Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional in Texas

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 10:22:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know if anyone here has heard of this yet (it's 5 day old news at the time of this posting), but I'm surprised to see the lack of a thread for this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com...

(I also included some appropriate music to go with the article for either opponents of gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage with a sense of irony.)

What do you think? Is this undoubtedly the most embarrassing thing that possibly could have happened to gay marriage opponents?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.
Nolite Timere
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 12:40:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.
Even in 21st century people don't have the right to choose their own lifestyle.You need to take permission from the law makers!
Strange!
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 4:04:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 12:40:05 AM, kiryasjoelvillage wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.
Even in 21st century people don't have the right to choose their own lifestyle.You need to take permission from the law makers!
Strange!

Who is it exactly that is appealing to the law to rubber stamp their lifestyle?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 5:01:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?

I have no problem with people petitioning the Congress for a Constitutional amendment to change it. You see, this is the proper way to change laws. You do it by the methods set up under the Constitution. You change the law in the very same manner that prohibition was both enacted and repealed. This is called the rule of law. I would abide happily by this. What I wont tolerate for one second is 9 people deciding what is best for society. Gay marriage is a societal issue not a legal issue. Society needs to have the last word, not 9 lawyers. Do you have a problem with Amending the Constitution there by letting society decide?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 6:18:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 5:01:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?

I have no problem with people petitioning the Congress for a Constitutional amendment to change it. You see, this is the proper way to change laws. You do it by the methods set up under the Constitution. You change the law in the very same manner that prohibition was both enacted and repealed. This is called the rule of law. I would abide happily by this. What I wont tolerate for one second is 9 people deciding what is best for society. Gay marriage is a societal issue not a legal issue. Society needs to have the last word, not 9 lawyers. Do you have a problem with Amending the Constitution there by letting society decide?

Well, see, marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, so there's no need to make an entire amendment.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 6:59:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 6:18:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 5:01:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?

I have no problem with people petitioning the Congress for a Constitutional amendment to change it. You see, this is the proper way to change laws. You do it by the methods set up under the Constitution. You change the law in the very same manner that prohibition was both enacted and repealed. This is called the rule of law. I would abide happily by this. What I wont tolerate for one second is 9 people deciding what is best for society. Gay marriage is a societal issue not a legal issue. Society needs to have the last word, not 9 lawyers. Do you have a problem with Amending the Constitution there by letting society decide?

Well, see, marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, so there's no need to make an entire amendment.

So your answer is no? You want lawyers to decide correct? Mind you if it goes to the supreme court it will affect all fifty states. If a law once recognized in all fifty states is going to be over turned in all fifty states by the federal govt then it should be amended to the constitution. The federal govt only recognizes current marriage law that was in all fifty states. I will accept nothing other than a Constitutional Amendment, unless govt ceases to acknowledge marriage all together and ends all tax breaks and subsidies that go with its acknowledgement of marriage. If states want to recognize marriage that is fine. But beyond that states border, your marriage is meaningless to another state unless they so choose to acknowledge it. If states are going to decide individually then the fed is out of the picture. No subsidies, no tax breaks for anything, having to do with marriage or families. I will not stand for the federal govt forcing a tax payer to subsidize what they believe to be a perversion to their moral compass.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 7:05:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 6:59:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 6:18:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 5:01:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?

I have no problem with people petitioning the Congress for a Constitutional amendment to change it. You see, this is the proper way to change laws. You do it by the methods set up under the Constitution. You change the law in the very same manner that prohibition was both enacted and repealed. This is called the rule of law. I would abide happily by this. What I wont tolerate for one second is 9 people deciding what is best for society. Gay marriage is a societal issue not a legal issue. Society needs to have the last word, not 9 lawyers. Do you have a problem with Amending the Constitution there by letting society decide?

Well, see, marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, so there's no need to make an entire amendment.

So your answer is no? You want lawyers to decide correct? Mind you if it goes to the supreme court it will affect all fifty states. If a law once recognized in all fifty states is going to be over turned in all fifty states by the federal govt then it should be amended to the constitution. The federal govt only recognizes current marriage law that was in all fifty states. I will accept nothing other than a Constitutional Amendment, unless govt ceases to acknowledge marriage all together and ends all tax breaks and subsidies that go with its acknowledgement of marriage. If states want to recognize marriage that is fine. But beyond that states border, your marriage is meaningless to another state unless they so choose to acknowledge it. If states are going to decide individually then the fed is out of the picture. No subsidies, no tax breaks for anything, having to do with marriage or families. I will not stand for the federal govt forcing a tax payer to subsidize what they believe to be a perversion to their moral compass.

I don't have a problem with a Constitutional Amendment on top of everything, but it seems unnecessary.

Not to mention that 59% of Americans now support gay marriage, and majorities do not get to vote on the rights of minorities.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 4:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 7:05:56 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 6:59:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 6:18:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 5:01:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?

I have no problem with people petitioning the Congress for a Constitutional amendment to change it. You see, this is the proper way to change laws. You do it by the methods set up under the Constitution. You change the law in the very same manner that prohibition was both enacted and repealed. This is called the rule of law. I would abide happily by this. What I wont tolerate for one second is 9 people deciding what is best for society. Gay marriage is a societal issue not a legal issue. Society needs to have the last word, not 9 lawyers. Do you have a problem with Amending the Constitution there by letting society decide?

Well, see, marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, so there's no need to make an entire amendment.

So your answer is no? You want lawyers to decide correct? Mind you if it goes to the supreme court it will affect all fifty states. If a law once recognized in all fifty states is going to be over turned in all fifty states by the federal govt then it should be amended to the constitution. The federal govt only recognizes current marriage law that was in all fifty states. I will accept nothing other than a Constitutional Amendment, unless govt ceases to acknowledge marriage all together and ends all tax breaks and subsidies that go with its acknowledgement of marriage. If states want to recognize marriage that is fine. But beyond that states border, your marriage is meaningless to another state unless they so choose to acknowledge it. If states are going to decide individually then the fed is out of the picture. No subsidies, no tax breaks for anything, having to do with marriage or families. I will not stand for the federal govt forcing a tax payer to subsidize what they believe to be a perversion to their moral compass.

I don't have a problem with a Constitutional Amendment on top of everything, but it seems unnecessary.

Not to mention that 59% of Americans now support gay marriage, and majorities do not get to vote on the rights of minorities.

We would not be voting on rights, that would be a legal issue. We would be voting to change the definition of marriage. Again, you must show that equal protect under a law is being violated to make it both a rights issue and a legal issue. The fact that some percentage of people say something in some worthless poll is irrelevant. Bring on the Amendment and let society decide where the chips fall. It is fair to everyone and no one can be used as a whipping boy for the losing side. Argument settled once and for all.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 11:37:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 4:46:26 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 7:05:56 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 6:59:31 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 6:18:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 5:01:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:09:21 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/5/2014 4:07:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:27:53 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/4/2014 4:04:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 3/3/2014 11:29:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Whatever.

It's not like I really thought this wouldn't happen anyways. Gay marriage nationalization is inevitable. Just one step at a time.

My only hope is that this society will rot from its mistakes and then future society may finally be able to learn from history.

And what exactly does that mean? Treating people equally under the law is somehow a mistake?

Show how people are not being treated equally under current marriage law "without first" redefining the definition of marriage.

Marriage: Noun, the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

You are redefining the definition of the law. No where does it say this in the law.

That's a citation from a credible dictionary.

Even if the law says what you say it does, why not change it?

I have no problem with people petitioning the Congress for a Constitutional amendment to change it. You see, this is the proper way to change laws. You do it by the methods set up under the Constitution. You change the law in the very same manner that prohibition was both enacted and repealed. This is called the rule of law. I would abide happily by this. What I wont tolerate for one second is 9 people deciding what is best for society. Gay marriage is a societal issue not a legal issue. Society needs to have the last word, not 9 lawyers. Do you have a problem with Amending the Constitution there by letting society decide?

Well, see, marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, so there's no need to make an entire amendment.

So your answer is no? You want lawyers to decide correct? Mind you if it goes to the supreme court it will affect all fifty states. If a law once recognized in all fifty states is going to be over turned in all fifty states by the federal govt then it should be amended to the constitution. The federal govt only recognizes current marriage law that was in all fifty states. I will accept nothing other than a Constitutional Amendment, unless govt ceases to acknowledge marriage all together and ends all tax breaks and subsidies that go with its acknowledgement of marriage. If states want to recognize marriage that is fine. But beyond that states border, your marriage is meaningless to another state unless they so choose to acknowledge it. If states are going to decide individually then the fed is out of the picture. No subsidies, no tax breaks for anything, having to do with marriage or families. I will not stand for the federal govt forcing a tax payer to subsidize what they believe to be a perversion to their moral compass.

I don't have a problem with a Constitutional Amendment on top of everything, but it seems unnecessary.

Not to mention that 59% of Americans now support gay marriage, and majorities do not get to vote on the rights of minorities.

We would not be voting on rights, that would be a legal issue. We would be voting to change the definition of marriage. Again, you must show that equal protect under a law is being violated to make it both a rights issue and a legal issue. The fact that some percentage of people say something in some worthless poll is irrelevant. Bring on the Amendment and let society decide where the chips fall. It is fair to everyone and no one can be used as a whipping boy for the losing side. Argument settled once and for all.

I love how you're ignoring the third option.

(Can you guess what it is?)
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 12:17:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:22:53 PM, drhead wrote:
I don't know if anyone here has heard of this yet (it's 5 day old news at the time of this posting), but I'm surprised to see the lack of a thread for this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com...


(I also included some appropriate music to go with the article for either opponents of gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage with a sense of irony.)

What do you think? Is this undoubtedly the most embarrassing thing that possibly could have happened to gay marriage opponents?

This is actually the most ridiculous thing I've heard of in quite some time. Thanks for posting it. I'm not really a huge supporter of gay marriage myself, but to rule it out automatically as unconstitutional, though, is fairly retarded and is kind of baseless. I think the reason they used to rule it as such is what qualifies for bigotry.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 2:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 12:17:50 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:22:53 PM, drhead wrote:
I don't know if anyone here has heard of this yet (it's 5 day old news at the time of this posting), but I'm surprised to see the lack of a thread for this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com...


(I also included some appropriate music to go with the article for either opponents of gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage with a sense of irony.)

What do you think? Is this undoubtedly the most embarrassing thing that possibly could have happened to gay marriage opponents?

This is actually the most ridiculous thing I've heard of in quite some time. Thanks for posting it. I'm not really a huge supporter of gay marriage myself, but to rule it out automatically as unconstitutional, though, is fairly retarded and is kind of baseless. I think the reason they used to rule it as such is what qualifies for bigotry.

Wait... just realized I wrote the thread title wrong. They ruled their BAN on it as unconstitutional. Which is hilarious since this is Texas we're talking about.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2014 4:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"I love how you're ignoring the third option."

OK what is the third option that will settle this once and for all, never to be revisited again?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 4:18:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/7/2014 4:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
"I love how you're ignoring the third option."

OK what is the third option that will settle this once and for all, never to be revisited again?

A law being created through Congress. If nothing else, the federal government has the power to honor marriage certificates from any state.

It's not just constitutional amendment or supreme court ruling that could happen here. You just think these are the only two options because you want disagreement over the subject to exist in perpetuity.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 4:18:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/7/2014 4:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
"I love how you're ignoring the third option."

OK what is the third option that will settle this once and for all, never to be revisited again?

A law being created through Congress. If nothing else, the federal government has the power to honor marriage certificates from any state.

It's not just constitutional amendment or supreme court ruling that could happen here. You just think these are the only two options because you want disagreement over the subject to exist in perpetuity.

What is the third option that I am over looking? You didn't say what it was. You just criticize the other two as being perpetual. I sick of hearing the argument, end it once and for all. What is this elusive third idea that you refuse to divulge.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 9:58:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Same-sex marriage is a licensing issue so it's up to the states. It would be unconstitutional for the federal government to make it legal nationwide, but people can sue their state government and have the Supreme Court rule on it. This wouldn't be an issue if states upheld the Constitution and honored contracts from out of state, couples could get married in California or whatever then return home.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 10:11:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 9:18:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:18:58 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/7/2014 4:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
"I love how you're ignoring the third option."

OK what is the third option that will settle this once and for all, never to be revisited again?

A law being created through Congress. If nothing else, the federal government has the power to honor marriage certificates from any state.

It's not just constitutional amendment or supreme court ruling that could happen here. You just think these are the only two options because you want disagreement over the subject to exist in perpetuity.

What is the third option that I am over looking? You didn't say what it was. You just criticize the other two as being perpetual. I sick of hearing the argument, end it once and for all. What is this elusive third idea that you refuse to divulge.

I just said it. A law could be created in order to legalize gay marriage.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
YYW
Posts: 36,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 10:09:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/3/2014 10:22:53 PM, drhead wrote:
I don't know if anyone here has heard of this yet (it's 5 day old news at the time of this posting), but I'm surprised to see the lack of a thread for this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com...


(I also included some appropriate music to go with the article for either opponents of gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage with a sense of irony.)

What do you think? Is this undoubtedly the most embarrassing thing that possibly could have happened to gay marriage opponents?

Texas' ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional. Gay marriage was not ruled unconstitutional in Texas.

Your article:

A federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The Lone Star state's refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is also unconstitutional, he ruled.
Tsar of DDO
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 10:09:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/3/2014 10:22:53 PM, drhead wrote:
I don't know if anyone here has heard of this yet (it's 5 day old news at the time of this posting), but I'm surprised to see the lack of a thread for this.

http://www.mysanantonio.com...


(I also included some appropriate music to go with the article for either opponents of gay marriage or supporters of gay marriage with a sense of irony.)

What do you think? Is this undoubtedly the most embarrassing thing that possibly could have happened to gay marriage opponents?

Texas' ban on gay marriage was ruled unconstitutional. Gay marriage was not ruled unconstitutional in Texas.

Your article:

A federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The Lone Star state's refusal to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages is also unconstitutional, he ruled.

Yeah, I mistyped the title. I really wish we could edit posts here (then again, that'd result in a lot of other bad things that make it a bad idea for a debate site).
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 12:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:02:02 PM, drhead wrote:

Yeah, I mistyped the title. I really wish we could edit posts here (then again, that'd result in a lot of other bad things that make it a bad idea for a debate site).

Being able to edit the title would actually be a good idea, in my opinion.
There are many benefits, with only zero downfalls.
My work here is, finally, done.