an earlier post brought up how stores and companies were pulling Rebel flags and designs off shelves, and that was great, but someone refuses to bake a cake and all H3LL breaks loose. Think deeper folks. Look beyond the mass media LEFT or RIGHT and see it for what it is.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

Let me tell all you homophobes a sad story that I've personally witnessed:

I used to work for a guy who was very religious. When I interviewed with him he was drinking coffee from an "I LOVE JESUS" cup. After working there a short while, I began to realize that my boss, let's call him Joe, couldn't hardly have a conversation without saying something derogatory about homosexuals. It soon became apparent he that had an unhealthy obsession and hatred toward homosexuals. 

Anybody remember the "Straight Slate" a group of candidates that ran for various city offices? Their platform was simply to be against homosexuals. Well, Joe was a big supporter of that group. He volunteered a lot of his time in the evenings and contributed considerable amounts of money in support of the Straight Slate. However, none of the SS candidates won office.

Joe sounded a lot like you guys saying you're going to keep that "****" stuff off TV and out of your home. One day Joe came in to work and proudly declared to everyone that he had ripped the plug out of the TV, so that filth could no longer make its way into his house again. All of us who worked for Joe, just rolled our eyes. We wondered what his kids thought, to live with and see their dad as such an extremist. 

Several years later, I had moved on to another job. I heard on the news one morning about a 16 year old teen who was found murdered. Turns out the police determined the killer was an 18 year old friend of the murdered boy. The 18 year old admitted to the police that the two boys were having sexual relations. When the younger boy threatened to expose the relationship, the older boy, fearing his dad's reaction, murdered him. 

The 18 year old was Joe's son. 

But here's where the story gets even stupider. Joe, who had some media savvy from his previous political involvement, called a press conference. The media was anxious to get a statement from the father whose son was charged with first degree murder. 

Joe's statement to the media was something like, "Despite reports from the police department concerning his son's case, his son was NOT a homosexual!!!!"

All of us who knew how Joe was, were not surprised by the statement. From Joe's point of view, his son may have been a murderer, but by God, he sure wasn't one of those dreaded homosexuals! 

Joe's son was convicted and sent to prison for life with no parole.

Ironically, a couple of years later I worked at another place, and it just so happened that Joe worked there as well. One day I decided to go find his office and say hello. Despite his hatred streak, I still considered him a friend. 

I was shocked when I saw Joe. He had aged way beyond his years. His eyes had an empty sadness that was unmistakable. What I saw was a completely broken down man. 

But I couldn't help thinking, much of what he had to endure, Joe brought upon himself. Perhaps if he had spent more time with his family, instead of off crusading against gays, things might have turned out differently for him and his family. 


Love your children for who they are. 
We are all God's children. 
God is love, let him sort out the other stuff.

It's 2015, live and let live.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

*Dignity*

Dignity - â€œ a way of appearing or behaving that suggests seriousness and self-control; the quality of being worthy of honor or respect.â€

Dignity comes from within. Dignity can never come from doing what one knows to be wrong.

_â€œSlaves did not lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied government benefits did not lose their dignity because government denied them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.â€_

- Clarence Thomas


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

spuds said:


> Let me tell all you homophobes a sad story that I've personally witnessed:
> 
> I used to work for a guy who was very religious. When I interviewed with him he was drinking coffee from an "I LOVE JESUS" cup. After working there a short while, I began to realize that my boss, let's call him Joe, couldn't hardly have a conversation without saying something derogatory about homosexuals. It soon became apparent he that had an unhealthy obsession and hatred toward homosexuals.
> 
> ...


Is this one of those internet mass emails? The kind you can't trust?


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

On Time Too said:


> Is this one of those internet mass emails? The kind you can't trust?


No, happened in Houston, my former boss who was an extreme homophobe, and a real murder.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

spuds said:


> Let me tell all you homophobes ...


What is your definition of a "homophobe"?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

spuds said:


> No, happened in Houston, my former boss who was an extreme homophobe, and a real murder.


If true I do not belittle a tragedy.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

spuds said:


> an extreme homophobe


Made up little buzzword. People don't have a phobia (fear) of homosexuals.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

noun
1.
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

ChuChu said:


> noun
> 1.
> a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.


I know that is what the dictionary says, but Spuds obviously has a different meaning for the word and I'm curious what that is. I have been reading mostly opposition to same sex marriage, not anti-gay comments, so I'm curious if he is confusing the two.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " â€” Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "

John Adams, 2nd President, 1798


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

"If you're not first, you're last"


Ricky Bobby - 2006


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Rack Ranch said:


> Faith, Family, and Friends. Lets fight the good fight brothers!
> Sad day in history.


Whatever will you do if one of your children proclaims that they are gay? Will you disown them and continue with the good fight? I'm sure you are chuckling to yourself right now about how stupid I must be to even consider the possibility of that happening due to your faith and all the hours on bended knees, but.... What if I'm not so stupid? Do you choose God (as you've defined Him?) or your kid? Or do you reconsider how they maybe don't have to be mutually exclusive? What DO you do? I'm very curious to hear about it.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

"I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking. And I plan on finding out what that is." 
Zoolander (2001)


----------



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

I guess all that time on bended knees must have done some good because I raised a beautiful Christian heterosexual daughter. Won't speak on hypotheticals. Praying for you Cat 5!!



Category5 said:


> Whatever will you do if one of your children proclaims that they are gay? Will you disown them and continue with the good fight? I'm sure you are chuckling to yourself right now about how stupid I must be to even consider the possibility of that happening due to your faith and all the hours on bended knees, but.... What if I'm not so stupid? Do you choose God (as you've defined Him?) or your kid? Or do you reconsider how they maybe don't have to be mutually exclusive? What DO you do? I'm very curious to hear about it.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Everybody always wants to tear into the Christians as if this is some type of really discrete decision: hate everything about homosexuals and homosexuality, or be walking down Montrose in a pair of chaps and nothing else. There's a whole lot of people out there that are perfectly capable of accepting homosexuality to a very high degree, yet still be vehemently opposed to the concept in general. That's the way sin works: you hate the sin, love and forgive the sinner. Their sin is between themselves and God. That doesn't mean you just have to shut up about it if you truly believe that it is something you believe you need to be very vocal about in rejecting. There's people doing prison ministry, etc.: that doesn't in any way suggest acceptance of crime. It's just not as cut and dried as the left would want you to believe: not everybody that is against homosexuality is a mindless bigot.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

dwilliams35 said:


> Everybody always wants to tear into the Christians as if this is some type of really discrete decision: hate everything about homosexuals and homosexuality, or be walking down Montrose in a pair of chaps and nothing else. There's a whole lot of people out there that are perfectly capable of accepting homosexuality to a very high degree, yet still be vehemently opposed to the concept in general. That's the way sin works: you hate the sin, love and forgive the sinner. Their sin is between themselves and God. That doesn't mean you just have to shut up about it if you truly believe that it is something you believe you need to be very vocal about in rejecting. There's people doing prison ministry, etc.: that doesn't in any way suggest acceptance of crime. It's just not as cut and dried as the left would want you to believe: not everybody that is against homosexuality is a mindless bigot.


Very well said.


----------



## fishingcacher (Mar 29, 2008)

Their at it again.

http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...urt-puts-texas-abortion-law-on-hold/29478081/


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Rack Ranch said:


> I guess all that time on bended knees must have done some good because I raised a beautiful Christian heterosexual daughter. Won't speak on hypotheticals. Praying for you Cat 5!!


Maybe she was just born that way and you had nothing to do with it. It's not an attack on Christians, I'm one myself, but I do have some issues with some people's Christian views if I'm being honest. I take exception to the literal / selective interpretation of the Bible where you pretty much pick and choose what you apply or ignore. I guess I'm more into the spirit of the Bible's message and not into applying specific verse's to demonize other people. Please do pray for me, I'm quite certain I need it as much or more than anyone, and I'll pray for you as well.


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

Thats is exactly what the SCOTUS did with Obammycare. The went with the spirit of the bill and the Democrats rather than what the words actually stated or implied.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*More*



fishingcacher said:


> They're at it again.
> http://www.khou.com/story/news/loca...urt-puts-texas-abortion-law-on-hold/29478081/


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/246470-supreme-court-rules-to-keep-texas-abortion-clinics-open


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

BATWING said:


> Thats is exactly what the SCOTUS did with Obammycare. The went with the spirit of the bill and the Democrats rather than what the words actually stated or implied.


It's amazing this fashion of the "spirit " of some written document as if the original words were not carefully chosen!!

The left is OUT OF CONTROL. No excuse me, THE LEFT IS IN CONTROL.

Why can't we do anything about it without being racist hateful fundamentalist Christian homophobes?

Divide and conquer. 1000 bullets. 1 target.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Johnboat said:


> http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/246470-supreme-court-rules-to-keep-texas-abortion-clinics-open


Same judges that opposed sodomy-based "marriage".


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

The SCOTUS is completely out of control. They are making rulings without weighing their previous rulings and creating confusion. The ruling on Texas license plates is now allowing political statements in North Carolina where they had ruled on license plates earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...plate-case-isnt-limited-to-confederate-flags/


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

ChuChu said:


> homophobe, noun
> 1. a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.





Spirit said:


> I know that is what the dictionary says, but Spuds obviously has a different meaning for the word and I'm curious what that is. I have been reading mostly opposition to same sex marriage, not anti-gay comments, so I'm curious if he is confusing the two.


No confusion. What makes you think I have a different meaning?

Opposition to same sex marriage is often derived from sophomoric fear that homosexual marriage is going to somehow ruin society, or cause the end of the world. Nothing could be more absurd.

So yes, irrational fear mongering like that, certainly should be categorized as homophobia.

In my boss' case, he was an extreme homophobe, destroying household appliances and putting his family's needs secondary to his obsession to get politically involved against gays. Sadly, such misdirected negative energy accomplished nothing, and in the end, ruined his life and destroyed his family.

Ultimately, nothing is going to change for us heterosexuals. And that's my point about "Just live and let live."


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

txjustin said:


> See 1967 Loving V Virginia ruling...


My response was made in the context of the statement made. In that context, there is no Right to marry. The concept runs very similar to other Rights. The Right of speech, for example, does not impose upon anyone an obligation to listen. Along those lines, the Right to marry does not obligate someone to marry you ... or, to the larger extent, create any obligation to officiate the ceremony.

Think "Happiness". You certainly have the Right to pursue it. But, that Right does not in any way assure its achievement.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

spuds said:


> No confusion. What makes you think I have a different meaning?
> 
> Opposition to same sex marriage is often derived from sophomoric fear that homosexual marriage is going to somehow ruin society, or cause the end of the world. Nothing could be more absurd.
> 
> ...


Not supporting same sex marriage is not homophobic. It seemed to me you were confusing the two. Not all gays support same sex marriage either, they certainly aren't homophobes. I have no problem with a person's sexual orientation, its not up to me to decide what they do, I do have a huge issue with same sex marriage whether SCOTUS says its legal or not. I was just curious what you were actually trying to say to/about those of us posting.


----------



## fultonswimmer (Jul 3, 2008)

I think what the dude was trying to say is that you need to chill....this ruling and others is not going to directly affect anyone on this forum one way or another...just their mental concept of what is good for all. Live and let live is basically the message I heard. Fantastic concept is it not?


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

Spirit said:


> Not supporting same sex marriage is not homophobic. It seemed to me you were confusing the two. Not all gays support same sex marriage either, they certainly aren't homophobes. I have no problem with a person's sexual orientation, its not up to me to decide what they do, *I do have a huge issue with same sex marriage whether *SCOTUS says its legal or not. I was just curious what you were actually trying to say to/about those of us posting.


What is your issue with it? Honest question.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Your group is not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as my group. Because I don't like you having the same rights that I enjoy. You are different, therefore are not entitled.


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

poppadawg said:


> Your group is not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as my group.  Because I don't like you having the same rights that I enjoy. You are different, therefore are not entitled.


Before you know it, "those blacks" will be drinking from the same water fountains as "us". :rotfl:


----------



## bjones2571 (May 2, 2007)

poppadawg said:


> Your group is not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as my group. Because I don't like you having the same rights that I enjoy. You are different, therefore are not entitled.


Says, I must spread...


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Main Frame 8 said:


> What is your issue with it? Honest question.


It is the only sin in that God finds to be an abomination. It is the only sin in the Bible that God destroyed two cities over. Do I expect my best friend to never marry the man he lives with? No, that is his choice, his life. But I hate the fact that if someone says they are married, I will have to ask to a man or woman ... it used to be a given. I don't think SCOTUS has the right to change the definition of marriage and force their views on the whole nation. This isn't like interracial marriage was ... it wasn't forcing anyone to accept something that was a sin in most Christian faiths.

Solomon, the wisest man in the Bible was married to a black woman. If it was okay in the Bible, we as Christians were wrong to say it wasn't right. However, this law says that those who feel deeply, sincerely and honestly that same sex marriage is morally and Biblically wrong have to accept and endorse that act or they can be sued for discrimination. I think they SCOTUS threw religious freedom aside for political correctness on an issue that is not a legal matter but a moral one.

Morality should not be adjudicated by the court system - the 1st A was watered down immensely. The only way to correct it, imo, is to allow religious exemption to elected officials and business owners who sincerely oppose gay marriage .... sincerely - not to jump on a bandwagon ...from participation on all levels. I wonder if Merriam Webster and every other dictionary will now change the meaning of marriage or it will continue to be the union of a man and woman as it currently states.

Exemptions were given for birth control in ACA on religious grounds, something similar will have to be done with this ruling also, imo.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

poppadawg said:


> Your group is not entitled to the same rights and priviledges as my group. Because I don't like you having the same rights that I enjoy. You are different, therefore are not entitled.


 That's absolutely incorrect. Any gay guy is perfectly entitled to meet a nice girl and get married just like we are, and have always been. Nobody EVER barred them from getting married. Anywhere....


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

As I've said time and again, I believe in "Live and let live". I'll keep my skeletons in my closet, you keep yours in yours. I only have issues when someone wants to bring out their skeletons and have a party in the front yard.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Spirit said:


> It is the only sin in that God finds to be an abomination. It is the only sin in the Bible that God destroyed two cities over. I think to say I support something I feel will send a person to eternal damnation is something that I can endorse. Do I expect my best friend to never marry the man he lives with? No, that is his choice, his life. But I hate the fact that if someone says they are married, I will have to ask to a man or woman ... it used to be a given. I don't think SCOTUS has the right to change the definition of marriage and force their views on the whole nation. This isn't like interracial marriage was ... it wasn't forcing anyone to accept something that was a sin in most Christian faiths.


I think you might want to dig into that bible again. God finds all sin abhorrent and in His eyes, none is greater than another. To Him, telling a lie is the same as murdering someone. Gays who have accepted Christ as their savior aren't going to Hell anymore than the family man that attends church every Sunday but struggles with lust for other women, even though he never acts on it, so long as they've both truly accepted Christ in their hearts. While homosexual behavior was a big part of the problem in Sodom and Gomorrah, it was far from their only problem and they were destroyed by the God of the Old Testament. To be perfectly honest, I'm glad I don't live with the God of the Old Testament, I could never live up to the expectations of The Law, only Jesus could do that.

SCOTUS gutted state's rights with this ruling, in my ignorant opinion, but to say that any one person's sin is greater than another is not sound biblicaly and does nothing but cause division. I'm not going to change anyone's behavior by telling them they're going to Hell for it. I'm going to help them to change themselves by being an example of the love of Christ as best I can with the hope that they'll come to him on their own and he'll work on them to convict themselves. There's still a log in my eye, I'm not about to pick on the pet sin of someone else until I'm sinless. That does not mean you ignore it but but I'm going to reach that "sinner" with love, not judgement.

And this was a question of law, we don't agree with every choice that every one makes but we can't make those choices for them through legislation, we can try, but we will ultimately be unsuccessful. On the question of law though, I think they got it wrong for all the reasons that Chief Justice Roberts does, not because the ruling disagrees with Biblical teachings.


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

Spirit said:


> As I've said time and again, I believe in "Live and let live". I'll keep my skeletons in my closet, you keep yours in yours. I only have issues when someone wants to bring out their skeletons and have a party in the front yard.


:rotfl: The worst non-answer to a direct question ever.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

bg said:


> I think you might want to dig into that bible again. God finds all sin abhorrent and in His eyes, none is greater than another. To Him, telling a lie is the same as murdering someone. Gays who have accepted Christ as their savior aren't going to Hell anymore than the family man that attends church every Sunday but struggles with lust for other women, even though he never acts on it, so long as they've both truly accepted Christ in their hearts. While homosexual behavior was a big part of the problem in Sodom and Gomorrah, it was far from their only problem and they were destroyed by the God of the Old Testament. To be perfectly honest, I'm glad I don't live with the God of the Old Testament, I could never live up to the expectations of The Law, only Jesus could do that.
> 
> SCOTUS gutted state's rights with this ruling, in my ignorant opinion, but to say that any one person's sin is greater than another is not sound biblicaly and does nothing but cause division. I'm not going to change anyone's behavior by telling them they're going to Hell for it. I'm going to help them to change themselves by being an example of the love of Christ as best I can with the hope that they'll come to him on their own and he'll work on them to convict themselves. There's still a log in my eye, I'm not about to pick on the pet sin of someone else until I'm sinless. That does not mean you ignore it but but I'm going to reach that "sinner" with love, not judgement.
> 
> And this was a question of law, we don't agree with every choice that every one makes but we can't make those choices for them through legislation, we can try, but we will ultimately be unsuccessful. On the question of law though, I think they got it wrong for all the reasons that Chief Justice Roberts does, not because the ruling disagrees with Biblical teachings.


I'm not here to argue, I was asked a question and gave my answer .. clarifying its my opinion only, which it is. I'm not a biblical scholar, I just don't recall another sin that states it an abomination in God's eyes. Maybe there are, like I said, I'm not a bible scholar. I only take exception to those who *choose *to live that lifestyle ... if there can be "eunuchs from birth" there can be "gay from birth" too.

This is a slippery slope discussion that is hard to do online because words can be taken in such a way as to make a person seem harsh and judgmental. And speaking for myself, I'm not. I am uncomfortable around same sex PDA but I'm not big on opposite sex PDA either ... part of that skeletons on the front yard mindset of mine, I guess.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Main Frame 8 said:


> :rotfl: The worst non-answer to a direct question ever.


You missed the post above that comment where I responded directly (and quoted back) to you. It was more longwinded ... I hate giving direct answers on here because how I feel and how I live is not necessarily reflected in the words one can type.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

I hates queers so darn much, I just wish they would all go away and rid all of us of this dang ol' queerness plague. Dang ol' stupid queers. Why can't they all just go away forever? All they have to do is make a dang ol' choice and dang ol' choose to not be so dang ol' queer! I mean it's really pretty dang ol' simple right? DANG!


----------



## reb (Aug 12, 2005)

Dang!


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Category5 said:


> I hates queers so darn much, I just wish they would all go away and rid all of us of this dang ol' queerness plague. Dang ol' stupid queers. Why can't they all just go away forever? All they have to do is make a dang ol' choice and dang ol' choose to not be so dang ol' queer! I mean it's really pretty dang ol' simple right? DANG!


So you don't know any straight women or men who have been with a person of the opposite sex just to see what its like? You must be awful sheltered. lol That is what I was talking about since you seem to want to make it out that I said something different.


----------



## Hotrod (Oct 11, 2006)

Here is a recipe for Blueberry pancakes

*Directions*


In a large bowl, sift together flour, salt, baking powder and sugar. In a small bowl, beat together egg and milk. Stir milk and egg into flour mixture. Mix in the butter and fold in the blueberries. Set aside for 1 hour.
Heat a lightly oiled griddle or frying pan over medium high heat. Pour or scoop the batter onto the griddle, using approximately 1/4 cup for each pancake. Brown on both sides and serve hot.


 1 1/4 cups all-purpose flour 
 1/2 teaspoon salt 
 1 tablespoon baking powder 
 1 1/4 teaspoons white sugar 


 1 egg 
 1 cup milk 
 1/2 tablespoon butter, melted 
 1/2 cup frozen blueberries, thawed


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

Category5 said:


> I hates queers so darn much, I just wish they would all go away and rid all of us of this dang ol' queerness plague. Dang ol' stupid queers. Why can't they all just go away forever? All they have to do is make a dang ol' choice and dang ol' choose to not be so dang ol' queer! I mean it's really pretty dang ol' simple right? DANG!


Dang ol' Boom . Pick on someone your own size. Dang ol' queer lover.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

ole blueduck said:


> Dang ol' Boom . Pick on someone your own size. Dang ol' queer lover.


You dang ol' called it man...I love several dang ol' queers. Dang ol' mystery but I dang ol' love 'em. I done talked to dang ol' Spirit and I wasn't dang ol' calling her out, it was a dang ol' misunderstanding. Dang ol' BOOM!


----------



## chunker59 (Jul 20, 2011)

Is it chaos yet? When does the chaos start?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Spirit said:


> As I've said time and again, I believe in "Live and let live". I'll keep my skeletons in my closet, you keep yours in yours. I only have issues when someone wants to bring out their skeletons and have a party in the front yard.


Absolutely!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Would any of you against the legality of same sex marriage also be against letting those same people vote? In other words, deny voting rights to gays just based on their sexual orientation? What about drivers licenses? Legally, they are all the same.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Mont said:


> Would any of you against the legality of same sex marriage also be against letting those same people vote? In other words, deny voting rights to gays just based on their sexual orientation? What about drivers licenses? Legally, they are all the same.


Gays voting does not cost me any money. Their "marriage" will cost everyone.

Disclaimer: Yeah, the people elected by those gays may cost everyone, but that already happens with straight folks.

Probably my biggest complaint about gay marriage is the subject has frozen America when we need to be focused on the real important things, like the economy, national defense and keeping Hillary out of the White House.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

How does gay marriage "cost you money"?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Mont said:


> How does gay marriage "cost you money"?


Most noticeable is group medical insurance premiums.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

ChuChu said:


> Gays voting does not cost me any money. Their "marriage" will cost everyone.
> 
> Disclaimer: Yeah, the people elected by those gays may cost everyone, but that already happens with straight folks.
> 
> Probably my biggest complaint about gay marriage is the subject has frozen America when we need to be focused on the real important things, like the economy, national defense and keeping Hillary out of the White House.





Mont said:


> How does gay marriage "cost you money"?


Also curious about this...


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

ChuChu said:


> Most noticeable is group medical insurance premiums.


How does that cost you money?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

so your insurance premiums are going up as a result of someone else that is gay getting married? If that's true, seems they would go up if a straight guy got married more because he's likely to impregnate his wife.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Mont said:


> Would any of you against the legality of same sex marriage also be against letting those same people vote? In other words, deny voting rights to gays just based on their sexual orientation? What about drivers licenses? Legally, they are all the same.


Voting is a privilege guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of age that has not been convicted of certain crimes. It still has some restrictions though, it is not a universal "right."

Driving is also a privilege that is regulated by the states based on a number of factors. They discriminate on age, ability, financial means to carry insurance and pay the licensing fees. The states are allowed to make their own rules, the requirements for getting a driver's license in Louisiana are different than they are in Texas. This is probably a better analogy than voting because there is no constitutional guarantee that you'll be allowed to drive, just as there is no guarantee that you'll be allowed to marry. So this is an issue that the federal government has been mostly silent on and left to the states, as it should be. The same should have been done with marriage, it's an issue for the state electorate to decide.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

This thread is gay...


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Mont said:


> so your insurance premiums are going up as a result of someone else that is gay getting married? If that's true, seems they would go up if a straight guy got married more because he's likely to impregnate his wife.


I saw the spike when we were forced to accept "significant others" in our coverage. 
And I'm sure that maternity coverage spiked policies when it was included.
And a straight guy getting married pays a higher premium, and the group cost increases also. The insurance industry doesn't give you anything.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

bg said:


> Voting is a privilege guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of age that has not been convicted of certain crimes. It still has some restrictions though, it is not a universal "right."
> 
> Driving is also a privilege that is regulated by the states based on a number of factors. They discriminate on age, ability, financial means to carry insurance and pay the licensing fees. The states are allowed to make their own rules, the requirements for getting a driver's license in Louisiana are different than they are in Texas. This is probably a better analogy than voting because there is no constitutional guarantee that you'll be allowed to drive, just as there is no guarantee that you'll be allowed to marry. So this is an issue that the federal government has been mostly silent on and left to the states, as it should be. The same should have been done with marriage, it's an issue for the state electorate to decide.


Maybe the SCOTUS should weigh in on this matter.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

ChuChu said:


> I saw the spike when we were forced to accept "significant others" in our coverage.
> And I'm sure that maternity coverage spiked policies when it was included.
> And a straight guy getting married pays a higher premium, and the group cost increases also. The insurance industry doesn't give you anything.


So when are you going to get to the part you pay for married gay's insurance?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

txjustin said:


> so when are you going to get to the part you pay for married gay's insurance?


the group policy premiums increase


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

Gays are harmless right? They wouldn't try to indoctrinate kids or try to make the bible evil.They just want to be left alone .right.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Everybody knows gays don't work or do anything productive right? I mean dang they probably only get by stealing yeti's and whatnot. Being gay makes you a demon automatically, let's all gather on Montrose later and bring a pile of rocks so we can stone us a bunch of dang ol' gays! WOOOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!! Hates me some gays!!!!!!!!


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

poppadawg said:


> Maybe the SCOTUS should weigh in on this matter.


I still think they ruled wrong. There's no basis in the constitution or history for the decision they made. They made it though and it's the law of the land now so we have to follow it but it was still a bad ruling.

I'm not upset about the same sex marriage, what the government says is legal doesn't change what I believe is moral or right. Just like I'm not bothered that some states permit prostitution, some localities allow topless or nude bars, some states allow gambling and a myriad of other things that one could argue the morality of. I'm bothered that the ruling took away a right that really belonged to the states and furthered that ever increasing bloat of the federal government in size and scope. Our founding fathers were very much against a large and ever powerful central government, they believed that most issues should be decided at the state and local level. This ruling is a step further from those ideals that served this country well for so long.


----------



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

Voting, or the lack there of, by Christians in the U.S. is what got us where we are today. Gays and minorities won at the pole and continue to win today. And are quickly becoming the majority!!


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

Medical Insurance has been rising for years. When I opened my business almost 9 years ago. I acquired med insurance for my employees and myself. We've always had a PPO with a reasonable 2k deductible. I want to say employee only back then was $250 per month. Now our PPO has a 5k deductible. And it's running $550 per month. Dr visits are now $30 vs $20. Prescriptions went from $10 to $30. Family coverage was around $600, now $1150.00. I'm still waiting for the affordable part to kick in. 

Right now the best my agent can tell us. Is we don't have to join Obamacare yet. But it's coming for us small businesses. Which sucks for us. Less coverage, worse plan, and same, if not more cash outlay.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Rack Ranch said:


> Voting, or the lack there of, by Christians in the U.S. is what got us where we are today. *Gays and minorities won at the pole* and continue to win today. And are quickly becoming the majority!!


LOL, I see what you did there. :rotfl:


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

bg said:


> Voting is a privilege guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen of age that has not been convicted of certain crimes. It still has some restrictions though, it is not a universal "right."
> 
> Driving is also a privilege that is regulated by the states based on a number of factors. They discriminate on age, ability, financial means to carry insurance and pay the licensing fees. The states are allowed to make their own rules, the requirements for getting a driver's license in Louisiana are different than they are in Texas. This is probably a better analogy than voting because there is no constitutional guarantee that you'll be allowed to drive, just as there is no guarantee that you'll be allowed to marry. So this is an issue that the federal government has been mostly silent on and left to the states, as it should be. The same should have been done with marriage, it's an issue for the state electorate to decide.


You've never heard of the 15th Amendment?








Kinda puts a few holes in that argumenthwell:


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Let's leave Obama and health insurance premiums out of this. Just tell us how you really feel please. If you have hate in your heart let it out!


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

How does that contradict what I said?

It can be restricted if you're not a citizen or convicted of certain crimes. It's not an unalienable or irrevocable right.



spurgersalty said:


> You've never heard of the 15th Amendment?


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

bg said:


> I still think they ruled wrong. *There's no basis in the constitution or history for the decision they made.* They made it though and it's the law of the land now so we have to follow it but it was still a bad ruling.
> 
> I'm not upset about the same sex marriage, what the government says is legal doesn't change what I believe is moral or right. Just like I'm not bothered that some states permit prostitution, some localities allow topless or nude bars, some states allow gambling and a myriad of other things that one could argue the morality of. I'm bothered that the ruling took away a right that really belonged to the states and furthered that ever increasing bloat of the federal government in size and scope. Our founding fathers were very much against a large and ever powerful central government, they believed that most issues should be decided at the state and local level. This ruling is a step further from those ideals that served this country well for so long.


1967 Loving V Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

I told you man that dang ol' dude be playing for the dang ol' other team man.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> How does that cost you money?


 Holy cow dude! Head out of sand please!

I have talked to gays at work who used to rack their brains when they or their lovers were dying with AIDS as to how to get money for medical care, hospice care, physical therapy, medications, home care, occupational therapy, domestic help, and even money for food and bills as they could not get insurance or had been dropped and were having trouble working.

They were sometimes full of animosity as they told me all this and wanted all those disgusting lucky "breeders" to pay their huge bills for them. To me they sounded jealous that they weren't straight and that their chronic voluntary participation in dangerous sex practices like anal intercourse had given them their condition. They wanted more than anything to be able to be included on their partners insurance plans.

Now, the Abomination and his socialized medicine plan have given it to them and continue to subsidize the side effects of sodomy. And guess who is paying the bill. Several on this site have said, "Oh you guys are so silly. It's only 1% of the population". Well, so the 99% of us are paying! A lot. In increased insurance premiums.

Wake up, Its costing YOU.


----------



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

Why isn't there discussion about their vote to keep 19 abortion clinics in Texas open? I know, it's their right.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

The very purpose was to cut off the arguments along the lines of - Oh, its not listed in the Bill of Rights, so therefore its not a right. 

Loving v. VA, unanimous Court: 

'Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State....

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.'

Where is the legitimate and compelling state interest to prohibit gay marriage? "I'm offended, my bible tells me so, its just wrong, its sin in my eyes, young kids could catch the gay" and the like do not rise to the level of a legitimate and compelling state interest.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

txjustin said:


> 1967 Loving V Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right.


That case didn't redefine marriage or take away a state's right to do so. That case was an equal protection case because one man wanted to marry one woman, they just happened to be of different races. Don't believe me, see Baker v. Nelson, which SCOTUS dismissed because of want of Federal Question, they should have done the same thing with this one.

I can see how the argument could be made that it would apply here but it doesn't really. There really were civil rights being violated in that case, there weren't in this one. Brown v. Buhman will be the next marriage related case to come up and because of the ruling they made this time, if they're going to be consistent, they're going to have to hear it and they'll have to rule in favor of Brown. But again, it's an issue that should be left to the state electorate to decide, and that opinion is supported historically and legally. It just happens to be contrary to the way the ruling came down.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Ernest said:


> 9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> The very purpose was to cut off the arguments along the lines of - Oh, its not listed in the Bill of Rights, so therefore its not a right.
> 
> ...


Thats great Ernest. If the definition can be changed from "one man and one woman" to "two people" why not go to "two individuals". Then the lawyer types can say that anything is an individual and you guys really can marry your cat, dog, or goat.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

txjustin said:


> 1967 Loving V Virginia found marriage to be a fundamental right.


The best thing about standing with Rand is you don't ever have to worry about being trampled by the crowd.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

Ken Paxon says county clerks can opt out of issuing same sex marriage licenses if they are religiously opposed and as expected some are refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses.

But what if a county clerk is against divorce based on their religious beliefs?
Should they be able to opt out of issuing a divorce decree?

What if an Academy employee is a Hindu, a vegetarian, and is against killing animals? Should they get a pass on issuing hunting licenses, based on their religious beliefs? 

Does everyone get to judge if someone meets their religious standards, before service is offered?

Where does religious countenance end, when it comes to simply doing your job?


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

spuds said:


> Ken Paxon says county clerks can opt out of issuing same sex marriage licenses if they are religiously opposed and as expected some are refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses.
> 
> But what if a county clerk is against divorce based on their religious beliefs?
> Should they be able to opt out of issuing a divorce decree?
> ...


I think Ken Paxon is wrong also. Some poor County Clerk is going to end up in a heap of trouble over it if they follow his advice. The office of County Clerk is a governmental entity, not a person, they aren't allowed to make decisions based on personal beliefs, they need to make them based on the law. As much as I disagree with the ruling, if I was a County Clerk, I'd issue the license unless the legislature or courts told me otherwise.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

pknight6 said:


> The best thing about standing with Rand is you don't ever have to worry about being trampled by the crowd.


What does that have to do with the FACT that I posted?


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*Oh my*



On Time Too said:


> Holy cow dude! Head out of sand please!
> 
> I have talked to gays at work who used to rack their brains when they or their lovers were dying with AIDS as to how to get money for medical care, hospice care, physical therapy, medications, home care, occupational therapy, domestic help, and even money for food and bills as they could not get insurance or had been dropped and were having trouble working.
> 
> ...


I suggest you print the above out and show it to your minister or priest. You need counseling and deprogramming so you can return to the loving, caring person you no doubt used to be.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> Holy cow dude! Head out of sand please!
> 
> I have talked to gays at work who used to rack their brains when they or their lovers were dying with AIDS as to how to get money for medical care, hospice care, physical therapy, medications, home care, occupational therapy, domestic help, and even money for food and bills as they could not get insurance or had been dropped and were having trouble working.
> 
> ...


To summarize, you are saying gay people didn't have insurance before gay marriage?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

You don't get to answer the question with a diversion/deflection. Drrr. 

Where is the compelling, legitimate state interest to deny a man his fundamental right to marry based solely upon the gender of his spouse? To regulate in this area, the state must be able to articulate a compelling, legitimate interest. Hypotheticals about marrying goats is a failure of epic proportions in articulating a compelling legitimate state interest. 

Big picture, this is what is the cause of much of the angst here. The media - be it on the left or the right - fails to do much more than air emotion. They rarely, if ever, focus on the critical questions. Thus, people are erroneous left to believe that the emotion or "my bible tells me so" has any role in this discussion.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

The Trinity County Clerk has the best plan for gay marriage license. She met with her staff and took a poll of who is and who isn't offended. Then she has set up an appointment system for applicants. She will have an assistant clerk that has no objection met and issue the license.


----------



## davis300 (Jun 27, 2006)

Category5 said:


> Everybody knows gays don't work or do anything productive right? I mean dang they probably only get by stealing yeti's and whatnot. Being gay makes you a demon automatically, let's all gather on Montrose later and bring a pile of rocks so we can stone us a bunch of dang ol' gays! WOOOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!!! Hates me some gays!!!!!!!!


Count me in..where we meeting! I'll bring my sling shot and potato gun as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Johnboat said:


> I suggest you print the above out and show it to your minister or priest. You need counseling and deprogramming so you can return to the loving, caring person you no doubt used to be.


I have no problems with empathy. We should take care of the current victims then ENCOURAGE CHANGES in behaviors that transmit AIDS and the other numerous sexually transmitted diseases and consequences the homosexuals get but don't want the rest of us to know about. Like: Anal gonorrhea, anal warts, anal syphilis, condyloma accuminata. Anal sphincter incompetence and leakage. Gonorrhea and syphilis are referred to as "epidemic" in the gays own health literature:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pen...-we-re-seeing-epidemic-syphilis-among-gay-men

But you have a big problem with reality. If your boat had a hole in it and developed leaks because you were hammering nails into the bottom by your logic you would scream and for the rest to pay for better boat bottom materials that don't leak as bad even though they were much more expensive so you could continue to hammer nails because, well, you just love to do it. Even though by choice you could stop doing the behavior that causes the leaks. Anytime.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*He is also saying*



txjustin said:


> To summarize, you are saying gay people didn't have insurance before gay marriage?


He is also saying gay people deserve AIDS....in a thread about them being able to marry to one other person. Without the constraints of marriage the heterosexual population would have way more STDs. Marriage and monogamy is healthier for straights and should be for gays too.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Ernest said:


> You don't get to answer the question with a diversion/deflection. Drrr.
> 
> Where is the compelling, legitimate state interest to deny a man his fundamental right to marry based solely upon the gender of his spouse? .....





Ernest said:


> .....
> Loving v. VA, unanimous Court:
> 
> "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...."


Gay marriage isn't "fundamental to our existence and survival". How does Loving apply? This ruling has been used in conjunction with gay marriage over and over but there is a HUGE fundamental difference between the two. I am past the argument on the topic, but gay marriage and interracial heterosexual marriage really have nothing in common for arguments sake, imo. SCOTUS obviously disagrees.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> To summarize, you are saying gay people didn't have insurance before gay marriage?


No the net effect is further legitimizing a dangerous behavior that is very expensive. And if the "quest for normalcy" proceeds as planned, all the consequences of gay behavior will be on your tab.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*You make no sense*



On Time Too said:


> No the net effect is further legitimizing a dangerous behavior that is very expensive. And if the "quest for normalcy" proceeds as planned, all the consequences of gay behavior will be on your tab.


Marriage (monogamy) constrains sexual behavior. It does for straights. It will for gays. The cost of STD health problems goes down with more marriages. Not completely eliminated because of infidelity but there is no reason I know that gays will cheat more than straights.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Loving applies because it determined that marriage is a fundamental right. 

Once it is a fundamental right, then the state needs a compelling, legitimate interest to deny that right to some people. The state does not get to argue that - for these people, these specific people here, they don't need or enjoy this fundamental right. Instead, the state must articulate a compelling and legitimate state interest in denying that right to people or groups of people. 

Same as, the state does not get to argue that Ernesto has no fundamental right to keep arms because he lives in a low crime area, has a great security system, and has a private security service watching over him. 

Same as, the state can't deny an infertile man or woman the right to marry simply because they can't reproduce and we all know that a person can live without marriage.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> No the net effect is further legitimizing a dangerous behavior that is very expensive. And if the "quest for normalcy" proceeds as planned, all the consequences of gay behavior will be on your tab.


So gay people weren't having buttsex and they didn't have insurance before gay marriage?

Got it, thanks.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Ernest said:


> Loving applies because it determined that marriage is a fundamental right.
> 
> Once it is a fundamental right, then the state needs a compelling, legitimate interest to deny that right to some people. The state does not get to argue that - for these people, these specific people here, they don't need or enjoy this fundamental right. Instead, the state must articulate a compelling and legitimate state interest in denying that right to people or groups of people.
> 
> ...


Loving doesn't say marriage is a fundamental right. It says, "marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival" and race plays no part. How is gay marriage fundamental to our existence and survival?


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*Libertarians and same sex marriage*

TXJ you might find this interesting. Not trolling you but sincerely think this is a thoughtful article.
http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/28/libertarian-case-for-same-sex-marriage


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Spirit said:


> Loving doesn't say marriage is a fundamental right. It says, "marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival" and race plays no part. How is gay marriage fundamental to our existence and survival?


It says it is a "basic civil rights of man,"


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

Spirit said:


> Loving doesn't say marriage is a fundamental right. It says, "marriage is fundamental to our very existence and survival" and race plays no part. How is gay marriage fundamental to our existence and survival?


So, without marriage, man would cease to procreate and become extinct?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> So gay people weren't having buttsex and they didn't have insurance before gay marriage?
> 
> Got it, thanks.


You're not listening. Insurance companies used to have more leeway to drop or not insure people with gay related health issues. The quest for normalcy required the passing of gay marriage to give them less reasons for this.

First and foremost, the gay lifestyle is promiscuous. By its very definition the whole thing is about sex. Most have numerous partners in a lifetime in the HUNDREDS. One guy at work told me he had 40 sex partners in one week as it was common for gays to rent entire floors of hotels in places like Acapulco, New York, Denver, San Francisco, Austin, Atlanta, etc where they could have non stop 24 hr orgies. This behavior began to be discouraged as the AIDS epidemic took hold but it still occurs. If any of you have any good gay friends, which I do, just ask them and if they are honest they will tell you.

This is not about hate. This is about love and caring. When the heroin or crack addict pleads for another fix we try to get them help for the addiction, not raise taxes to buy them more drugs and housing and medical care for the problems of drug addiction so they can just keep on using and using and recruiting others and TV shows promoting the lifestyle and advertising it to the kids as "Just a choice" etc.

Homosexual marriage is another step toward dividing up our basic values and changing the recipe that resulted in America.

Like baking a cake certain ingredients are used and baked at a certain time and temperature to get a good result. Now if you double the sugar, half the salt, increase the temperature, double the cooking time,etc, you will CHANGE THE FINISHED PRODUCT.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> You're not listening. Insurance companies used to have more leeway to drop or not insure people with gay related health issues. The quest for normalcy required the passing of gay marriage to give them less reasons for this.
> 
> Not sure if you missed it, but Obamacare deters the above.
> 
> ...


So now you're equating gay people to drug addicts?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> So now you're equating gay people to drug addicts?


I'm beginning to think you are an anarchist. Do you only believe in rights? What does a good Paulbot believe about social responsibility?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

You guys are confusing the Loving Court's use of the term fundamental with the short hand phrase "fundamental right." 

Fundamental rights include the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, including the right not to have troops quartered in your home. Clearly, a right that is in no way essential for survival/existence. 

A fundamental right means an important right which imposes upon the government certain requirements before the right can be limited/infringed. Included in these fundamental rights are interstate/intrastate travel, privacy, the right to parent your own children, and marriage. If a state desires to restrict these rights, they are subject to strict scrutiny. Meaning, in short hand, the state has to show a legitimate and compelling state interest to restrict or infringe upon the right. 

At no time does one have to show a right is "essential for survival or existence" in order for something to be a fundamental right. Lets take parenting your own children. Clearly, children can be raised via adoption or even in state homes. Parenting your own children is in no way essential to survival/existence, and the Constitution says nothing about parental rights. Nevertheless, I think we would all agree that the state needs to have a very good reason to snatch your kids from you and give them over to strangers. 

In other words, some are not understanding the basic terms here. Thus, their arguments/questions make no sense.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

The majority of American's opinion on this subject has evolved. A year from now,when people realize that the ruling has had zero affect on their life, an even larger majority will Ok with it. because overall Americans are a live and let live people. The, you are gay, you can't have the same rights as me crowd is on the wrong side of history.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

txjustin said:


> So now you're equating gay people to drug addicts?


What they do has to be awfully painful , drugs would numb their bum wouldn't you think? Or is pain part of it Justin?


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> I'm beginning to think you are an anarchist. Do you only believe in rights? What does a good Paulbot believe about social responsibility?


Can always count on ad hominem attacks. Well done.

Not an anarchist. Just not a big government statist.

What social responsibilities are you referring?


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

ole blueduck said:


> What they do has to be awfully painful , drugs would numb their bum wouldn't you think? Or is pain part of it Justin?


Don't have a clue. Not gay and never had anything in my bunghole.

Out of curiosity, have you never heard of women enjoying some buttsex from their hetero partner? Or are you strictly the missionary position type?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

txjustin said:


> Can always count on ad hominem attacks. Well done.
> 
> Not an anarchist. Just not a big government statist.
> 
> What social responsibilities are you referring?


 Not ad hom at all. Just wondering what the libertarian view is toward social responsibility or is it always and only about rights.


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

It would be criminal to not give Archie the floor for 2 minutes.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> Not ad hom at all. Just wondering what the libertarian view is toward social responsibility or is it always and only about rights.


Again, what social responsibilities are you referring?


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

On Time Too said:


> You're not listening. Insurance companies used to have more leeway to drop or not insure people with gay related health issues. The quest for normalcy required the passing of gay marriage to give them less reasons for this.
> 
> First and foremost, the gay lifestyle is promiscuous. By its very definition the whole thing is about sex. Most have numerous partners in a lifetime in the HUNDREDS. One guy at work told me he had 40 sex partners in one week as it was common for gays to rent entire floors of hotels in places like Acapulco, New York, Denver, San Francisco, Austin, Atlanta, etc where they could have non stop 24 hr orgies. This behavior began to be discouraged as the AIDS epidemic took hold but it still occurs. If any of you have any good gay friends, which I do, just ask them and if they are honest they will tell you.
> 
> ...


Dude, I don't even know whether to bother with you anymore, but you need to get your head out of your you know what.

Gay relationships are only about sex? What the hell gives you the right to say something like that. How is that, "by definition", what homosexual relationships are? Wouldn't that imply that heterosexual relationships are equally about sex? Who are you to say that a homosexual relationship cannot be based on love just like any other relationship.

You are a complete sensationalist. You don't think straight people have orgies? You don't think swingers exist by the millions? I've had multiple sexual partners, just like most straight people. You actually think its common for gay men to have hundreds of different partners in a week? If that's the case, then they must possess some superhuman sexual ability. I can't believe you actually believe that ****, not that I actually believe you have ever actually talked to any gay person about any gay matter in your life.

Make no mistake, this is about hate. You are full of hatred, but you're blinded by your belief that you are some enlightened representative of God. Don't try to mask it by saying that you are denying a gay couple the right to be married out of love.

By the way, you don't unwanted pregnancies don't cost taxpayers way more than gay couples? You think someone having 15 kids by the time they are 40 costs more than the healthcare we give to gay people?

All I can say, is that I am glad my generation is able to be more open hearted and loving to people of all different orientations. I can't wait until your kind go by the wayside.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

txjustin said:


> Don't have a clue. Not gay and never had anything in my bunghole.
> 
> Out of curiosity, have you never heard of women enjoying some buttsex from their hetero partner? Or are you strictly the missionary position type?


I've had sex with hundreds of women in every position. However, there are places a man should not venture.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Main Frame 8 said:


> It would be criminal to not give Archie the floor for 2 minutes.


Well, if you can post that...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/14/gitmo-detainees-routinely-throw-feces-urine-and-sperm-at-guards/


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

rugger said:


> Dude, I don't even know whether to bother with you anymore, but you need to get your head out of your you know what.
> 
> Gay relationships are only about sex? What the hell gives you the right to say something like that. How is that, "by definition", what homosexual relationships are? Wouldn't that imply that heterosexual relationships are equally about sex? Who are you to say that a homosexual relationship cannot be based on love just like any other relationship.
> 
> ...


Rugger: "All I can say, is that I am glad my generation is able to be more open hearted and loving to people of all different orientations. I can't wait until your kind go by the wayside" 

I would counsel the obviously inexperienced about their hateful nature! You're really going to hurt your self if you allow all that ill will to foment inside you. Be careful what you say, as left wing radicals historically use hatespeech towards those they disagree with while calling it free speech and attempt to restrict free speech of others by calling it hate speech.

You remind me of the sign in the Salt Grass restaurant:


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

ole blueduck said:


> I've had sex with hundreds of women in every position. However, there are places a man should not venture.


Ole Blueduck is a player. 100's and never, ever went south with any of those ladies?


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

rugger said:


> Dude, I don't even know whether to bother with you anymore, but you need to get your head out of your you know what.
> 
> Gay relationships are only about sex? What the hell gives you the right to say something like that. How is that, "by definition", what homosexual relationships are? Wouldn't that imply that heterosexual relationships are equally about sex? Who are you to say that a homosexual relationship cannot be based on love just like any other relationship.
> 
> ...


Good post. The older guys on here that can't wrap their mind around people being gay are actually in the vocal minority. Most Americans "get it". Some are just obsessed with the subject matter. We all know there are theories about that as well.


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

poppadawg said:


> Ole Blueduck is a player. 100's and never, ever went south with any of those ladies?


I grew up in the 70's, you didn't have to be a player , just had to have a bag of weed and a pulse. Never been down south an I aint going back.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I was trying to get to the point of the county clerk being the same on that issues marriage licenses and voter registrations (a license to vote). I deal with getting permission to do things (technically, a mechanical or electrical permit, a subset of a building permit) hundreds of times monthly. My argument wasn't about anything moral, only legal. Legally, if someone turned me down for a permit because they thought I was gay, I would own them. All a marriage license is, is legal permission to get married. It's now legal for same sex marriages, yet we have Ken Paxon saying clerks have to be OK with something personally to approve it legally. He's wrong.


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

Mont said:


> I was trying to get to the point of the county clerk being the same on that issues marriage licenses and voter registrations (a license to vote). I deal with getting permission to do things (technically, a mechanical or electrical permit, a subset of a building permit) hundreds of times monthly. My argument wasn't about anything moral, only legal. Legally, if someone turned me down for a permit because they thought I was gay, I would own them. All a marriage license is, is legal permission to get married. It's now legal for same sex marriages, yet we have Ken Paxon saying clerks have to be OK with something personally to approve it legally. He's wrong*.*


Ah, I misunderstood. In that case, I agree with you.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

ole blueduck said:


> I grew up in the 70's, you didn't have to be a player , just had to have a bag of weed and a pulse. Never been down south an I aint going back.


Wait wait wait, I thought the moral fabric of this country was just now falling apart?

That being said, I wish I grew up in the 70s...


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

bg said:


> Ah, I misunderstood. In that case, I agree with you.


LOL, with all the people going to "hell" over this, it's going to be good to be in the a/c biz. I didn't get married in a church, by a church and don't go to church. But, I did get a marriage license down at the county courthouse.


----------



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

*I'll see your Archie and raise you one Joe*



Main Frame 8 said:


> It would be criminal to not give Archie the floor for 2 minutes.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

rugger said:


> Wait wait wait, I thought the moral fabric of this country was just now falling apart?
> 
> That being said, I wish I grew up in the 70s...


No "game". 
:ac550:


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

rugger said:


> Wait wait wait, I thought the moral fabric of this country was just now falling apart?
> 
> That being said, I wish I grew up in the 70s...


Yep, you missed out son,you have to check for adams apples. he he.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Mont said:


> LOL, with all the people going to "hell" over this, it's going to be good to be in the a/c biz. I didn't get married in a church, by a church and don't go to church. But, I did get a marriage license down at the county courthouse.


 And stayed at a Holiday Inn Express?


----------



## Mick R. (Apr 21, 2011)

ChuChu said:


> The Trinity County Clerk has the best plan for gay marriage license. She met with her staff and took a poll of who is and who isn't offended. Then she has set up an appointment system for applicants. She will have an assistant clerk that has no objection met and issue the license.


 Wow, a county clerk using a little common sense - who'd a thunk it?.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

What's the difference between that clerk and the pro-life doctors and nurses that don't have to perform any abortions?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The clerks are providing a state, ministerial function. The state has no discretion to refuse to issue a license if the people otherwise qualify. Mont's example. 

Ordinarily, a doctor is a private party providing a service requiring professional judgment. They have far more leeway in what they can do or refuse to do. They are not generally mandated by law to provide any service.

But, even with the clerks, if a county employee feels uncomfortable processing the license, most (if not all) counties will provide another clerk to process the license. The gay people still get their marriage license.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Chuck06R1 said:


> So, without marriage, man would cease to procreate and become extinct?


Don't ask me, SCOTUS wrote those words, ask them.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

KeeperTX said:


> What's the difference between that clerk and the pro-life doctors and nurses that don't have to perform any abortions?


One is a piece of paper the other is a murder and dismemberment.


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

KeeperTX said:


> What's the difference between that clerk and the pro-life doctors and nurses that don't have to perform any abortions?


Pro-lifers generally don't work at abortion clinics.


----------



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

And the court doesn't see any difference in the two....



On Time Too said:


> One is a piece of paper the other is a murder and dismemberment.


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

Read the summary below the text of the 10th. I took this pic from my World Book encyclopedia circa 1982. What changed and when did it change?


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> One is a piece of paper the other is a murder and dismemberment.


I would say at least 50% of the kids I see these days should have been aborted, so we just need to find a way to make sure the correct 50% get murdered and dismembered and then we'll all be better off.


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Category5 said:


> I would say at least 50% of the kids I see these days should have been aborted, so we just need to find a way to make sure the correct 50% get murdered and dismembered and then we'll all be better off.


Wow. Now I understand all your previous posts.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Category5 said:


> I would say at least 50% of the kids I see these days should have been aborted, so we just need to find a way to make sure the correct 50% get murdered and dismembered and then we'll all be better off.


I truly hope this is just a sick joke. If not that is very sad. Most of the time it is not the kids fault. They don't get to pick and choose their parents.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*What changed and when did it change?*

The 14th Amendment. It was after the War of Northern Aggression.

If the War of Northern Aggression was about state's rights, and the South lost, I'm not understanding why folks keep talking about state's rights. Unless the War of Northern Aggression was about just the state's right to continue slavery. And nothing else except slavery.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

This is all way to complicated...

If two guys get married which one is gonna make the sammich?

Not here the really bad part...if two women get married they, are gonna have a bunch of sammichs with nobody to eat them. Now, that is a waste of a good sammich!


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

Lagunaroy said:


> This is all way to complicated...
> 
> If two guys get married which one is gonna make the sammich?
> 
> Not here the really bad part...if two women get married they, are gonna have a bunch of sammichs with nobody to eat them. Now, that is a waste of a good sammich!


Or they'll both be stuck in the kitchen all day.


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

Ernest said:


> *What changed and when did it change?*
> 
> The 14th Amendment. It was after the War of Northern Aggression.
> 
> If the War of Northern Aggression was about state's rights, and the South lost, I'm not understanding why folks keep talking about state's rights. Unless the War of Northern Aggression was about just the state's right to continue slavery. And nothing else except slavery.


Its right there in the 14th amendment; same sex marriage is a right! And for nearly 150 years no one ever noticed.

Did we lose our 10th amendment protections after the war?


----------



## KeeperTX (Jul 8, 2013)

Chuck06R1 said:


> Or they'll both be stuck in the kitchen all day.


But not barefoot and pregnant.


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Chuck06R1 said:


> Or they'll both be stuck in the kitchen all day.


At least with us dumb old backward heteros I can tell the difference in the shower between me and my wife's shaver


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

Lagunaroy said:


> This is all way to complicated...
> 
> If two guys get married which one is gonna make the sammich?
> 
> Not here the really bad part...if two women get married they, are gonna have a bunch of sammichs with nobody to eat them. Now, that is a waste of a good sammich!


These are important questions. Like which side of the isle does the groom 's family set or are they both grooms? Who carries who across the threshold? I must say if one is a virgin ,consummating the marriage must be difficult. Does the groom just turn over and go to sleep after while the other groom wants to cuddle?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No, but the war also did not change the 9th. The 14th made the 9th applicable to the states. In summary, the states could not deny me a fundamental right without a legitimate and compelling state interest. 

We are going around in circles here. 

All the while, where is the compelling and legitimate state interest in deny marriage based upon gender? Not crazy stories you heard at work or some negative stereotype you desire to promote. But a legitimate and compelling state interest.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

On Time Too said:


> At least with us dumb old backward heteros I can tell the difference in the shower between me and my wife's shaver


Now I am really confused...who was shaving your wife?


----------



## Chuck06R1 (Apr 7, 2015)

KeeperTX said:


> But not barefoot and pregnant.


Well, barefoot is possible. The other would be a tad more difficult and expensive.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

shaggydog said:


> I truly hope this is just a sick joke. If not that is very sad. Most of the time it is not the kids fault. They don't get to pick and choose their parents.


Most of them ARE dang ol' parents. It's sick but it's not a joke. All them dang ol' gays shouldn't have been aborted since they aren't making more dang ol' burdens to our healthcare system and clogging up our prisons and running our dang ol' country, so at least we got that straight (pun!). I say abort around 50-60% of them dang ol' non-gays causing all the trouble. Just got to figure out how to tell which 50-60% to vacuum and we'll be dang ol' perfect.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Category5 said:


> Most of them ARE dang ol' parents. It's sick but it's not a joke. All them dang ol' gays shouldn't have been aborted since they aren't making more dang ol' burdens to our healthcare system and clogging up our prisons and running our dang ol' country, so at least we got that straight (pun!). I say abort around 50-60% of them dang ol' non-gays causing all the trouble. Just got to figure out how to tell which 50-60% to vacuum and we'll be dang ol' perfect.


You seem to have a lot of hate in you. I feel sorry for you. I would not like to see anyone killed, in the womb or out. My problem with a union between gays, is calling it a marriage. That should fly in the face of any person that claims to be a Christian. And anyone that wishes death on another, should never call themselves Christian.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

shaggydog said:


> You seem to have a lot of hate in you. I feel sorry for you. I would not like to see anyone killed, in the womb or out. My problem with a union between gays, is calling it a marriage. That should fly in the face of any person that claims to be a Christian. And anyone that wishes death on another, should never call themselves Christian.


What's your stance on the death penalty? I'm all for it myself, but I see a lot of hypocrites that pick and choose who they wish death upon. I didn't start this topic, and let's just end it here, but seriously what's your position on capital punishment?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

shaggydog said:


> My problem with a union between gays, is calling it a marriage. That should fly in the face of any person that claims to be a Christian. And anyone that wishes death on another, should never call themselves Christian.


Well said. The left always tries to make a comedy of traditional thinking. The Archie Bunker thing. But when you show them facts that homosexual sex results in all manner of disgusting anal disease not the least of which is incompetent (leaky) sphincter, they just ignore you...and start talking about "Rights".

Cat 5: All them dang ol' gays shouldn't have been aborted since they *aren't* making more dang ol' burdens to our healthcare system...

HUH?????

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/cdc-official-we-re-seeing-epidemic-syphilis-among-gay-men


----------



## ole blueduck (Dec 6, 2013)

Category5 said:


> Most of them ARE dang ol' parents. It's sick but it's not a joke. All them dang ol' gays shouldn't have been aborted since they aren't making more dang ol' burdens to our healthcare system and clogging up our prisons and running our dang ol' country, so at least we got that straight (pun!). I say abort around 50-60% of them dang ol' non-gays causing all the trouble. Just got to figure out how to tell which 50-60% to vacuum and we'll be dang ol' perfect.


Most gays are parents because they weren't gay until they were introduced to the lifestyle.There goes the born queer thinking.Dang ol' boy be catching fir them dang ol' queers.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> Well said. The left always tries to make a comedy of traditional thinking. The Archie Bunker thing. But when you show them facts that homosexual sex results in all manner of disgusting anal disease not the least of which is incompetent (leaky) sphincter, they just ignore you...and start talking about "Rights".
> 
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pen...-we-re-seeing-epidemic-syphilis-among-gay-men


you might want to back off of a few things, not the least of which is tossing around the term incompetent (leaky) sphincter. I'm guessing it's costing you more than it's gaining you!


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

ole blueduck said:


> Most gays are parents because they weren't gay until they were introduced to the lifestyle.There goes the born queer thinking.Dang ol' boy be catching fir them dang ol' queers.


 http://www.nambla.org/


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

ole blueduck said:


> Most gays are parents because they weren't gay until they were introduced to the lifestyle.There goes the born queer thinking.Dang ol' boy be catching fir them dang ol' queers.


You don't read so dang ol' good huh? I was commenting about aborting fetuses, not anything to do with gays, but we've dropped that fetus topic. It's 100% gay now so post away!


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

On Time Too said:


> Well said. The left always tries to make a comedy of traditional thinking. The Archie Bunker thing. But when you show them facts that homosexual sex results in all manner of disgusting anal disease not the least of which is incompetent (leaky) sphincter, they just ignore you...and start talking about "Rights".
> 
> Cat 5: All them dang ol' gays shouldn't have been aborted since they *aren't* making more dang ol' burdens to our healthcare system...
> 
> ...


Having kids...try to follow along.


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

Where does the gov get the authority to redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years? No one has been denied the right to marry. A gay guy or woman has never been deprived the right to marry. Anyone can get married. But marriage has always, and should soon again, be between One man and One woman. Period.

If the argument was that a gay guy was denied the right to marry a woman, then i would agree that someone has been deprived of their rights. But the issue is not about gays being deprived of any right. 

The issue has been about REDEFINING a word that has meaning.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

txbred said:


> Where does the gov get the authority to redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years? No one has been denied the right to marry. A gay guy or woman has never been deprived the right to marry. Anyone can get married. But marriage has always, and should soon again, be between One man and One woman. Period.
> 
> If the argument was that a gay guy was denied the right to marry a woman, then i would agree that someone has been deprived of their rights. But the issue is not about gays being deprived of any right.
> 
> The issue has been about REDEFINING a word that has meaning.


The DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in 2013.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

txbred said:


> Where does the gov get the authority to redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years? No one has been denied the right to marry. A gay guy or woman has never been deprived the right to marry. Anyone can get married. But marriage has always, and should soon again, be between One man and One woman. Period.
> 
> If the argument was that a gay guy was denied the right to marry a woman, then i would agree that someone has been deprived of their rights. But the issue is not about gays being deprived of any right.
> 
> The issue has been about REDEFINING a word that has meaning.


It's about the right to receive employee benefits, you do know that right? The emotional, visceral reactions may be all about religion but the real issue is all about money just like everything else. Fighting over money is not very Christian is it?


----------



## On Time Too (Dec 2, 2014)

Category5 said:


> It's about the right to receive employee benefits, you do know that right? The emotional, visceral reactions may be all about religion but the real issue is all about money just like everything else.


 And healthcare benefits. You have hit the target.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Category5 said:


> you might want to back off of a few things, not the least of which is tossing around the term incompetent (leaky) sphincter. I'm guessing it's costing you more than it's gaining you!


Thanks for the repost of that link! OTT has it right, so does Ma Nature, she is bringing her karma. Just like Wyatt


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

The Scotus gives opinions on such matters as the people allow. They arent really usurping powers, we're just to ignorant to know where the divided powers shall lie these days. And they are all too happy to be given even more. right, wrong, or indifferent, this is the incremental-ism that has gotten us to where we are today.

Heck some people think the 2nd amendment GIVES us the right to own arms. It gives nothing, but rather affirms a God given right to self defense. this is an unalienable right.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

***** Estas?*

You can't make it up...

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/06/30/chipotle-honors-gays-with-****-estas-burritos/


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*But marriage has always, and should soon again, be between One man and One woman. Period.*

Except in the Bible. There, it was one man and as many wives as he could support. Even good 'ol Martin Luther stated in writing that there was nothing in the Bible prohibiting polygamy.

Where do some now get the authority to restrict me to just one wife? Do they know more than God and Martin Luther?


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Ernest said:


> Where do some now get the authority to restrict me to just one wife? Do they know more than God and Martin Luther?


That would be Mrs Ernest. And yes, she does


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Cousin Delroy is getting married....to a man, which is crazy! I'm done with this topic, I believe I've made my stance known and I'm definitely not changing anyone's mind so there is no point in arguing it further. I'm honestly sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*That would be Mrs Ernest. And yes, she does*

No, the Warden is very clear on this. If she can cook, clean, keep house, do laundry and has the strength of will to control the dog, bring her into the deal. She said to me just the other day - I need a wife to do all this housework.

Now, its not all wine and roses mind you. I'm sure the Warden would only approve of some sort of hunchbacked, unshaved, beast of a wife. And, she would not get to go out with us on date night or even live in the big house.


----------



## txbred (May 13, 2013)

Ernest said:


> *But marriage has always, and should soon again, be between One man and One woman. Period.*
> 
> Except in the Bible. There, it was one man and as many wives as he could support. Even good 'ol Martin Luther stated in writing that there was nothing in the Bible prohibiting polygamy.
> 
> Where do some now get the authority to restrict me to just one wife? Do they know more than God and Martin Luther?


Well i read the Bible too. 1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Lagunaroy said:


> You can't make it up...
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/06/30/chipotle-honors-gays-with-****-estas-burritos/


I don't even care if the above is fake, it is hilarious!!!

__________________________________________

Things I see assumed in this thread overall:

That we white conservatives are in majority. Did it ever occur to some that maybe we aren't? If so, then we are too lazy or stupid to vote.

That health insurance was previously able to deny gays because of some fundamental moral and ethical reason. Insurance companies are for profit businesses. If they can figure ANY way to not pay you, they won't pay you. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. Only laws and insurance regulations mean they must pay your claims.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I don't even care if the above is fake, it is hilarious!!!
> 
> __________________________________________
> 
> ...


I always get two sources on a link.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chipotle-****-ests-promotions-2015-6


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Whitebassfisher said:


> I don't even care if the above is fake, it is hilarious!!!
> 
> __________________________________________
> 
> ...


It's the women that we vote with FYI. When we go vote they go vote and the end result is we cancel each other out. They tell you one thing and do another in the privacy of a voting booth.


----------



## POC (Aug 25, 2005)

Can I marry my gay cousin now? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bg (May 21, 2004)

POC said:


> Can I marry my gay cousin now?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It depends on the state and whether said cousin is a 1st cousin or further removed.

In Texas, the answer would be no so I think you should sue and take it to the Supreme Court. You're being denied equal protection of you're preference.

Here's a handy little list on what states allow 1st cousin marriages. Surprisingly, most of them are not in the South...

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

POC said:


> Can I marry my gay cousin now?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


no


----------

