TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.

What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?

Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.

Wow. Stunning simply stunning.

Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?

Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.

I can understand why you can't answer the question. Because bisexuality is not a trait assigned at birth. It's a choice people make - to be promiscuous with multiple partners of both sexes. If you seriously believe that some people are born bisexual, then I give up. You've gone off the deep end.

Basically what SCOTUS has done is put the government's stamp of approval on immorality. There is now no logical argument against polygamy, incest bestiality or any other sort of perversion. If it's all about love (so-called), then there is no such thing as immoral behavior. It's anything goes. You want to have three wives and four boyfriends? Hey, who are we to judge? You have the freedom to do whatever you want. You want to marry your sister? Do you love her? Well, then it's OK.

Clearly I DID answer your question. But you didn't answer mine: are you claiming that anyone who is straight has made a choice to be so? And did YOU make that choice? And if so, when?

You did not. You never said whether you believe bisexuality is something a person has no choice about.

No, I'm not claiming that being straight is a choice, but promiscuity certainly is a choice. It's a choice to live an immoral life, where your selfish desires trump those of others.

Do you deny that?

Very sad the lens that you apparently view life through. If you can't read that I answered the question, feel free to re-read again (and again if necessary). You define that as promiscuity. But that is based on your personal beliefs, and your own sense of what you believe is a selfish desire.

I'm going to move along as having this discussion is clearly pointless.

I'm in full support of marriage equality - and as I have the legal ability to marry anyone in Texas who meets the legal requirements (including same sex couples), I'm more than happy to do so.

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.

What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?

Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.

Wow. Stunning simply stunning.

Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?

Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.

I can understand why you can't answer the question. Because bisexuality is not a trait assigned at birth. It's a choice people make - to be promiscuous with multiple partners of both sexes. If you seriously believe that some people are born bisexual, then I give up. You've gone off the deep end.

Basically what SCOTUS has done is put the government's stamp of approval on immorality. There is now no logical argument against polygamy, incest bestiality or any other sort of perversion. If it's all about love (so-called), then there is no such thing as immoral behavior. It's anything goes. You want to have three wives and four boyfriends? Hey, who are we to judge? You have the freedom to do whatever you want. You want to marry your sister? Do you love her? Well, then it's OK.

Clearly I DID answer your question. But you didn't answer mine: are you claiming that anyone who is straight has made a choice to be so? And did YOU make that choice? And if so, when?

oohrah wrote:Hooray! Equal protection under the law for all citizens.

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:
Exactly, thank you. Just because a "at one time" majority managed to pass discriminatory laws doesn't make them right; and because the judiciary has to ultimately step in to correct that because a legisltative body won't, doesn't make that wrong or overreaching.

And added to that, every valid poll taken in Texas over the past year indicated that the majority polled in fact support marriage equality (the number is usually about 46% for vs about 41% against).

Um, no. The Supreme Court does not have the power to make law. They do not have the power to ignore the Constitution. Please point to the place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court was granted the power to overturn laws that are the province of the states and the people.

As for polls, I saw one just yesterday, in Texas, where 58% of the people polled thought the Supreme Court was wrong.

We have arrived at the place where the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the power to change laws at will and ignore the plain reading of those laws when they think it benefits the people. That is called tyranny. When that tyranny rules against YOU, you will squeal like a pig, but it will be far too late to do anything about it then.

You quoted me, but seem to be arguing something else altogether. I didn't say that the judiciary had the power to make law. I said that they have the power to correct laws that are discriminatory. While the states have power granted by the Constitution, they do not have the power to pass laws that are discriminatory. SCOTUS didn't make law, they overturned laws that shouldn't not have been enacted because those laws are unconstitutional.

I ask you again. Where in the Constitution does the Federal government get the right to rule on state laws regarding marriage? The 10th Amendment reserves all power not explicitly granted to the Federal government to the states and to the people. Never before in the history of our country has the Federal government claimed the power to define marriage for the states.

And how is not allowing gays to marry discriminatory? Please describe in detail.

Friend, you can ask as many times as you want when you ask a question like that. Show me where it gives any state the legal authority to pass any law it wants, regardless of whether or not it is discriminatory or unconsitutional.

As for marriage equality eliminating discrimination, if you don't yet "get" that, there is truly little point in trying to explain it to you yet again.

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.

What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?

Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.

Wow. Stunning simply stunning.

Do you seriously believe that bisexuality is not a choice?

Do you then seriously believe that anyone who is "straight" has made a "choice" to be so? IF you identify (you personally) with being straight, on what day in your life did you make that choice? If you are married or otherwise with a partner, on what day did you personally make what decisions that lead to then being attracted to that person? If your partner is blonde, for example, what decision did you make and when that lead you to find blondes attractive. Choice? Or were you "just" that way.

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:
Exactly, thank you. Just because a "at one time" majority managed to pass discriminatory laws doesn't make them right; and because the judiciary has to ultimately step in to correct that because a legisltative body won't, doesn't make that wrong or overreaching.

And added to that, every valid poll taken in Texas over the past year indicated that the majority polled in fact support marriage equality (the number is usually about 46% for vs about 41% against).

Um, no. The Supreme Court does not have the power to make law. They do not have the power to ignore the Constitution. Please point to the place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court was granted the power to overturn laws that are the province of the states and the people.

As for polls, I saw one just yesterday, in Texas, where 58% of the people polled thought the Supreme Court was wrong.

We have arrived at the place where the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the power to change laws at will and ignore the plain reading of those laws when they think it benefits the people. That is called tyranny. When that tyranny rules against YOU, you will squeal like a pig, but it will be far too late to do anything about it then.

I don't know where your poll is as I couldn't find it on a search, but here is one:
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/06/poll-t ... -marriage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"But a new poll suggests state lawmakers are way out of touch with public opinion on the issue in the Lone Star State. The poll from the University of Texas and The Texas Tribune found that more Texas voters (44 percent) support same-sex marriage than oppose it (41 percent), while 14 percent are unsure.

Of course, that still lags the nation as a whole considerably — about 60 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage — but it’s the highest figure ever in a UT/TT poll. Back in 2009, just 29 percent of Texas voters said they supported same-sex marriage, and last October the figure was 42 percent in favor, and 47 percent opposed.

In what may be a more significant result from a practical standpoint going forward, 45 percent of Texas voters said businesses should NOT be allowed to refuse services to gay couples for religious reasons, while 41 percent said they should, and 14 percent said they don’t know."

As for the rest, the Supreme Court hasn't "taken upon itself the power to change laws at will" as SCOTUS doesn't take it upon itself to do anything. It's powers are granted by the Constitution. And those powers include review of all lower court laws in the U.S., and the ability to vacate or otherwise overturn laws that are unconstitutional.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.

What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?

Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.

Science has utterly failed to prove the existence of a "gay gene", so now the focus on is trying to prove a prenatal cause. The court is still out. My personal belief is that (and I am NOT speaking about transgender issues) gayness is a "nurture" rather than a "nature" thing.....until the evidence proves otherwise.

I disagree. Aside from studies that show no causality to nurture (such as twins, raised the same, one is gay and the other is not), science hasn't "failed" any such thing. Simply because they haven't found something YET doesn't mean that they have failed to find it -- at least not in the sense you seem to be suggesting, which is with finality. So called "science" at one time concluded the Earth was flat; that the solar system revolved around the Earth; that excess blood was the cause of many ailments. And on and on. Right up until it was proven otherwise.

I can apply the same logic in saying that nothing yet scientifically proves the existence of any god, of any basis of religion. A memorable quote comes to mind from the movie Happy Accidents: Religion goes out of favor in 2033 when science discovers the gene that regulates fear. And I can apply the same logic to common things around us -- such as electricity and computers where we cannot "see" electricity work and cannot see how a computer chip works; we see the effect, and based on the laws of physics we have theory as to what is happening. But we may some day. For today, we just have theory.

baldeagle wrote:

Glockster wrote:
Exactly, thank you. Just because a "at one time" majority managed to pass discriminatory laws doesn't make them right; and because the judiciary has to ultimately step in to correct that because a legisltative body won't, doesn't make that wrong or overreaching.

And added to that, every valid poll taken in Texas over the past year indicated that the majority polled in fact support marriage equality (the number is usually about 46% for vs about 41% against).

Um, no. The Supreme Court does not have the power to make law. They do not have the power to ignore the Constitution. Please point to the place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court was granted the power to overturn laws that are the province of the states and the people.

As for polls, I saw one just yesterday, in Texas, where 58% of the people polled thought the Supreme Court was wrong.

We have arrived at the place where the Supreme Court has taken upon itself the power to change laws at will and ignore the plain reading of those laws when they think it benefits the people. That is called tyranny. When that tyranny rules against YOU, you will squeal like a pig, but it will be far too late to do anything about it then.

You quoted me, but seem to be arguing something else altogether. I didn't say that the judiciary had the power to make law. I said that they have the power to correct laws that are discriminatory. While the states have power granted by the Constitution, they do not have the power to pass laws that are discriminatory. SCOTUS didn't make law, they overturned laws that shouldn't not have been enacted because those laws are unconstitutional.

Beiruty wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.

What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?

Have you heard about bisexuals? Selecting a partner is a choice.

Wow. Stunning simply stunning.

Beiruty wrote:How about when more of the population turn gay and the rate of kids per family is less than 1. Surely enough we would be like Canada, that means 10,000,000 new immigrants per year. I just hope they do arrive the legal way.

What??? Did you actually say, "turn gay" and believe that someone just "turns" gay? Seriously?

b322da wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Quick question. Is there anyone here who thinks that the SCOTUS overreached into States who had already made the decision by votes thus ignoring the "election process" and the will of the people in those States?

When the "will of the people," as expressed in "the election process," results in the enactment of an unconstitutional law, our system of government makes it incumbent upon the judiciary, and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States, to step in and correct what has been done. A majority of the electorate, or even a majority of the population, is not the "supreme law of the land" -- our Constitution is. To believe that in fulfilling this mandate the Supreme Court is "overreaching" quite arguably suggests either a gross misunderstanding of our constitutional system, a deliberate intent to ignore it, or perhaps a facetious troll.

I trust it is understood here that I am talking about the power to do something, not the rightness or wrongness of what has been done by the one having that power. There can be no better demonstration of the exercise of this power than the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Jim

Exactly, thank you. Just because a "at one time" majority managed to pass discriminatory laws doesn't make them right; and because the judiciary has to ultimately step in to correct that because a legisltative body won't, doesn't make that wrong or overreaching.

And added to that, every valid poll taken in Texas over the past year indicated that the majority polled in fact support marriage equality (the number is usually about 46% for vs about 41% against).