Page 31 of 38 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 373

Thread: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Showdow

  1. #301
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Like Jefferson who ripped all the supernatural stuff out of the bible and had a habit of boinking his slaves or maybe Ben Franklin who had a habit of visiting houses of ill repute.
    You guys always pull out the Jefferson card. So predictable

    Jefferson did not sign The Constitution. 55 other men signed The Constitution. 51 of them took a sworn and solemn oath that The Bible was the word of God. That Jesus Christ was the son of God and that only through him could one find eternal salvation. Many were ministers, preachers, ect. In other words they didn't need to specifically write about gay sex and gay marriage at the time to know what they thought of it. It's a given.

    You do these highly intelligent well read multi dimensional people a disservice and disrespect attempting to paint them in your one dimensional image.
    No actually The Founders did not approve of homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle. The concept of gay marriage would have been repulsive to them.

    I bet more than one was gay.
    Yea right. Sure. Lincoln took it up the butt too right?

  2. #302
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    You guys always pull out the Jefferson card. So predictable

    Jefferson did not sign The Constitution. 55 other men signed The Constitution. 51 of them took a sworn and solemn oath that The Bible was the word of God. That Jesus Christ was the son of God and that only through him could one find eternal salvation. Many were ministers, preachers, ect. In other words they didn't need to specifically write about gay sex and gay marriage at the time to know what they thought of it. It's a given.



    No actually The Founders did not approve of homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle. The concept of gay marriage would have been repulsive to them.



    Yea right. Sure. Lincoln took it up the butt too right?
    Wow you pull out the Bible thumping non-sense how predictable

  3. #303
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    [QUOTE=Bronson;10623236531.)Of course it matters

    2.)This has nothing to do with "equal rights".
    3.) If it's about equal rights, then every deviant sex group should get to marry too.
    4.) Group Marriage and Polygamy should be legal in all 50 states.
    5.) If we're going to trivialize marriage and make it about the feelings of people who put things in dirty holes, then no limits should be set.

    If you don't agree with what I'm adding to the conversation and if you don't like it, you're welcome to stop responding to my posts at any time.[/QUOTE]

    1.) no it factually doesnt because its not the late 1700s. what they thought is meaningless
    what did they think about slavery, womens rights, incest, internet? who cares
    its 100% factually meaningless to the issue at hand

    2.) 100% false. Law, facts, courts and precedence already disagree with you and prove you wrong

    3.) false because that's not what equal rights is, again facts disagree with you. try to educate yourself on this mater.

    4.) if you FEEL this way, thats fine by me, fight for that new right but it will have nothing to do with equal rights for gays, this fact as been clearly established already

    5.) well we factually arent doing that so let me know when that factually happens and we'll talk about

    let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Wow you pull out the Bible thumping non-sense how predictable
    Not at all

    I merely pointed out the truth. There were 55 Founders. 51 swore a solemn oath that The Bible was God's word. His truth. His revelation. That Jesus Christ was his son. Your refusal to look at that historical reality speaks volumes, which is why we're back at square one and why these weekly "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot" threads are becoming repetitive and boring.

  5. #305
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Not at all

    I merely pointed out the truth. There were 55 Founders. 51 swore a solemn oath that The Bible was God's word. His truth. His revelation. That Jesus Christ was his son. Your refusal to look at that historical reality speaks volumes, which is why we're back at square one and why these weekly "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot" threads are becoming repetitive and boring.

    Are getting this from Wall Builders non-sense?

  6. #306
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Not at all

    I merely pointed out the truth. There were 55 Founders. 51 swore a solemn oath that The Bible was God's word. His truth. His revelation. That Jesus Christ was his son. Your refusal to look at that historical reality speaks volumes, which is why we're back at square one and why these weekly "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot" threads are becoming repetitive and boring.
    i bet it does become boring posting lies over and over again, does your dishonest and hyperbole ever stop, this is why nobody honest and respected takes your posts seriously, nobody

    " "Gay sex and gay marriage is awesome and if you don't think so you're a bigot"
    please feel free to post more lies we can laugh at
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #307
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    Are getting this from Wall Builders non-sense?
    when SOME people have no legit and honest argument or even any logic or facts to support their positions its easier just to make stuff up than admitted.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #308
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) well they already called marriage a right 14 times and this is not very different than interracial marriage. Precedence all leads that way. IMO whats going to happen, is eventual theres going to be a national foundation established and equal rights granted to gays.

    states will still have rights to determine the minor things( just like now nothign is going to change) in marriage but they will no longer be allowed to discriminate and deny equal rights.

    2.) thats just absurd, i agree with state rights also but not when they violate other individual rights. expecting these two to just pack up and leave and live in MASS for a whole year is just wrong IMO. i see zero justification to it. no logic no rational IMO.
    3.) well they arent activists but we are going to have them(activist) anyway and its why the court system is there to determine these things. its how the system is supposed to work.
    4.) i would do this personally if it wasnt a felony , luckily these men arent breaking any laws and you know as well as i do if that wasnt a felony it would have been done by now. Probably would of had a million rifle march. I woulda went!

    also on a side note i think thats another area states are completely over stepping their bounds ESPECIALLY since its in the constitution. theres no reason why my CWP shouldn't be national like my drivers license. But fighting it is a different measure.

    5.) set? thats our history its how minorities, women, interracial marriage etc have all been done and those are just the major issues, there 1000s of little ones

    6.) theres no facts to support that just opinion.
    nobody knows what the future holds sometime marriage dont last and we have no idea why they are living in texas? job/career? business? family? death? etc etc maybe a dad dead and they are running a company business, maybe a family member is sick/disabled and they are taking care of them, hell maybe they just wanted rainbow cowboy boats. THe thing is they are free to move around in the US and if this was straight marriage it be a non-issues and thats what gives it the grounds to make it this far.
    My only issue with all of this is the fact that the Federal gov't, SCOTUS in particular, are becoming more and more the end all be all of everything. If someone doesn't agree with a law that was democratically voted on and passed, they simply sue the state. It works its way up the chain until Federal circuit courts/SCOTUS are dictating what states do. Instead, these Federal circuit courts should uphold most laws that are passed in this manner in the state. Yet another symptom of our give it to me now society. Instead, they should be putting their effort into getting politicians they don't agree with voted out of office.
    Don't get it confused, I'm cool with the Federal gov't recognizing gay marriages and giving them the same benefits (claims on taxes, etc), however, I'm not cool with every state being forced to accept gay marriage. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege that I really believe gov't should have NO hand in, no matter the sexes of the parties involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    also please note to spectators. MTP, IMO is a good poster, a respected poster. I have seen his share of playing games and giving people crab and playing with trolls but in general he speaks his opinion ADMITS when its his opinion, acknowledges mistakes and identifies facts also. Me and him dont agreee on things but its his ability to simply deal in REALITY, FACTS and OPINIONS that allows a general conversation like this above.
    I appreciate the compliments bro. I do give people crap. Usually only those dang librals though
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  9. #309
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    That doesn't say that Congress can grant powers to states.

    It says that Congress can decide the basis on which public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings can be proven and the effect thereof.

    IOW, it takes power *from* the states. It doesn't give any power to the states

    Actually what you said was:

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    The constitution requires states to recognize civil marriages performed in other states.


    I didn't say anything about "Congress can grant powers to the states."

    What I said was when Congress exercised it's Article IV Section 1 powers, they exempted States from being required to recognize Public Acts from another State. That was a power granted to Congress in the Constitution.



    >>>>

  10. #310
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    1.) My only issue with all of this is the fact that the Federal gov't, SCOTUS in particular, are becoming more and more the end all be all of everything.
    If someone doesn't agree with a law that was democratically voted on and passed, they simply sue the state.
    3.) It works its way up the chain until Federal circuit courts/SCOTUS are dictating what states do.
    4.) Instead, these Federal circuit courts should uphold most laws that are passed in this manner in the state.
    5.) Yet another symptom of our give it to me now society. Instead, they should be putting their effort into getting politicians they don't agree with voted out of office.
    6.) Don't get it confused, I'm cool with the Federal gov't recognizing gay marriages and giving them the same benefits (claims on taxes, etc),
    7.) however, I'm not cool with every state being forced to accept gay marriage. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege that I really believe gov't should have NO hand in, no matter the sexes of the parties involved.


    8.) I appreciate the compliments bro. I do give people crap. Usually only those dang librals though
    1.) well im not sure this is anything new, i think some of the hot topics get more media frenzy and crying from extremists for or against the issue
    2.) while i agree in principle some things should never go to a democratic vote and IMO this is definitely one of them just like interracial marriage and other "similar" issues.
    3.) but many things dont make it because they fail the requirements so again i think the system is working
    4.) IMO they do IF they pass the test, do you disagree? Like i said many never make it. I mean besides this issue that has been a matter of equality/discrimination many times what other issues have their been.
    5.) well, cant disagree there, there are many people that have that attitude. Now i agree 100% on the back issue to. We do need to replace politicians we dont agree with at a much better rate. THe problem is though it doesnt seem people really seem interested. Not enough people are active enough IMO.
    6.) thats fine by me too.
    7.) this is where we disagree. Im totally fine with it and think its exactly how it should be in this case (a matter of individual rights) For me i see no reason to separate this issue form interracial marriage and now that the fed sees it and other states its just the way it has to be.

    also since SCOTUS already stated its a right 14 times the precedence is set, nearly impossible to go back now.

    also as far as gov getting out of marriage, i wouldnt want that either. Marriage comes with about 1200 federal rights/protections alone, some that cant be granted any other way so i wouldnt want to stop that. I want my wife and family protected.

    8.) no problem, you are welcome and i do the same, i dont give dishonest posters and trolls one inch. Only liberals huh? well what do you know you should be giving me a hard time then since a poster says im a liberal simple for supporting this issue lol
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 31 of 38 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •