What is the deal with Gay Rights?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Texas1911, Aug 13, 2009.

  1. Texas1911

    Texas1911 TGT Addict

    May 29, 2017
    Austin, TX
    On one side of the fence you have a group of people that are pushing for recognition as a married couple, and on the other hand you have a group of people that believe that God upholds homosexuality as sinful behavior. One side says it is a behavioral choice, and the other holds fast that it is ingrained in their genetic code.

    One thing is for certain though, ... marriage is NOT a Federal issue per the Constitution. This is a societal issue, to be handled by society. Marriage, always has, and always will be a religious matter. That's why people get married in a religious ceremony of some sort. The state has no right to give preferential treatment to any citizen because of their religious stature. Ergo, the state has no right to extend or even recognize marriages.

    Why do we waste our time with this worthless matter?
     


  2. navyguy

    navyguy TGT Addict

    2,973
    10
    38
    Oct 22, 2008
    DFW Keller
    There are actually some Federal and State government issues involved in a legal marriage. Some financial. Tax implications, community property and the like. But there are other legal issues that go with what we call a marriage.

    I guess I don't have to much of a problem if there were laws that allowed a "civil union" some of those same legal rights. It I just can't get passed calling it a marriage, unless it's a man and women.
     
  3. Man With A Gun...

    Man With A Gun... Member

    129
    0
    16
    May 22, 2009
    Lakeway, Tx
    Call me jaded.. If we give in to these peter-puffers, whats next?! What other group of degenerates are next in line to demand "rights"?! Will it be people who dig banging animals? Will they force their way of life down the throat of America? Or maybe Pedophiles... they will say "But I was born this way! So don't discriminate!" I don't care what sick idea you come up with, you get enough people on board and we must give them "Rights".
     
  4. MadMo44Mag

    MadMo44Mag TGT Addict

    3,054
    0
    36
    Jan 23, 2009
    Ft.Worth
    I feel all this is BS and should not be allowed but this is a country where personal freedoms can still be expressed.
    If these "8 balls" want a union ok but don't ask me to condone it or acknowledge it personally.
     
  5. rsayloriii

    rsayloriii TGT Addict

    3,336
    2
    38
    May 11, 2009
    H-Town, TX
    Here's my whole problem with giving them recognition as a "married couple". The reason the IRS has "married" and "single" is because with married, it's believed that you will procreate and that has a larger burden on your financial capabilities than if you're single (assuming you're not procreating). That brings about the problem I have with gays being given recognition as a "married couple". While they may adopt, they're not out to procreate as given to that "lifestyle". Therefore theoretically they should not need the same tax break as a married couple that intends to procreate. So why should they be given a tax break when they don't "need" it?

    I don't care what lifestyle you choose to live, for the most part, but don't shove it down my throat!

    And I agree with High Cap, it's a choice, not a d@mn thing to do with genetics. The whole point to life is to procreate. We just involve ourselves with other frivolous tasks to kill the time in between.
     
  6. TSU45

    TSU45 Active Member

    410
    0
    16
    Jun 6, 2008
    San Marcos, Tx
    Well judging from the responses so far I'll probably get flamed for this, but I could honestly care less if two dudes want to get married. I'd just assume let them.

    People can argue all day whether it's a genetic or learned behavior and at the end of that day, for whatever reason, some dudes are just into other dudes and some chicks into other chicks.

    They don't mess with my right to do as I please as long as I don't bring harm on others and I don't intend to mess with theirs.
     
  7. DoubleActionCHL

    DoubleActionCHL Well-Known

    1,573
    0
    36
    Jun 23, 2008
    Spring, Texas
    I'm ok with same-sex marriage as long as we make them deal with same-sex divorce!!!

    Personally, I believe it's a problem with terminology. The government has created tax incentives for being "married." Conversely, they've created welfare incentives for remaining single. Insurance companies provide discounts for "married" couples.

    The fact is, however, the term "marriage" comes from religious origins. Virtually every religion encourages "marriage" because early human beans knew that it was necessary for procreation, and monogamy reduces the spread of STDs.

    If these guys and girls want to reap the financial benefits of marriage, that's fine; but let's find another name. Or, here's an idea: Let's reference a union between a heterosexual couple, ordained by God and all that, as "Marriage" with a capital "M." We'll then reference all of those other civil unions as "marriage" with a lower-case "m."

    Nothing to see here. Move along!
     
  8. Texas1911

    Texas1911 TGT Addict

    May 29, 2017
    Austin, TX
    I think you guys have lost the point, some more than others.

    It is not the role of Federal government to rule on gay marriage. Over time they've taken initiative, illegally in my opinion, to promote benefits to married couples. To me, this is recognizing an establishment of religion, as marriage is religious.

    They need to remove the "benefits" and you'll push the entire matter into social acceptance; read: a social matter.
     
  9. Texas1911

    Texas1911 TGT Addict

    May 29, 2017
    Austin, TX
    There is a difference.

    Gays are American citizens, animals are not.
    Gays are adults, children are not.

    Gays already have rights, but because of the government choosing to give benefits, unconstitutionally, to married couples has them fighting for the same recognition.
     
  10. idleprocess

    idleprocess Active Member

    453
    0
    16
    Feb 29, 2008
    DFW.com
    I really don't care about homosexuals much one way or another. I don't think they're any more depraved than the blatantly obvious (and unhealthy) sublimation of many Bible-beaters' sexual desire into rage against the rest of society. I find them annoying in the same way I find cultural minorities annoying when they complain that they don't wield cultural influence and acceptance disproportionate to their numbers (and are often hypocrytically intolerant of the mainstream... pot. kettle.black.).

    I think that homosexuality is like a deeply ingrained personality trait. There might be genetic predispositions that effect it - much like genetically-induced brain chemical imbalances can be a major factor in emotional problems or an individual's overall perspective - but I doubt there's a simple genetic cause.

    I take a libertarian view on marriage - the government should by and large get out of it. If people want to do it for religious purposes, fine, let the church handle it. If your church doesn't want to marry homosexual couples, that's the price of free association, sorry.

    If people want to do it for other more practical purposes (joint ownership of property, custody of children, etc), then let them form contracts. The state should mandate that marriage contracts can be between any two consenting adults and have semi-standard clauses for termination of said contract so that "divorce" is basically pre-planned and doesn't require stacks of court time and lawyers' fees to execute. It might not be romantic to sign a formal agreement even more elaborate and binding than a pre-nuptial, but perhaps society needs it given the absurd divorce rates in this country.

    One thing I'm noticing that no one in this big messy debate is mentioning is that homosexuals can already obtain nearly all the practical benefits of marriage via standard civil contracts regardless of the laws in their particular state. Jointly-owned property, child custody, power of attorney, inheritances ... nearly all doable with contracts.
     

Share This Page