Texas ordered to pay $600,000 to same-sex couples.......

The behavior itself is abnormal (not the standard behavior,) but that doesn't make it unnatural. 2% of the world population have naturally red hair. It's certainly an abnormal hair color, since 98% of us don't have red hair. That doesn't make the hair unnatural. There's examples of this, everywhere you look.

 

yes we have been here before. but you still avoid the obvious, why are conservative christians only complaining abouts gays, calling them abnormal, claiming their religion allows them to like immature children, yet anything else so called abnormal is ok.

the bottom line is conservative christians are targeting gays only

 

I have no problem reimbursing their legal fees.

Gay marriage is a very bad idea for many reasons. A gay union is not the equal to a male and female union. But the law is the law, even if it is perverted.

Pay their fees.

 

Good thing I'm not a religious guy, or that response might have zinged me.

Anyway, who else would these people complain about? I'm not aware of any other groups, (that don't fit the criteria of this institution), trying to force it to be rewritten to include them.

Who else should they be complaining about?

 

Not really sure what you mean by "not equal."

My hetero-sexual marriage is not equal to Brittany Spear's 2 day marriage from a few years back. I'd venture to say that a gay couple that's been living monogamously together for decades has a higher level marriage than that 2-day debacle she pulled off.

Is someone in their 3rd or 4th marriage equal to someone in their first marriage?

I think equal is a very strange word to use. All marriages are unique.

Oh, and go CUBS!

 

It was the GOP who tried to push against the Constitution and lost. It's the GOP who wracked up a bill defending their unconstitutional actions.

The RNC should cut Texas a check post haste.

New GOP motto: "Even When It's Our Fault, It's Not."

 

Well, "natural" opens up an entirely different can of worms doesn't it? Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it acceptable. Case in point, animals routinely kill the weakest offspring in their litter...sometimes they'll eat it.

It's totally natural for one animal to walk up and sniff anothers Anus to say hello....we humans however have invented the handshake. (thankfully!!!!)

Both are totally "natural", and examples of why it's best not to try and make your case on the basis of what's natural.

 

What does the right-wing hate the American Constitution so much?

 

I'm more libertarian than not. You can do whatever you want as long as you don't get in the way of someone else doing what they want.

I have a choice to shake your hand, but if you try to sniff my ass, we're going to have issues. And, murder, really?

Can you point out how two men having sex in their bedroom infringes on your rights?

 

then why are trying to prevent from marrying

 

Hahaha agreed!!!

Not saying Gays are like Murder...just pointing out that "natural" doesn't mean "acceptable". Just because something is natural, and maybe seen in the Animal kingdom (both were used as defenses here) really holds no weight in our civilization. That's all I was saying, I realize it's light years apart in severity.

It doesn't, but why is that the bar for rewriting an institution like Marriage that was never meant to be used by any group of people besides a Man and a Woman? it wouldn't infringe my rights if we included single people in it either, but it's not what a Marriage is.

 

Ummm because Marriage is an institution of 1 Man and 1 Woman, not some club that everyone has some right to join.

 

and conservative, does seem to be a trend

 

I'd prefer government get out of the marriage approval business, personally. That said, there are thousands of laws on the books that relate specifically to rights married people have that people who are just co-habitating do not have.

A few years back, we lost a friend. His lifelong (25 years,) partner not only had to deal with the death of his partner, but he also had a terrible time getting stuff out of his partner's name and into his own. Nobody would talk to him because he wasn't the spouse. Stuff like, "well, have him call to change ownership of the cable." The man was dead. Do that with phone, electric, cable.... huge PITA on top of the loss.

Just by being married, this hassle goes away.

Now, multiply that inconvenience by the thousands of laws on the books and you will possibly understand why it was important to give these people the same rights.

 

Many would prefer that Government got out of the Marriage business, but it's in the Governments interest to promote the continuation of their populations.


I do understand that there can be those hassles you mentioned. I think that's a shame. At the same time, changing an institution like Marriage to accommodate things it was never meant for doesn't seem right either. What interest to society or a Government is a Gay marriage?
Why should it be incentivized like a Male/Female pairing which can offer something beneficial to society?

 

Children? What else?

Should couples who are older be allowed to marry, since clearly, they can't have kids?
What about people who have no intention of having kids? Can they marry? How does their marriage benefit society?
How about infertile couples? Also, no benefit to society.

This argument fails, because gay marriages are likely a smaller percentage of married people than those who won't or can't have kids.

 

No it isn't, only for conservative christians, who think gay marriage never happened in the past.

 

It doesn't fail at all. These kinds of things aren't tailored on every single person at a time, it's tailored around a group. Males and Females are the combination that produces children. Some may not be able to, some may not want to..it doesn't change that this is the group that does....not two Females or Males. they will never produce them, Biology just doesn't work that way.
It is assumed that Male + Female can, and as such is beneficial for a Nation to promote, so we do.

 

Never happened here in our Culture. Here, where we live, it is as I said unless you want to show me the Gay marriages we used to do, and then for some reason thought we could stop doing them?

 

My point being is that the percentage of married gay people is going to be much, much lower than the married man/woman combo who will not have kids, for whatever reason. These people are human beings and they have the same right to have a legal partner as heterosexuals do. There's absolutely zero harm to you, your family, your friends, etc., because gay people are allowed to marry. It doesn't hurt society. At. All.

 

They always had that right, same as everyone else. Every person in America had the same right to Marry a member of the opposite sex. That's what marriage is, no one was restricted.
Marriage was never meant to be an option for anything outside of that, and everyone had equal access to it. This was never a question of "rights" and the SC made the wrong call IMO.

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, you just lost me.

 

I figured it might. Marriage , and what it is supposed to be, has been lost on many who just think it's something that everyone is entitled to...it wasn't. It's the union of 1 Man and 1 Woman, as Husband and Wife.

That's it.

Sorry polygamists, but the criteria is 1. Sorry homosexuals the criteria is opposite sexes. It was not meant for anything else.


That being said it was open to everyone, so it was never a matter of rights being trampled, and no one had any valid claim as to why it should be changed to include what they prefer.

 

The federal government started this mess by involving themselves in marriage in the first place. Marriage is up to the states to determine - including straight marriage.

 

What value has "abnormal"?

You realize that people who wait for marriage to have sex and who are monogamous with a single person in their entire lives is by definition "abnormal, deviant behavior", right?