TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:All the examples you give do not change the purpose of marriage. Homosexual marriage does. This is a much bigger issue than whether or not Adam or Steve can live happily ever after. No one with any ethics would care one way or the other. I have a homosexual couple living on my cul-de-sac. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home. But when they want to change a fundamental tenet of civilized society (that the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children who become responsible adult citizens) then I will oppose them. It has nothing to do with their behavior, and I have no problem with them getting favorable tax treatment under law just as married couples do.

Thanks for the added detail..... and thanks for being consistent (ref your EDIT comments)
I will (promise!) read through the paper you posted...

Again I'd propose that using the term "marriage" to describe civil unions is a bad choice of terms.... I agree that homosexual unions are not "marriage", but I do think these unions should have the benefit of secular law, for the reasons given previously...

With regard to the first link.... as much as I am opposed to the familial relationships described by Ms. Gessen, as long as her partners and her offspring are contributing members of society, not living off public welfare, living within the law.... I am FAR more worried about the effects of low-information voting and tyranny of the majority than I am about her procreative choices. Yes... they are correlated, but not necessarily cause and effect... Perhaps I feel that if we were to accept the Geffen model into secular society she and those like her could get past the haze of their oppression and focus on bigger problems. I'm not sure about that, quite. I'll think about that some more...

Society has been plagued with "progressive ideas" since the invention of the wheel. Some are bigger than others (Our current POTUS' pursuit of Socialism, for example). Some are enough to make me do my Archie Bunker impression, same as my father and his father and his father... but not world ending.

The sky didn't fall when Black people paired with White (or any other color, faith, etc. combination). I don't expect the sky to fall from homosexual unions. Ending the growth in the number of folks living off the public teat is a much bigger, more sky-is-falling issue for me...

TxA wrote:But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

TxA wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: If you can't win a debate about secular law without invoking God, you've not won.

I didn't invoke god, just asked the question. Because the argument against same-sex marriage is based on the nature of human persons as gendered beings who have a purpose that is derived from that nature.

If you were not making a reference to natural rights coming from God, then I retract my comment... my misunderstanding.

However.... even "natural law" is not what's in question here...

Secular law includes a contract between two individuals that we commonly refer to as "marriage". In this discussion, I've tried to separate the religious definition of "marriage" from the secular, by terming the secular "civil union" or "domestic partnership". The fact is that when WifeGBiv and I got married we signed two documents. The first one was a civil document... a marriage contract. The second was religious in nature and the signatures were perfunctory. It was our oath that made our marriage binding from a religious perspective.

Homosexual unions should be subject to the same civil, secular law as hetero unions. As has been pointed out, hetero unions frequently have failings.... none of which cause them to lose the protections of civil law.

TxA wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties).

So you would have no problem with incest and would argue to repeal the prohibitions against it?

Incest increases the risks of genetically compromised offspring. No, I would not be a proponent of close relatives marrying and having children.
But it happens... yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TxA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

Whose God is THE God?
Are we planning to deny marriage to Native Americans, Buddhists, Pagans, Ethical Culturists and Atheists?
If you can't win a debate about secular law without invoking God, you've not won. IMO

Please understand.... I would never suggest that gay marriage be forced on any religion.
Thankfully, we live in a secular society. How do the two coexist?

baldeagle wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

Gay activists have been quite clear that their goal is not marriage. They could care less about marriage, and their idea of marriage is an "open" relationship where sex with other parties is perfectly acceptable. Their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. To devalue it to the point that it disappears from society entirely.

Furthermore, approving of gay marriage fundamentally changes the the purpose of marriage from child rearing to sexual satisfaction. Now that that goal has been accomplished, marriage is already on the road to extinction. If you don't think that affects you and your children, you're crazy or blind. If you don't think that affects society as a whole, then you're even more crazy or more blind.

I won't provide the cites because those who disagree won't bother to read them, and those who are aware of this already don't need to see them. If you are sincerely open minded, then use Google and prepare to be shocked.

- Plenty of hetero couples are having three or more-party sex. Do we revoke their marital contract? How about adulterers?
- How about hetero couples that have no intention of having children? I have several friends in such relationships (25+ years each)
- I'd certainly read your best 1 or 2 citations supporting your broad generalizations...
- I frequently use "bad examples" to teach my kids. It's a GREAT learning tool. For example, we have a close friend.. their child (in their 20's) had a baby out of wedlock. It was an EXCELLENT opportunity for my kids to experience the consequences without having to live the experience. Then this kid had another child out of wedlock with a different father. My kids were ahead of me in condemning the irresponsible behavior. I made my kids watch the TV show "Cops" for similar reasons. A bad example is sometimes a better example, better still when it doesn't involve you directly. I'm not afraid of what effect gay activism has on my kids... I'm a better parent than that. That said..... Do you think homosexuality is a choice? I could certainly argue that social acceptance leads to more experimentation, certainly..... but.. fundamentally.... and not including people you read about in the tabloids..... do people choose homosexuality? And if you think it's possibly not a choice, why exclude homosexual partners from the protection of secular law?
- If we deny secular domestic partnership law to homosexuals, who's next?...... Interfaith? interracial? May/December couples (or maybe only May/December couples where the woman is unable to bear children?

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I completely understand the religious objections to gay marriage, and would not endeavor to change anyone's mind in that regard. HOWEVER, when two consenting adults of any stripe decide to commit to a relationship, they should have the Liberty to do so, within the confines of secular law (in this case the age of the parties). The notion that a gay marriage somehow diminishes the value of my heterosexual marriage is simply an opinion. I could just as easily argue that when two men enter into a committed relationship, the value of MY marriage goes UP, as my marriage will have the benefit of offspring.

I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

The notion that two people who have spent their lives together, investing in their communities, in their friends and families cannot have a simple, civil remedy for achieving the same legal status and privileges (Estate law, health care, tax law, etc.) as their hetero counterparts is, in my opinion, counter to the 14th Amendment. My union should be recognized under secular law not because it fits the religiously-defined notion of marriage, but because my wife and I signed a contract entering into the relationship (you married folks recall signing that legal document, don't you?). My marriage has the added blessing of my religious organization. This religious blessing is far more sacred to me, but is not the basis under which my marriage is recognized under secular law. At least not for people married in this country.

YMMV

Beiruty wrote:If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... age-Ruling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people. This ruling effectively cedes even more power to the elites who believe it is both their right and their duty to decide what is best for us despite our desires. While this only impacts gay marriage in California, the broader impact is to put the Supreme Court's stamp on Obama's unconstitutional actions of choosing to ignore our immigration laws to achieve the results he wants despite legislative opposition. The Supreme Court has effectively silenced the voice of the people and ruled that government officials may do anything they choose without consulting with the people they govern.

America is officially dead. May she rest in peace. God help those of us who cannot afford to leave.

While I don't disagree with your closing statement (although where is there to go if you did decide to leave?), I do believe that the 14th Amendment, Section I, of the US Constitution applies here, and supersedes any State law.

Excuse me for a minute while I don my Nomex long-john's