Texas says HELL NO to gay marriage - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Drbio · 11-08-2005, 11:44 PM

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

I'm sure the whiners are lining up in droves. The people have spoken. Now let the law run as ordered by the people.

FishForLunch · 11-09-2005, 12:31 AM

Big deal how about voting for something worthwhile, like term limits.

chumdawg · 11-09-2005, 12:37 AM

Now if we could just repeal all that hate crime legislation, then God-fearin', redblooded Texans could REALLY put those faggots in their place.

Drbio · 11-09-2005, 01:11 AM

Let the record show that chummywas the first to imply or inject the words "hate" and "faggot" into this thread.

The people of this great state have spoken. It is time to obey the law which was duly voted into place by the people.

I for one think it is a good piece of legislation.

God Bless Texas.

Drbio · 11-09-2005, 01:14 AM

BTW chummy...you did hit on a pet peeve of mine which is hate crime legislation. It is worthless. It is any more of a crime to murder a homosexual than to murder a heterosexual? I think not. They are both murder and the hate crime legislation to me is unecessary. Hate crime legislation which elevates a class of crime is equally extraneous. Is it any less of an assault to break the arm of a heterosexual than a homosexual? A black man versus a white man? They are all still assault. Hate crime legislation by rule creates a seperation of class. Isn't that what those who feel are the victims of hate are fighting against?

chumdawg · 11-09-2005, 02:01 AM

I completely agree with you, and I think that those laws should be repealed. Especially when there is very good reason to hate the classes involved.

Usually Lurkin · 11-09-2005, 07:27 AM

chumdawg, you sound bitter.

Usually Lurkin · 11-09-2005, 07:33 AM

Doc,

I think there is something useful to be gained in "hate crime" legislation. In that a crime can target a community rather than an individual, it should result in greater punishment. That said, if someone were to attack another person for being heterosexual, or conservative, or for voting for prop 2, it should be punished as a hate crime.

Mavdog · 11-09-2005, 08:31 AM

yes UL, a "hate crime" typically involves more than the crime itself, as the crime against the minority in many cases is meant to send a message of the criminals ability to suppress them.

as was said before, the fact that the voters approved the continued discrimination against same sex couples does not make that discrimination right nor just. I would expect that a century ago voters would have approved bans on interracial marriages.

if we are to vote as per the Christian bible, are we to allow stoning of people now?

sturm und drang · 11-09-2005, 10:55 AM

I have never been more ashamed to be a Texan than I am today.

mary · 11-09-2005, 11:17 AM

Hypocricy's finest hour.

mary · 11-09-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

if we are to vote as per the Christian bible, are we to allow stoning of people now?

There are plenty of other things that need cleaning up before we resort to such extremes.

For example, what is being done about the porn industry? Why has it been allowed to thrive for so long? Why are there so many strip clubs in the metroplex? What about escort services? How is it that the fine people of Texas support such institutions which are clearly against Biblical teaching?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Usually Lurkin · 11-09-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: mary

Quote:

if we are to vote as per the Christian bible, are we to allow stoning of people now?

There are plenty of other things that need cleaning up before we resort to such extremes.

For example, what is being done about the porn industry? Why has it been allowed to thrive for so long? Why are there so many strip clubs in the metroplex? What about escort services? How is it that the fine people of Texas support such institutions which are clearly against Biblical teaching?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

ABSOLUTELY! We should make that a next step in cleaning up the sexual immorality of our culture.

Epitome22 · 11-09-2005, 12:30 PM

good luck.

mary · 11-09-2005, 12:54 PM

UL, the fact that sex-related industries are such profitable juggernauts to begin with, suggests that you are in the minority on that one.

Drbio · 11-09-2005, 02:20 PM

That the sex industry is booming hardly equates to UL being in the minority.

dude1394 · 11-09-2005, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: mary

Quote:

if we are to vote as per the Christian bible, are we to allow stoning of people now?

There are plenty of other things that need cleaning up before we resort to such extremes.

For example, what is being done about the porn industry? Why has it been allowed to thrive for so long? Why are there so many strip clubs in the metroplex? What about escort services? How is it that the fine people of Texas support such institutions which are clearly against Biblical teaching?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don't really see what point you are trying to make here to be honest. There a numerous reasons that strip clubs, porn industry etcetera exists:

a. Maybe much of society thinks they are okay. From your posting I would guess you think prostitution (i.e. escort services) is perfectly okay, a case can be made for that and a pretty good one as well.
b. Much of society do not really think they are okay but a nuisance.
c. The folks who are against strip clubs, pornography etc have been trying to outlaw it through the court system for many years but have not been able to do so, because not enough people agree with them and pornography has been equated with free speech in some obscure, grotesque fashion.

Sure it's also about money as everything is to some extent. You could just as easily say that gay marriage rights is also about money for gays, benefits as it were. And sure strip clubs and pornography have powerful allies (but so do gays as well). But since the law of the land has decreed that pornography and strip clubs are basically free speech issues, many of the same folks who are against them haven't been able to legally effect them (except for making sure a strip club doesn't open next to a public school).

You are painting here with a very,very big brush here it seems as well as presenting a red herring on this with line of discussion.

Murphy3 · 11-09-2005, 06:11 PM

Honestly, I don't have a huge issue with gay marriage or gay rights. No, it's definitely not Biblical, but so much in our lives and laws aren't Biblical. Why do we pick and choose? It's odd that there's a moral outcry to stop gay marriage but not the same outcry to get rid of strip clubs and porn shops.

I suppose the best solution would be to legislate everything morally or nothing morally...but isn't that impossible? I suppose we have to find a happy medium. For me, I know that gay marriage is immoral. However, I do not always equate the legal term of marriage to the Biblical use of the word marriage.

It's definitely a slippery slope. What is too much legislature of biblical morals? What is too little?

mary · 11-09-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

You are painting here with a very,very big brush here it seems as well as presenting a red herring on this with line of discussion.

My argument here is that it doesn't fly to cite Biblical reasons to justify the majority passing Prop 2 or any other law banning gay marriage, because our society does not reflect a culture that goes through any pains to adhere to Biblical Code. I've been careful to use terms like "most, but not all" and "majority" in my posting on this issue, so I don't really think my strokes are overly broad.

Personally, I don't believe the "sex-industry" (and that could be defined VERY broadly these days) survives on the fringes of society. But if any here want to believe that (and I'm not referring to Dude, because you at least admitted "not enough people agree with them" ), then okay. I happen to believe dollars are more honest than people.

But don't tell me that the majority of Americans are sexually moral, as defined by Biblical Code. You'd be hard pressed to find a single male/female over the age of 20 that is a virgin. You'd be hard pressed to find people that have only had one sexual partner their entire lives. As far as business goes, I bet there aren't but a handful of industries that don't exploit sexual desire in one form or another in order to enhance the attractiveness of their product. Attend any Mavs games lately? When I walked up to the AAC, the Hooters buses were emptying their buses at the curb (they provide free parking). There were Hooters ads in my Tipoff program. Sometime during the game there were little parachute packs dropped down which were being sponsored by Hooters. Hooters everywhere!

So when I'm told that Prop 2 was passed because gay marriage/sex is Biblically immoral, yeah I got to call bullshit on that one. There's just not enough evidence in my mind to suggest that many people place Biblical morals in high regard, unless they already fit with their own belief system. I guess I really shouldn't say that I'm annoyed with religion - what annoys me is that people treat it like a Chinese buffet - piling up on the rhetoric when it suits your needs, and ignoring that which is inconvenient or undesirable.

Usually Lurkin · 11-09-2005, 07:02 PM

None of us are perfect - if any of us were able to follow all the biblical law perfectly, then it would be easier to use that as our legal code. But we suck at that, so we end up picking and choosing.

Mary, my bet is that most (if not all) of those that are quoting the bible as reason for their vote on prop 2 would use the bible to decide how to vote on porn legislation.

Drbio · 11-09-2005, 07:10 PM

I would love to see anti-porn legislation introduced. The problem is that there is precedent that protects it as free speech. This is where the effort should be made I guess, but that decision really handcuffs those who would attack it legislatively. It is very unfortunate.

mary · 11-09-2005, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
None of us are perfect - if any of us were able to follow all the biblical law perfectly, then it would be easier to use that as our legal code. But we suck at that, so we end up picking and choosing.

Mary, my bet is that most (if not all) of those that are quoting the bible as reason for their vote on prop 2 would use the bible to decide how to vote on porn legislation.

UL - definitely so. What I'm wondering is why those don't same people use the Bible to conduct their daily activities? Its not about being perfect or imperfect. Is about either choosing or rejecting God's law. Are you going to follow it? Or you simply going to use it to dictate the actions of others?

If you're rejecting it yourself, do you really have any business shoving it down someone else's throat?

dude1394 · 11-09-2005, 09:02 PM

I would think that all of us fall short of the morality that we believe we should adhere to everyday. Certainly I do.

However I do not want my society to explicitly condone immorality. I can live with society having a live and let live attitude, as long as it is not promoted as the mainstream. Our culture DOES effect what our children(and adults) do/do not do. Raising children is hard enough without having to combat a society that glorifies pre-marital sex, homosexuality, hardcore S&M, scatology, gangbangs, promiscuity and many other -alities. I understand these things go on and I'm not terribly interested in prosecuting folks or passing laws prohibiting them. I also understand that I used extreme cases, but the argument for homosexuality and other -ilities are the same ones.

Nowhere do I see an inalienable right for people to commit any and all sex acts and have those acts be codified in our laws. I see absolutely no difference between gay marriage being codified and polygamy being codified. My biggest problem with strip clubs and pornography is that the advertisement for them are not controlled in a much,much more stringent manner.

And I don't really care what people do in their bedrooms but again it is difficult enough as a parent to deal with this ultra-sexually-heightened culture that we have without having the government telling them that homosexual deviant behaviour is completely acceptable and is normal. It is not.

Epitome22 · 11-10-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: dude1394
I would think that all of us fall short of the morality that we believe we should adhere to everyday. Certainly I do.

However I do not want my society to explicitly condone immorality. I can live with society having a live and let live attitude, as long as it is not promoted as the mainstream. Our culture DOES effect what our children(and adults) do/do not do. Raising children is hard enough without having to combat a society that glorifies pre-marital sex, homosexuality, hardcore S&M, scatology, gangbangs, promiscuity and many other -alities. I understand these things go on and I'm not terribly interested in prosecuting folks or passing laws prohibiting them. I also understand that I used extreme cases, but the argument for homosexuality and other -ilities are the same ones.

Nowhere do I see an inalienable right for people to commit any and all sex acts and have those acts be codified in our laws. I see absolutely no difference between gay marriage being codified and polygamy being codified. My biggest problem with strip clubs and pornography is that the advertisement for them are not controlled in a much,much more stringent manner.

And I don't really care what people do in their bedrooms but again it is difficult enough as a parent to deal with this ultra-sexually-heightened culture that we have without having the government telling them that homosexual deviant behaviour is completely acceptable and is normal. It is not.

How is it not acceptable?

Usually Lurkin · 11-10-2005, 07:42 AM

[quote]
Originally posted by: mary

Quote:

Are you going to follow it? Or you simply going to use it to dictate the actions of others?

I don't understand. Probably the people that quote God's law for their vote on prop 2 arent violating those laws of God that are applicable.
Is your point, "follow all of God's law or follow none of it"? Or is it maybe, "follow all of God's law or don't tell anyone else they should follow any of it"
Either of those seem to be impossible standards

But that's not really applicable to voting on a single issue. Anyone who uses the Bible to rationalize their votes will necessarily have to pick and choose which of God's laws they want in our secular legal code. Most would agree that murder should be in there. Most also would agree that setting your slaves free every 7 years (or something like that) has no place in our legal code.

If someone views homosexual marriage and pornography as separate issues, then they would have to view each of those separately in light of both the current legal code and the religious law of the bible. Do you view them as the same thing?

Usually Lurkin · 11-10-2005, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Drbio
I would love to see anti-porn legislation introduced. The problem is that there is precedent that protects it as free speech. This is where the effort should be made I guess, but that decision really handcuffs those who would attack it legislatively. It is very unfortunate.

I don't know the law, but don't we have some constraints already? Like you can't have a strip-joint within so many yards of a school, and no one can sell pornography door to door to young children? It would also be illegal for me to put up an explicitly pornographic billboard, wouldn't it? Even if those restrictions are just social and not legal, can't we start extending those types of restrictions instead of continuing to let them loosen?

mary · 11-10-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

"follow all of God's law or don't tell anyone else they should follow any of it"
Either of those seem to be impossible standards

Okay, what percentage do you think God would find acceptable? And yes, I believe if YOUR house isn't clean, you should focus your attention on taking care of it and stop trying to impose YOUR will on other people's lives.

dude1394 · 11-10-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

How is it not acceptable?

Because it is a deviant sexual act. By both the mores of our society and the biological functioning of our bodies it is a deviant sexual act. If homosexuality cannot be described as deviant than no other sexual act(s) can be described as deviant either. If homosexuality isn't deviant then the definition of the word deviant no longer applies to any act.

dude1394 · 11-10-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: mary

Quote:

"follow all of God's law or don't tell anyone else they should follow any of it"
Either of those seem to be impossible standards

Okay, what percentage do you think God would find acceptable? And yes, I believe if YOUR house isn't clean, you should focus your attention on taking care of it and stop trying to impose YOUR will on other people's lives.

However imposing YOUR will on other's peoples lives is done every day, every time any law is passed and basically everytime a free people vote. It decides one thing or another. The housing group that decides that you cannot put an RV outside your house, or have a certain size antennae.

The law that decides you must wait x days before purchasing a gun.

The law in Georgia that says you must have a picture ID to be able to vote.....oh I forgot that was struck down by a judge...In the case of a judge only one person gets to impose their will on others lives.

Drbio · 11-10-2005, 09:26 AM

I have to agree with dude here. He hit on something that has been driving me nuts. It apprently is ok for homozexuals (and those sympathetic to them in this issue) to demand their view be put into action, but why is it not ok for those against homosexual marriage to want their view to be put into action?

A law was duly passed by the people, for the people as is how our great country works. You may not like the law, but you ought to respect the law.

Usually Lurkin · 11-10-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: mary

Quote:

"follow all of God's law or don't tell anyone else they should follow any of it"
Either of those seem to be impossible standards

Okay, what percentage do you think God would find acceptable? And yes, I believe if YOUR house isn't clean, you should focus your attention on taking care of it and stop trying to impose YOUR will on other people's lives.

percentage of people? Zero, without Christ. Only one of us has ever had a clean house (not me, that's for sure), and it's not MY will that anyone is trying to enforce when they quote the bible. But why should I let anyone else try to enforce their view of marriage on me? I don't agree that my marriage is the same as a gay relationship.

If people read the bible to say that God's will is that a monogamous man-woman relationship should be the basis of family and social structure, then that's their prerogative. For you to say they also have to interpret the rest of the bible the way you interpret it seems like an unfair constraint to place on their religious freedom.

MavKikiNYC · 11-10-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

It apprently is ok for homozexuals (and those sympathetic to them in this issue) to demand their view be put into action, but why is it not ok for those against homosexual marriage to want their view to be put into action?

Supporters of equal rights for samesex partnerships are not merely "demanding that their view be put into action". There are legal rights and economic benefits/consequences that tangibly affect their lives and their ability to live their lives.

On the other hand, the opponents of equal rights for samesex partnerships will suffer no loss of right nor any loss of benefit when samesex partnerships are allowed. It is merely a homophobic sensibility fueled by a religious bigotry that drives them to "demand that their view be put into action", selectively imposing their notion of morality on a numerical minority in the population, and in the process denying them civil and economic rights.

What Texas voters approved Tuesday was a 21st century homophobic verison of a Jim Crow law---arguably even worse, since it deniessamesex partners an even more fundamental right. That's not democracy, and it's not how this country has functioned. It will change in time.

A few months ago, I came home to Texas for my grandmother's funeral, and while I was home my father was talking about how my grandfather had told of serving on a local school board 50-60 years ago when the school board voted to pay black teachers (at the segregated black school) 60 percent of what the white teachers were paid--just because that's the way it was. My grandfather didn't oppose the measure, didn't argue for equal pay. At the time, I doubt he even thought what they were doing was wrong, though perhaps the fact that he told the story suggests that as time went by his view and understanding changed. My grandfather was far from a raving bigot, but he was a product of his time and of the culture in which he lived and had been raised. Two generations later, I can look back and know that the decisions he participated in were wrong, immoral and shameful. I predict that in two or three generations, people will look back at Tuesday's vote and feel the same way about their grandfathers' actions.

I'm pretty sure that my parents and many of my relatives voted in favor or the amendment, and while I love them, I know I'm ashamed for them today.

MavKikiNYC · 11-10-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

If people read the bible to say that God's will is that a monogamous man-woman relationship should be the basis of family and social structure, then that's their prerogative. For you to say they also have to interpret the rest of the bible the way you interpret it seems like an unfair constraint to place on their religious freedom.

This is a bald-faced dishonesty.

Your religious freedom does not allow you to deny other people civil rights, anymore than the Taliban's did.
Not with a gun, not with a ballot. Period.

Ninkobei · 11-10-2005, 11:11 AM

it's funny- because even though someone who is gay can't get married in texas, they can jump across the border and get married then move back. All this law does is lose money on marriage ceremonies for Texas. way to go guys.

also, I vote we bring in some sort of gestapo to stop people from living the way they want to live. we're the fucking government we should tell everyone how to live. it's not the people's choice, it is our choice. and if you don't like it, then you will be shunned by society.

ps. that was my government official impersonation.

mary · 11-10-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

For you to say they also have to interpret the rest of the bible the way you interpret it seems like an unfair constraint to place on their religious freedom.

That's funny, because I wasn't aware I had religous freedom. I've just been told I have to go along with the majority's interpretation. Oh, you're referring to someone else's religous freedom. Gotcha.

BTW UL, you misread my question. I was wondering what percentage of the Law God expects you to follow. You seem to imply that its impossible to follow all of it, and that some of it has been adapted *gasp* to fit our current culture (slavery example).

So I'm wondering what percentage of God's law should we follow, and how is that you can brush aside Laws X, Y, and Z as "hey we're just imperfect that way!" but decide that Laws A, B, and C are important enough that we want to enforce them on others.

Here, I'll answer that.

Laws X, Y, and Z impact me directly. They're difficult to follow. All have sinned and fallen short the Glory of God, so lets not worry about Laws X, Y and Z so much. To follow Laws X, Y, and Z would be unreasonable and I'm not perfect.

Laws A, B, and C I agree with. I don't do those things to begin with and nor do I want others to do them. Since I rather forget about Laws X, Y and Z, I'm going to concentrate on A, B, and C (because I don't do that stuff to begin with!) and make sure others follow THIS part of the Bible.

Usually Lurkin · 11-10-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Quote:

If people read the bible to say that God's will is that a monogamous man-woman relationship should be the basis of family and social structure, then that's their prerogative. For you to say they also have to interpret the rest of the bible the way you interpret it seems like an unfair constraint to place on their religious freedom.

This is a bald-faced dishonesty.

Your religious freedom does not allow you to deny other people civil rights, anymore than the Taliban's did.
Not with a gun, not with a ballot. Period.

Your's is dishonest. Whatever is the "civil right" and whatever is being denied, wouldn't you deny those things to some people but not others?
Would it be denying civil rights to disallow single people those benefits?
What should be included in a definition of marriage? Would you try to define love? Commitment? Why deny "civil rights" to those who don't love or can't commit?

Murphy3 · 11-10-2005, 12:09 PM

...bottom line...homosexuality is overrated. It leads to way too many arguments.

MavKikiNYC · 11-10-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Your's is dishonest.

No, yours is. Plus mine has the additional benefit of correct punctuation.

Quote:

Whatever is the "civil right" and whatever is being denied, wouldn't you deny those things to some people but not others? Would it be denying civil rights to disallow single people those benefits?

UL, it rather underscores the weakness of your rhetorical position to ask if denying single people the right to call themselves married is a violation of their civil rights.

Quote:

What should be included in a definition of marriage? Would you try to define love? Commitment? Why deny "civil rights" to those who don't love or can't commit?

Well, they certainly aren't denied the right to marry. I know plenty of those kinds of people who are--all heterosexual, btw.

mary · 11-10-2005, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
...bottom line...homosexuality is overrated. It leads to way too many arguments.

Yeah, but isn't this at least more interesting than the "I'm a dimmocrat and you're a rupubican" standard fare?

Drbio · 11-10-2005, 12:33 PM

Bottom line. The United States of America is a wonderful place to live. There is a system of law in place that although not perfect is the best in the world. The people of this country get to vote on issues that are presented to them legislatively. It's a wonderful right the right to vote. I respect every vote and feel that is not only my right to vote but my duty to do so. I am pleased that this amendment was placed on the ballot by my great state (and 19 other states so far). I respect that people on both sides of this issue showed up in droves to vote. I am proud of those who took the time to vote regardless of their vote. I am also proud that the process established a rule by which we can now follow. A law was enacted for the people by the people as required. It's time to respect the will of the people of this state. Those who do not are attempting to enable someone to break the laws which govern this state. These are immutable facts regardless of emotional empassioned manufactured justifications to the contrary. It is law.

If someone feels that they are being oppressed they can lobby their legislators to enact change. Otherwise they should respect the law. If they are not happy living under the laws of this great state, there are other states which will accomodate their choices. I am all for someone residing in a place which provides them the opportunity to be happy. Best of luck to them. But until that law is changed, there is really nothing more to talk about.