So it begins: Texas Has the Right to Deny Gay Spousal Benefits

originally posted by: Ridhya

originally posted by: Violater1
I remember a time on ATS when disgusting, vulgar and crass comments like the above, got a member banned.

Sez the guy who mentions his crotch in his title:

Those mentioning their oversized members are usually over compensating for having really tiny weeners, minuscule no doubt.

a reply to: bgerbger
Amazes me that the "law" was created with a supreme court decision and that's ok. Then when a court does not give ya what you want it's judicial "activism".

What a country! Just don't move to Texas

a reply to: TMike

Courts do not create laws. The Supreme Court determines which laws are permitted under the Constitution.

I'm not sure what your point was, it needed clarification. So, you're welcome.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
What federal law has been passed concerning how marriage licenses and benefits should be handled?

Non discrimination acts as well as laws which insert the feds into marriage through legal, tax, and financial benefits. It's unconstitutional to give those benefits to only straight couples.

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't see how discrimination like this is a Christian value. This is blatantly punishing and discriminating against gay couples. What if Hispanics weren't allowed the same benefits as whites?

Marriage is encouraged and benefits are given because reproduction equals the future of humanity. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other which is why i do not see it wrong to deny them marriage benefits. If a private company wants to offer them, fine, but taxpayers should not be paying them.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't see how discrimination like this is a Christian value. This is blatantly punishing and discriminating against gay couples. What if Hispanics weren't allowed the same benefits as whites?

Marriage is encouraged and benefits are given because reproduction equals the future of humanity. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other which is why i do not see it wrong to deny them marriage benefits. If a private company wants to offer them, fine, but taxpayers should not be paying them.

My second wife and I are not 'breeding'. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to marry and receive benefits, or are my former contributions to the gene pool enough to get a pass?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Yep, by that logic better deny benefits to all non childbearing couples.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Yep, by that logic better deny benefits to all non childbearing couples.

But then aren't people having babies to get benefits?

a reply to: Aazadan

That's the Democratic platform.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Thorneblood

Top 7 answers on the board. What's the most derogatory way to define marriage between same sex couples? Survey says... #2 - Unnatural DING!

naturally...male of species looks for a female of species. It's that way...nature wanted it that way. That's why...it enabled women to give birth by being inseminated by a male. It's the basis of procreation. It's the reason why we're all here.

Yes...gay is not natural. And honestly...nature thinks so too.

I'm not saying it's evil. Just unnatural. Deal with it. It's the (not so) ugly truth.

Nature doesn't "think" anything.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
This will get ugly.

States rights are an odd thing.

Here they are denying benefits to gays.
Some states ignore federal drug laws and make pot legal.
We have cities that ban guns which are legal federally.
There are sanctuary cities that violate federal law.

Where is the line for the rights of the states?

At the end of the day you live in the state that meets your lifestyle. You like 30 round mags don't live in CA...as example. The problem is people are so crammed with fed this and fed that, that they forget states rights that can disregard federal rights, sorry...

I don't think the SC looked at this with any disdain for gay marriage, but I bet there is legal precedent that was over looked and tied their hands in their ruling, or not to rule.

originally posted by: Aazadan

But then aren't people having babies to get benefits?

Maybe people on life long welfare....Most that I know don't want kids at all because there is not enough benefits that come even close to the cost since they have jobs instead.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Aazadan

That's the Democratic platform.

It's really not. Republicans and Democrats are both pretty united right now in the idea that welfare should only be given to children and not adults.

a reply to: Aazadan

The established parties on Capitol Hill are geared to the establishment and hate Trump because he seeks to redirect the power to the people and not the control structures.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Aazadan

The established parties on Capitol Hill are geared to the establishment and hate Trump because he seeks to redirect the power to the people and not the control structures.

I don't know about that. Besides attempting to fulfill promises to his base, most of his executive actions have been about consolidating power. That's what happens when you only use acting directors and leave positions unfilled. It turns into power for the President. That doesn't scream power to the people to me.

and again...who gives a F#$%

the gay population is not stopping the same sex couples from..... Going to work, Fight in wars, Protect our streets, Pay their taxes, Get sick, Build a life together, Grieve when the other dies.

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: musicismagic

marriage between the same sex, who gives a fk?

Off hand?

Same Sex Couples

Ya know, American citizens?

They also Go to work, Fight in wars, Protect our streets, Pay their taxes, Get sick, Build a life together, Grieve when the other dies.

it is HEALTHY for us even masturbation helps our health!!!

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Honestly, if sex isn't specifically for reproduction it is just for entertainment regardless of who is boinking whom. I mean what is the point if you aren't making a baby except for satisfying our basic instincts?

have you seen this theory Andrea Camperio-Ciani, at the University of Padova in Italy, found that maternal female relatives of gay men have more children than maternal female relatives of straight men. The implication is that there is an unknown mechanism in the X chromosome of men's genetic code which helps women in the family have more babies, but can lead to homosexuality in men.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Homosexuality is natural... Otherwise it wouldn't exist in nature and humans wouldn't be born gay.

yes...anomalies exist in any system. In that regard...you are right...gay is natural...in a sense...a natural anomaly. But is it natural in a real sense of the word. It is not. If it were...it would go against the concept of evolution.

originally posted by: research100



and again...who gives a F#$%

the gay population is not stopping the same sex couples from..... Going to work, Fight in wars, Protect our streets, Pay their taxes, Get sick, Build a life together, Grieve when the other dies.

No, but laws against gay marriage don't protect spouses from having to testify against each other in court, file taxes jointly, be able to talk to a doctor and make decisions on medical treatment in an emergency. These things don't come up often, but when they do matter they really matter.

oh.... you DID NOT pull that old chestnut out!!!! many straihght couples get married with no intention of having children and many couples have trouble with reproduction by your way of thinking they should not be allowed to marry bacause as YOU say marriage is only for 4 reproduction

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't see how discrimination like this is a Christian value. This is blatantly punishing and discriminating against gay couples. What if Hispanics weren't allowed the same benefits as whites?

Marriage is encouraged and benefits are given because reproduction equals the future of humanity. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other which is why i do not see it wrong to deny them marriage benefits. If a private company wants to offer them, fine, but taxpayers should not be paying them.