TexasCHLforum.com

android wrote:

baldeagle wrote: Satanism is being taught in schools.

Ah, that explains why I am having to buy a new dog every week to replace the ones that go missing.

Puleez.... The Satanic cult threat is so 1980's.

Again, you can stick your head in the sand if you want to. I deliberately chose a left wing publication for this so you can't accuse me of using biased sources - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 46640.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can make fun all you want, but facts are facts.

android wrote:I probably don't support your cause. I most likely don't care. I support your right to do what makes you happy. I support your right to be free.

That kind of thinking is what has gotten our country to the sorry state that it is in. Do you like America today? Like politicians ignoring you completely? Like being $18 trillion in debt with $120 trillion in unfunded liabilities? Like local, state and federal governments passing regulations and laws that take away your freedom?

It's all because we just wanted to be left alone. Do your own thing, they say. It doesn't affect me. And yet here we are. Satanism is being taught in schools. So is Islam. Young children are being introduced to homosexuality and transgenderism and taught that they are perfectly normal. Socialism is being taught throughout the educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school.

But hey, it doesn't affect me and mine.

There's an old saying, you can't get in a pig sty without getting some on you. America is a pig sty. Believe me, it affects you more than you realize.

cb1000rider wrote:If we're talking about this link - I can't follow it all.. It'd need to be too well organized across decades. Maybe I'll get there as I grow older and more paranoid (which is certainly inevitable). It reads like an Alex Jones expose...

Here's an opinion on the upside of the SCOTUS ruling and it's definitely brings us back on topic:
Did gay marriage just help nationwide concealed carry?

So now we're going to get excited about having the federal government set the rules for carrying? No thank you. Anyone who is foolish enough to step into the trap needs to get out of the lawsuit business.

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The intention is to destroy marriage and then the family. After that, the state controls everything you do.

Are you talking about the SCOTUS case or just in general? If you're talking about the case, have you read the actual details? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Not sure they're trying to destroy anything.
If you're not talking about the case, we're talking about some sort of grand conspiracy against the family to allow this state control. I'm open to that discussion, but I'd like to know who the puppet-masters are? The destruction of the family has to benefit someone, right?

Read the entire article. Then we can talk. It's not a grand conspiracy. It's been discussed openly and repeatedly.

Here's the real problem that I have with this ruling. The end goal is the destruction of marriage, not #lovewins. The intention is to destroy marriage and then the family. After that, the state controls everything you do. It's sad that people can see this, but they get all wrapped up in the emotional stuff and fail to see the forest for the trees. America is being destroyed, but most people won't even believe it until after the deed is done. Then they'll all sit around moaning about how somebody should have done something about it.

mr1337 wrote:I don't agree with blue laws. If you are saying that the US needs to base its laws off of Christianity, there's a whole lot that needs to be outlawed, as I outlined above.

I don't believe anyone has said that.

mr1337 wrote:This includes cursing, tattoos, dancing (in the interpretation of some churches), divorce, intoxication, and adultery.

All those things are the purview of the states, not the federal government.

mr1337 wrote:Let's outlaw divorce because it destroys core family values. It literally rips a family apart, and divorce is not allowed in the Bible.

That might not be such a bad thing. Maybe people would think twice before marrying.

mr1337 wrote:Let's outlaw intoxication because it's moral and right to do so.

This is already against the law. Do you think it should not be?

mr1337 wrote:Let's outlaw worshiping any religion except Christianity. Paganism is not moral. Neither is Islam. Or atheism.

That would be a violation of the First Amendment.

mr1337 wrote:A lot of western Europeans who migrated to North America in the time before the US did do to escape the religious oppression of Europe so they could freely live their lives.

And now the government is telling them that if they refuse to bake a cake or take photographs for a gay wedding they will lose their business and pay a huge fine. So much for freedom.

mr1337 wrote:A free nation demands a secular government. Once religion plays too much into the laws of the land, you no longer have a free state. You have the workings of many middle-eastern countries in which women must keep their entire bodies covered except for their eyes because that is the standard of ethics in their country.

America seems to have done just fine before the separation of church and state crowd started insisting that every vestige of one's beliefs be expunged from the public view. Doesn't it strike you as more than a little odd that you can't pray in school but you can teach Islam and homosexuality?

mr1337 wrote:Just because marriage equality is against your own morals doesn't mean that's the case for everyone. The important question is: is it unethical? I would argue that stealing is both immoral and unethical. You are trespassing against someone else when you steal. But when someone marries another of their own gender, who is trespassed? Who is damaged? Thus to you, it may be immoral, but to society as a whole, it is not unethical.

Um no, the important question is is it constitutional for the federal government to mandate marriage laws for all 50 states. The clear answer is no. Ethics has nothing to do with it.

Why even bother to have state laws? Just let the federal government mandate everything. In fact, let's do away with the states entirely and force the same laws on everyone. THAT is what you are arguing for.

There was never a separation of church and state envisioned by our founders. There was a separation of A church and state. IOW, religion was a part of their beliefs, but they were opposed to having a state supported church like the Church of England. Most people aren't aware of the history of the First Amendment in America. Originally every one of the colonies had a state supported church. People paid taxes which were used to pay the clergy and build churches. Laws were passed that prevented voting unless you were a member of the church (which meant there were a lot of nominal members because they wanted to vote.) That's what a state supported church means, and that's why the First Amendment was written the way that it was. The idea that government officials couldn't pray, that government buildings couldn't be used for religious observances, that schools had to ban any sort of religious behavior is a modern invention that has nothing to do with our founding.

If you really want to understand what the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means and how it came to be, you need to read Freedom of Religion, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court: How the Court Flunked History.

zero4o3 wrote:

baldeagle wrote: You ask how it directly affects anyone but the people getting married. That's easy to answer. Before the ruling the purpose of marriage was child rearing in a stable family situation. Marriage was expected to be a greater commitment than two people living together, with greater responsibilities, especially to the children. Now the purpose of marriage is to allow to people who love each other obtain the same benefits as marriage with regard to legalities such as rights of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

Your argument while "valid" could only be considered strong to someone who has the same beliefs as you (who agrees with your definition of what marriage was). Do you believe that hetero couples who never intend to have children (or are unable to have children) should not be allowed to be married?

Of course not. What any individual does is irrelevant. What matters is how the policy affects society as a whole. Because one couple either decides not to or is unable to have children does not affect society. What affects society is what the majority of couples do. By redefining marriage as a union of two loving people, the focus is removed from the children. Now, if a loving couple gets pregnant, abortion is an option because children no longer matter. Yes, I know abortion was an option before, but there was at least a an effect on the decision due to the purpose of marriage.

Also, by changing the definition of marriage to two people who love each other the legal arguments against polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia are no longer valid. If two people love each other, who are we to judge? So now the laws against incest fall. The laws against statutory rape fall. The laws against polygamy fall. And preventing pedophilia becomes much more difficult. Now, if the child says he loves his pedophile, what's the legal argument for saying it's wrong? The courts are already providing guardians ad litem for children. What does the court do if the child's attorney argues that the pedophile is what the child wants?

When you're talking about fundamental changes to society, you have to look at the macro effects over time.

BTW, I noticed that you changed my "purpose of marriage" to "definition of marriage". Words have meaning. The definition of marriage is two people who love each other deciding to make a lifetime commitment to each other. The purpose of marriage WAS to have strong, enduring families that bore children and raised them properly to become contributing citizens of society. It was in the states' interest to encourage such relationships, which is why there are laws that provide special privileges to married couples. Now the purpose of marriage is the definition of marriage. Notice what's missing? Children. This isn't a religious or beliefs argument at all. Deemphasizing the importance of children could have a deleterious effect on society. The problem is, we won't know that for decades, if then. And by then it will no longer matter.

It's impossible to know what the effects will be. But why have a tax deduction for marriage now? Why should married couples get power of attorney without signing a legal agreement to that effect? Why should spouses have the right to make medical decisions for the ailing spouse? All these things were done to encourage the creation of families that would bear children and raise them to be productive members of society. Now that literally anyone or ones can get married, why should anyone get special treatment under the law?

I guarantee you that this argument will be made by politicians in an effort to raise more revenue for the state.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

cheezit wrote:I have yet to see a single post on how this directly effects anyone but the people getting married. The I dont like it excuse is completely non valid.
As far as the jews are concerned on the matter is was decided in 2006 for equal marrage rights for all with the exception of the orthdox jews
As far as the abortion statements the Talmud pretty much covers that clearly as well.
So many scream the constution but noone here will except the ruling Roe v Wade on the basis of the 9th and 14th amendments.
But boy we all go ape in support of the 2nd.

You ask how it directly affects anyone but the people getting married. That's easy to answer. Before the ruling the purpose of marriage was child rearing in a stable family situation. Marriage was expected to be a greater commitment than two people living together, with greater responsibilities, especially to the children. Now the purpose of marriage is to allow to people who love each other obtain the same benefits as marriage with regard to legalities such as rights of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

Since the purpose of marriage has been changed, it will change society. For example, articulate a cogent legal argument against polygamy or incest or underage marriage. You can't. Under the old purpose, that was easy. (Shorthand is it was good for the children not to be in those relationships.)

I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Jews, so I can't comment on that.

With regard to Roe v. Wade, the Court found "a penumbra of emanations" that compelled it to rule as it did. Sort of the same way they found that black people weren't really people or the words in the Obamacare law didn't really say what they said.

Everything has consequences. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they don't affect you. For many years now our society has been going downhill. Adultery is now celebrated instead of frowned upon. Childhood out of wedlock is now celebrated rather than scorned. Cheating on exams, stealing music off the internet, lying on job applications all are acceptable behaviors to many.

It didn't get this way in an instant. It took many decisions over long periods of time, each of which people thought about and said, well, it doesn't affect me, so I guess it's OK. Now our society is sinking into the cesspool and America as we known is rapidly fading into the rear view mirror.

All in the name of "equal rights" and "privacy".

So what did Justice Scalia think about the ruling?

“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”