Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

11/09/2005 05:48:00 PM · #177

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ScottK:
Rather, the laws of the land, from then until now, have banned same-sex marriage (as well as many other "rights" that have been cooked up in recent times), and until recently were never considered a violation of the rights put forth in the bill of rights. If you want to stand on the founding principles, then you have to show some evidence that those who set forth those principles would support the idea of same-sex marriage. To the contrary, they created the laws that banned it.

More to the point, they primarily left the issue up to the states. And the states are taking matters into their own hands. As the founding prinicples of this country would have it. Go Texas. :)

I could be wrong, but I think you're incorrect about the states explicitly banning same-sex marriage from the time of the founding of this nation. Some states are now doing just that (affirmatively banning it), but this is a recent political development.

I'll admit, I don't really know exactly myself. I'm making the following assumption: If there is a movement now to legalize same-sex marriage, then it must therefore be illegal, right? (Otherwise, why they fuss???) And since I don't recall it being made illegal in my lifetime, I'm assuming it was illegal in some sense prior to that. Whether there were laws on the books 200 years ago that said "a man cannot marry another man", I don't know.

Most laws, acts and state propositions that have been passed recently seem to all be clarifications, and are in response to non-legislative (read: judicial activist) efforts to force same-sex marriage on the country. Technically, they don't necessarily "ban" gay marriage, they "reaffirm" the traditional definition of marriage. I'll agree though that this is mostly a technical differentiation, and the net result is the same, regardless of how you look at it.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

True as far as it goes, but the states' rights argument was also used by some not too long ago to justify keeping in place Jim Crow laws, and before that was used to justify slavery in some states. So what? Does that make what you're justifying right?

Being right makes me right. :) The states-rights comment is more a response to the question of original intent and "founding principles". There is nothing in the bill of rights that specifically addresses this issue. Therefore, following the bill of rights (10th ammendment, specifically), the issue is left to the states.

Speaking purely acedemically, slavery is not prohibited because its wrong. Its prohibited because there are amendments (14th?) which prohibit it. So, as I stated somewhere else in that post: If you want same-sex marriage as a protected right, get an ammendment passed to protect it. Until then, its not a right.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ScottK:
The double standard comes when your belief is based on anything remotely connected with God or a religious viewpoint. Then your belief is invalid and you're not allowed to follow your beliefs in voting.

Disagree. Religious belief can be used for good or ill. Many abolitionists were opposed to slavery based on their religious beliefs. There are many on the left whose stand on political issues is grounded in religious belief. So just because someone disagrees with your particular (intolerant) brand of religion and/or politics doesn't make them a bigot, and doesn't make them necessarily anti-religious.

I agree with your disagreement, but only in so far as it supports my original agreement. :) Of course, I agree that religious belief can be used for good and ill (and I'm glad to see you acknowledge the "good" part).

But your pulling my quote quite a ways out of context. The point was that we all vote based on our beliefs. I mean, why in the world would you vote against your beliefs??? (Unless, of course, you live in pre-war Iraq and you were one of the 98% that voted for him as president because, if you didn't, you would probably be shot.) However, there is an assertion (belief, maybe?) that is put forth quite often here (and in pretty much all liberal/left/progressive/whatever-you-want-to-call-yourselves anti-conservative harangues) that if you vote based on religious beliefs, then you are doing something wrong and evil and intolerant (hmmm, where have I been called that recently?) and biggoted. This is quite clearly a double standard - I can vote based on my belief that something is good, but you can't vote based on your belief that something is bad. Seems quite intollerant to me. And I don't believe I called anyone biggoted or anti-religious - I did argue (probably not in quite these terms) that those who rely on that tactic are implying that my vote is illegitimate or tainted. Everyone is allowed to vote what they believe - as long as its not based on religious beliefs.

If you, by faith, believe there is no God, OR believe that God is in favor of same-sex marriages, OR you believe that God maybe isn't so hot on the idea but doesn't hold you responsible for the effect you have on society through your actions, then you have the absolute right to cast your vote based on that belief.

If I, by faith, believe that there is a God, that he DOESN'T approve of same-sex marriages, and that he DOES hold me accountable for the effect I have on society through my actions, then please afford me the same right. (This is, of course, a rhetorical statement, aimed at a wide audience, and not necessarily directed at you Judith.)

gbautista87

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

11/09/2005 05:49:17 PM · #178

I wonder: If Jesus were gay, would people think differently?

MadMordegon

11/09/2005 05:52:34 PM · #179

Originally posted by jrjr:

This country was started by founding fathers who owned slaves.
American Indians had no rights and those that survived were abused.
It was almost a hundred years later that Blacks were "freed".
Women could not vote until the early part of the 20th century.
Blacks and whites continued to be segregated until the 1960's.
Jews, Italians, Greeks, Irish etc. all took their turn in the barrel of dicrimination.
This is just a short list that exemplifies the lack of tolerance in this country. The level of discrimination and hatred and mistrust. It is our history. It continues today. Today we must tolerate homosexuals but by we don't have to make them equal. Dispicable. Shameful. Why do Americans like to find new ways to discriminate and new peoiple to hate and despise? How are we The Land of the free and the home of the brave, when we want to shackle those different then ourselves and we fear those who have different values and lifestyles?
--JR

Well said.

11/09/2005 05:55:22 PM · #180

Originally posted by gbautista87:

I wonder: If Jesus were gay, would people think differently?

I thought he was! C'mon! 33 and un-married, really!

Edit: Sorry forgot the smilies...
;-)
:)))
=o

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 17:57:30.

milo655321

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/09/2005 05:56:55 PM · #181

Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by gbautista87:
I wonder: If Jesus were gay, would people think differently?

I thought he was! C'mon! 33 and un-married, really!

Don't forget his twelve (presumedly) bachelor apostles!

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/09/2005 05:58:46 PM · #182

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by ScottK:
But then I'm a knuckle-dragging, closedminded, bigotted, jihadist, snot-eating, right-wing religious fanatic extremist, so there is, of course, no validity to my point of view.

... I don't think you eat snot.

Thank you for that vote of confidence. :)

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

11/09/2005 05:59:05 PM · #183

Originally posted by KaDi:

Originally posted by gbautista87:
I wonder: If Jesus were gay, would people think differently?

I thought he was! C'mon! 33 and un-married, really!

Edit: Sorry forgot the smilies...
;-)
:)))
=o

You obviously haven't read "The Da Vinci Code!"
:)

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

11/09/2005 05:59:57 PM · #184

Or have you forgotten Mary Magdelan and the Da Vinci Code? ;-)

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

11/09/2005 06:00:28 PM · #185

LOL - Just BARELY beat me to it Riponlady! LOL

milo655321

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/09/2005 06:00:56 PM · #186

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by ScottK:
But then I'm a knuckle-dragging, closedminded, bigotted, jihadist, snot-eating, right-wing religious fanatic extremist, so there is, of course, no validity to my point of view.

... I don't think you eat snot.

Thank you for that vote of confidence. :)

You know ... it was there ... I saw it ... the little devil on my left shoulder persuaded me on my course of action. :)

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/09/2005 06:01:03 PM · #187

Originally posted by SJCarter:

Or have you forgotten Mary Magdelan and the Da Vinci Code? ;-)

Great minds.........
:)
P

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/09/2005 06:03:19 PM · #188

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I suppose the liberals in this forum are all in favor of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance?

Dang this thread has exploded! May be the fastest-growing thread in DPC history...

I wanted to comment, in passing, on that statement. "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance quite recently; late 50's, I believe, but I'm not sure. I remember very well an Art Linkletter "Kids Say the Darndest Things!" episode where a 6- or 7-year old recited the (original) pledge of allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stand; one naked individual, with liberty and justice for all.

Eerie, ain't it? Let's remember that "with liberty and justice for all" part, ok? It doesn't say "unless you're gay" anywhere in there. Where's the "liberty and justice" in denying homosexuals the basic ability to form binding contracts with regard to the inheritance of property and equality of taxation?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 18:04:54.

11/09/2005 06:07:44 PM · #189

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
Or have you forgotten Mary Magdelan and the Da Vinci Code? ;-)

Great minds.........
:)
P

Did someone say "fiction"? I love fiction!
Ok, seriously, there may be something to that particular assertion--or maybe he was bi-?
Anyone up for a discussion of Paul's letters to the Corinthians and their effect on Roman law and the property rights of women?

frisca

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/09/2005 06:07:54 PM · #190

..this thread is long, and in parts, full of outright shitty logic and baseless "facts" and "assertions"

But I want to point out that its ridiculous to argue "the founding fathers didn't outlaw same sex marriage because they didn't know about it"

Look into your history -- Greeks, especially, where being gay or having a homosexual relationship was completely usual. This isn't something they didn't know about, this was something they stayed OUT OF, and we should too. "Legalizing" same sex marriage means giving that union legal rights, not taking it from "illegal" to "legal"

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

11/09/2005 06:08:41 PM · #191

Boy I sure wish we could change the title of this thread... ;)

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

11/09/2005 06:08:53 PM · #192

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Originally posted by SJCarter:
Or have you forgotten Mary Magdelan and the Da Vinci Code? ;-)

Great minds.........
:)
P

Hot bodies....
:)

frisca

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/09/2005 06:10:00 PM · #193

I think a better title for this thread would be "Texas outlaws same-sex unions - Discuss!"

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/09/2005 06:10:26 PM · #194

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Boy I sure wish we could change the title of this thread... ;)

To "Ashamed to be an American"?

Edit for spelling...but while I'm fixing it, I was just being flip. I'm actually proud to live in a country that allows and encourage this kind of free speech. (Just wish our laws were a bit more fair.)

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 18:12:26.

senoj

Olympus D-500L

11/09/2005 06:11:48 PM · #195

I am still laughing.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/09/2005 06:13:47 PM · #196

Originally posted by muckpond:

the fact that some think so is evidence of how dense people are.

Ah, so now I can add "dense" to the list of names I've been called today. There's the tollerance for ya....

BTW, the "$50 software" was mentioned specifically on the issue of visitation rights, not as a blanket "civil union" solution. And, I did qualify it with a "probably", though now I may have to go look, just for the sake of argument.

Message edited by author 2005-11-09 18:15:34.

senoj

Olympus D-500L

11/09/2005 06:15:36 PM · #197

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by muckpond:
the fact that some think so is evidence of how dense people are.

Ah, so now I can add "dense" to the list of names I've been called today. There's the tollerance for ya....

Scott you are not dense you are cute. I go to bed, good night!

barndog

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/09/2005 06:16:48 PM · #198

Think maybe the money has something to do with it too?

Marriage = mandatory insurance coverage
Gay = high risk for insurance companies (Not my opinion, industry fact)

State that does not sanction gay marriage = Headquarters for insurance companies.

The state where an insurance policy is written, even if you do not live in that state governs the policy requirements for law. If Texas law states insurance companies do not have to recognize a gay union, they do not have to cover the "spouse" even if you are living and employed in Maine. Check it out.

11/09/2005 06:17:01 PM · #199

Originally posted by ScottK:

Only if you identify with the statement.
Scott, I appreciate your attention to the arguments in the thread. Without you we'd all be sitting around like a bunch of bobbing-head dolls. These are important and complex issues...we need all sides of the story. Is there anything we agree on yet?