Page 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 373

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

  1. #321
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,161

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Yes we need to set societal standards on what is moral and decent. Standards which are not subject to change and not subject to interpretation.

    Every deviant is going to come out of the cracks claiming they are "born that way and normal" so they deserve to get married too
    These are my thoughts on this subject also.

    Where does it end?

  2. #322
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 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 AliHajiSheik View Post
    If you go into a store in Massachusetts and buy a widget at a local store and return it home to Texas, don't try to return it to a local store in Texas since it wasn't that store that sold you the widget in the first place.

    Why should Texas issue a divorce when it doesn't recognize them as being married. Don't want to be married? Great, you aren't. Married people can't just do that, but SSM people can. So much for equal protection.

    Just a technical correction, the couple in Texas is still Civilly Married as determined by the State where they got married and under Federal law and remain married even though Texas does not recognize their marriage. SSM people can't just say "we aren't married anymore" any more than a DSM couple can. Just as there is a legal process to enter into marriage, there is a legal process to exit marriage.


    The easier and more reasonable solution is for States to change their residency requirements for divorce to: (a) if married outside the state - _________ months residency, or (b) if married by the state in which you are seeking a divorce then residency requirement is waived since that is were you got married.


    Under such a plan the couple could then file for divorce in MA without having to relocate there for a year.



    >>>>

  3. #323
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    We're talking about Identical DNA here. The most recent studies show only a 7% attraction among IDTwin males and around 5% for females. If it's genetic, it would be certain 100% of the time. More than 8 major studies have been done across many countries trying to answer this question. It's the same result every time. Homosexuality is not genetic. All research leads to post birth factors. We can't have that discussion though, because that would mean that homosexuality as a condition can be cured through intensive therapy and treatment. For those homosexuals who know they are living a dirty life of sin and debauchery, the option should be there for treatment, but the Left wants to deny them that right.

    Thats like saying cancer doesn't have a genetic component. If there were no genetic component then there would be no difference between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins. Each study shows there is, and among the 8 studies the results have varied from 7 to 50% concordance between the two groups.

  4. #324
    Guru
    Ben K.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,717

    Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Sorry, but you have been misinformed. No study conclusively has found a genetic link to homosexuality. Not that it matters in this debate.
    Twin studies show a multi factorial modality for homosexuality. There is no misinformation I'm afraid.

  5. #325
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Morality isn't relative. The Founders certainly believed that as well.
    You are completely incorrect there. Morals ARE relative. It used to be immoral for a white person to marry a black person. Now it isn't immoral. And if the Founding fathers believed morality to be set in stone, they wouldn't have allowed ways for amendments to be added to the Constitution.

    Gays don't deserve special rights.
    Please list the special rights that gays would receive that YOU could not have. If gay marriage is legalized YOU can marry someone of the same sex to so it isn't a special right.

    Yea sure and Obama's IRS and NSA aren't purposely targeting people for their religious beliefs. Oh wait they are. Nevermind.
    No, they aren't. If anything they are targeting for political purposes (which is wrong), but they aren't doing it because of religious beliefs. There are consitution groups that didn't get accepted and they aren't religious.

    No gay gene. Homosexuality = not genetic
    You keep saying this, but it is compeltely erroneous. They haven't FOUND a gay gene which is not the same as no gene exists. How long are you going to repeat this lie?

    It's sexual deviancy and perversion like any of the others, including pedophilia.
    Going down on a woman is considered perversion to some. Your OPINION that homosexuality is a perversion is nothing more than your opinion.

  6. #326
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,377

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Just a technical correction, the couple in Texas is still Civilly Married as determined by the State where they got married and under Federal law and remain married even though Texas does not recognize their marriage. SSM people can't just say "we aren't married anymore" any more than a DSM couple can. Just as there is a legal process to enter into marriage, there is a legal process to exit marriage.


    The easier and more reasonable solution is for States to change their residency requirements for divorce to: (a) if married outside the state - _________ months residency, or (b) if married by the state in which you are seeking a divorce then residency requirement is waived since that is were you got married.


    Under such a plan the couple could then file for divorce in MA without having to relocate there for a year.



    >>>>
    This couples inconvenience is not Texas' issue since they do not recognize SSM. Certainly I would think that they are still married in any state that does recognize it. I would be ok with option B above, but if Massachusetts doesn't want to change their requirement, I don't think they should be forced to.

    Perhaps if states that do authorize SSM had considered this issue instead of passing incomplete legislation, we wouldn't have this issue.

  7. #327
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 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 AliHajiSheik View Post
    This couples inconvenience is not Texas' issue since they do not recognize SSM. Certainly I would think that they are still married in any state that does recognize it. I would be ok with option B above, but if Massachusetts doesn't want to change their requirement, I don't think they should be forced to.

    Perhaps if states that do authorize SSM had considered this issue instead of passing incomplete legislation, we wouldn't have this issue.

    Just a technical correction, they are actually still married in Texas, it's just that Texas doesn't recognize it.



    >>>>

  8. #328
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Kennedy is a political activist. A lawyer in a black robe. That same argument can be made for any conceivable sexual deviancy, polygamy ect. Where does it stop? At what point will we have equality? Unisex bathrooms? Sodomy being taught to pre schoolers? Gay Family shows? Every week a new gay thread is started where emo libs "champion gay rights" and call everyone who disagrees with them a bigot.

    There is a moral boundary that has always existed that is being breached here. Rights and beliefs for what consists of a healthy and functioning society are clashing. A new morality is being created by a secular society that praises and worships deviant filthy behavior. They are imposing that morality onto the rest of society and it's now encroaching upon First Amendment rights. The people throwing the word bigot around with impunity are acting like Fascists.

    So let's compromise. Let the states decide by a vote. Once that vote is cast that decision is ingrained into The Constitution and can never be repealed. You believe in the right to vote right?
    The only "moral boundary" that is being breached is keeping the extreme right-wing evangelical social wing on society in violation of the US Constitution. If you knew anything about the Constitution you would know that the Constitution was created to ensure that certain fundamental rights are not subject to the tyranny or the whim of the majority. In other words, Fundamental rights cannot be put to a popular vote. Sorry Charlie.....
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #329
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    This is why we can't have an honest discussion. Gay Marriage was never conceived as a "right" by The Founders of this country. The Founders of this country believed what I believe about homosexual and other perverted lifestyles. That they are deviant and filthy. That we shouldn't teach such nasty debauchery to our children. The only people with a social agenda here, which is to change societal norms, are radicals like you.

    Let the people decide if only gays get the special right (not fundamental right) to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
    LOL.....There may be a lot of things that the founding fathers didn't envision....perhaps like the right-wing evangelicals desire to push their social agenda on the country. The bottom line is that the founding fathers recognized that there are certain rights that are inalienable and fundamental and that all people in this country are entitled to due process and equal protection. Liberty and Justice for all....not just some. THAT is what people of your ilk continue to conveniently forget when engaged in all your bible thumping and crying.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  10. #330
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Except equal protection doesn't apply when it something you disagree with, like Bush v Gore.
    Bush v. Gore had nothing to do with equal protection....and the Justices clearly indicated in the decision that it was not precedent. So what exactly is your point again?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 33 of 38 FirstFirst ... 233132333435 ... 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
  •