• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

They've studied identifical twins and confirmed there is a genetic component. Twins are more likely to both be gay then non identical siblings and they in turn more so than two strangers.

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.

Yes we are



Whoop te dooo



yeap









The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]



We don't live in the 18th century.

Whole lot of nothing in your post
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.)Has nothing to do with Individual Rights.
2.) Being gay is not a race.
3.) Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles?
4.) Yea I know, we'll never go there right? Yea sure we won't. The groundwork to rationalize it as "normal" and therefore "acceptable" is already being lain.
5.) Gays don't deserve a special right to redefine marriage over any other political group based upon their sexual deviancy. They should create their own institutions, their own traditions for the homosexual community. Marriage is for heteros only and it should stay that way. If it's about taxes and inheritance, then just grant those institutions and traditions homosexuals create the same exempt status. This should be left up to the states to decide however. These types of social issues were supposed to be worked out by the states by design.
6.) In the instance of "gay rights", what they want tramples on the rights of others and changes the definition of words for no rational reason, so the concept of it being a "right" that gay people previously didn't possess is a false premise.
7.)There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.

1.) 100% false, please see the facts, laws, court cases and precedence that already prove you wrong. Try to educate yourself on these matters
2.) this has nothing to do with it, religion isnt a race either
3.) they are not, they are fighting for EQUAL rights as the courts have already established. again try to deal in facts and not your made up fantasy.
4.) this severly topically uneducated strawman has been destroyed over and over again. Let us know when you have any facts to support it
5.) good nobody is asking for special rights that makes the rest of this inane fallacy babble moot.
6.) there are factually no rights being trampled on by granting equal rights to gays, this fallacy and strawman is also a failure. if you disagree please use FACTS and point them out.
7.) can you point out where the constitution defines marriage?

wow, try to focus on facts and logic instead of just making stuff up, youll have better success and your posts wont fail so easy.

Ill be waiting for this list of facts that support the lies you posted.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

It's Texas' choice to do this if they want to. No law prohibits it.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

They've studied identifical twins and confirmed there is a genetic component. Twins are more likely to both be gay then non identical siblings and they in turn more so than two strangers.
Sorry, but you have been misinformed. No study conclusively has found a genetic link to homosexuality. Not that it matters in this debate.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional S

Good to see conservatives standing up for more stringent divorce laws!
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.)It's Texas' choice to do this if they want to.
2.) No law prohibits it.

1.)this is currently 100% true.
2.) i dont think its going to stay this way


though i have said many times i believe the TSSC will rule against these guys and they will push it to SCOTUS where it will be changed. (although i could be wrong other judges in the state already ruled this is a violation in thier opinion)

and when this cases gets there I do NOT think SCOTUS will make the national change(based on this case, they will in the future) making all states grant equal rights and grant SSM but i do think they will rule that divorce requirements in all states will apply to all recognized state marriages no matter their make up.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Has nothing to do with Individual Rights. Being gay is not a race. Why should gays have the right to redefine marriage to whatever postmodernism definition they see fit over polygamists or pedophiles? Yea I know, we'll never go there right? Yea sure we won't. The groundwork to rationalize it as "normal" and therefore "acceptable" is already being lain.

Gays don't deserve a special right to redefine marriage over any other political group based upon their sexual deviancy. They should create their own institutions, their own traditions for the homosexual community. Marriage is for heteros only and it should stay that way. If it's about taxes and inheritance, then just grant those institutions and traditions homosexuals create the same exempt status. This should be left up to the states to decide however. These types of social issues were supposed to be worked out by the states by design. In the instance of "gay rights", what they want tramples on the rights of others and changes the definition of words for no rational reason, so the concept of it being a "right" that gay people previously didn't possess is a false premise.



There is no right for gays to be able to marry in The Constitution. The Founders never conceived of such a deviant perversion of marriage.

Well....you are just plain and simply wrong. There is something in the Constitution called "Equal Protection". It was exactly what Kennedy was referencing in his majority opinion in the DOMA case and the reason why Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent. The writing is on the wall. This war is over, only a small battle or two remain, but this one is DOA for the bigots who are clinging to their fight against marriage equality.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.)this is currently 100% true.
2.) i dont think its going to stay this way


though i have said many times i believe the TSSC will rule against these guys and they will push it to SCOTUS where it will be changed. (although i could be wrong other judges in the state already ruled this is a violation in thier opinion)

and when this cases gets there I do NOT think SCOTUS will make the national change(based on this case, they will in the future) making all states grant equal rights and grant SSM but i do think they will rule that divorce requirements in all states will apply to all recognized state marriages no matter their make up.
I don't SCOTUS should rule on national marriage honestly. I think these guys should have to move back to Mass. Harsh, however, it should be Texas' right to uphold their state laws. If not, we could have activists doing things like this all the time. Imagine a gun owner applying for and receiving a concealed carry permit, then moving to Washington DC and saying "Well, my state allows it so you should to." Not a good precedent to set IMO. These guys screwed up by A) Marrying the wrong person, and, B) Moving to a state this is not friendly towards their situation.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

1.)I don't SCOTUS should rule on national marriage honestly.
2.) I think these guys should have to move back to Mass. Harsh, however, it should be Texas' right to uphold their state laws.
3.) If not, we could have activists doing things like this all the time.
4.) Imagine a gun owner applying for and receiving a concealed carry permit, then moving to Washington DC and saying "Well, my state allows it so you should to."
5.) Not a good precedent to set IMO.
6.) These guys screwed up by A) Marrying the wrong person, and, B) Moving to a state this is not friendly towards their situation.

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 :D, 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.


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.

SOme of you are simply incapable and its why your posts get destroyed by many and they fail.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Well....you are just plain and simply wrong. There is something in the Constitution called "Equal Protection". It was exactly what Kennedy was referencing in his majority opinion in the DOMA case and the reason why Scalia was so vitriolic in his dissent. The writing is on the wall. This war is over, only a small battle or two remain, but this one is DOA for the bigots who are clinging to their fight against marriage equality.

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

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?
Wow....how many slippery slopes can you throw into one irrational argument?The only "new morality" being created is one that focuses back on the Fundamental rights that this country was founded upon and preventing our country from being surrendered to a radical right-wing social agenda that seeks to curtail those rights.Sorry....but the Constitution exists because certain rights are fundamental and should NEVER be subjected to the tryanny of the majority. To put it simply.....fundamental rights should never be put to a popular vote.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

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?

you do not compromise on equal rights, there is no such thing. You do not get to vote other rights away and think thats the end.
nothing is being imposed nothing is encroaching the 1st
and anybody that is actively fighting or would actively fight to STOP equal rights for gays is in fact bigot. but those that simply dont agree with those views are not.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

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?

So you want the right to vote now, but in the future votes wouldn't matter? Wow, that's a vote for democracy.

Thinking about the fact that Maine voted in 2009 against SSCM yet in 2012 it passed based on a vote of the people. You want to deny future people the right to vote?


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

Wow....how many slippery slopes can you throw into one irrational argument?The only "new morality" being created is one that focuses back on the Fundamental rights that this country was founded upon and preventing our country from being surrendered to a radical right-wing social agenda that seeks to curtail those rights.Sorry....but the Constitution exists because certain rights are fundamental and should NEVER be subjected to the tryanny of the majority. To put it simply.....fundamental rights should never be put to a popular vote.

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

So you want the right to vote now, but in the future votes wouldn't matter? Wow, that's a vote for democracy.

Thinking about the fact that Maine voted in 2009 against SSCM yet in 2012 it passed based on a vote of the people. You want to deny future people the right to vote?


>>>>

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

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.

Really? What did they ever say about it?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

You should read what is above. The Constitution grants the power to Congress in Article IV Section 1, Congress exercised that power in DOMA Section 2.




>>>>

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

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 + ?

you are right you will never have an honest discussion when you make up lies and or push your opinions as facts using such bigoted logic. Other will just continue to expose your failed posts.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

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

nobody is stupid enough to fall for this strawman, people already claim call types of things, none of them have anything to do with equal rights for gays. This scare tactic will never work.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Really? What did they ever say about it?

Which of the Founding Fathers do you think approved of Homosexual sex and Gay Marriage

nobody is stupid enough to fall for this strawman, people already claim call types of things, none of them have anything to do with equal rights for gays. This scare tactic will never work.

Gays already have equal rights. Nobody is stopping them from creating their own form of marriage, which is gay exclusive. Gays don't deserve the special right above any other deviant sexual group to change the definition of marriage.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Which of the Founding Fathers do you think approved of Homosexual sex and Gay Marriage

does it matter if they were for it or against?

nope

this is about equal rights and stopping discrimination and bigotry.

your post is 100% meaningless to the issue and facts at hand.

let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

does it matter if they were for it or against?

nope

this is about equal rights and stopping discrimination and bigotry.

your post is 100% meaningless to the issue and facts at hand.

let us know when you have something, ANYTHING relevant, that isnt pointless and actually adds to the conversation.

Of course it matters

This has nothing to do with "equal rights". If it's about equal rights, then every deviant sex group should get to marry too. Group Marriage and Polygamy should be legal in all 50 states. 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.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Which of the Founding Fathers do you think approved of Homosexual sex and Gay Marriage

Wait second there buckaroo. You said:

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Bronson 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.


Now then I'll rephrase, how do you know this? What did they say about the subject?
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

Wait second there buckaroo. You said:




Now then I'll rephrase, how do you know this? What did they say about the subject?

I only need to point to their faith in Christ and in God.

Why are you trying to debate this? The concept of Gay Marriage was completely alien to The Founders. Your kneejerk Postmodernism is almost becoming a comical drinking game.

None of The Founding Fathers approved of Homosexuality/Sex or condoned any such concept as Gay Marriage. Period.
 
Re: Texas' Refusal To Allow Gay Couples To Divorce May Be The Next Constitutional Sho

I only need to point to their faith in Christ and in God.

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.

Why are you trying to debate this? The concept of Gay Marriage was completely alien to The Founders. Your kneejerk Postmodernism is almost becoming a comical drinking game.

You do these highly intelligent well read multi dimensional people a disservice and disrespect attempting to paint them in your one dimensional image.

None of The Founding Fathers approved of Homosexuality/Sex or condoned any such concept as Gay Marriage. Period.

I bet more than one was gay.
 
Back
Top Bottom