Texas Gov to sign anti-gay bill in church's school

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jun 5, 2005.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
  2. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #2
    More steps forward than backward as of late, don't worry.
     
  3. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Such as? There was Connecticut, but what else? What's more disturbing is where this is taking place.
     
  4. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #4
    Lot's of efforts, and lots of states adopting anti-discrimination legislation.

    It's been big in the news, that's a step forward. It isn't going to happen overnight.
     
  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Not to be bleak, but neither did the Hollocaust. Point being- I feel this could go either way.
     
  6. ham_man macrumors 68020

    ham_man

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    #6
    Christ does not want His Will to be done this way...

    Maybe Perry should go to a public school and explain why he and his legislature could not work out a school finance plan...
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    I honestly don't understand...it's not like Texas really needs a PR campaign in an attempt to make itself *less* desirable than it already is.... :eek:
     
  8. sjpetry macrumors 65816

    sjpetry

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Tamarindo, Costa Rica
    #8
    Tell me about it. :p

    But then again it's only equal rights. :rolleyes:
     
  9. jwp1964 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Enterprise, KS
    #9
    Wow...I remember when the left actually supported democracy...

    Wouldn't want the voters to decide would we...
     
  10. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #10
    Mmmm...*simmers* I'm going to very briefly take the bait on this. It isn't true that in every case, letting people vote on something is more democratic than not letting them vote. The perfect example is voting to strip people of their voting rights. What if, for instance, all the whites in the US colluded to vote that only whites could vote, and managed to sneak this in while they're still the majority? ;) Pure democracy of the sort that would allow such a process to occur is something we avoid not because we can't implement it, but because it is inherently unstable. It has no check against this kind of thing, and once this happens, it is really no longer a democracy.

    People should be able to freely self-determine on the vast majority of things. Disenfranchising minority groups is not one of them, because it is contrary to the stability of democracy.
     
  11. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #11
    First, off he signed a constitutional amendment that didn't need his signature. What he did was only ceremonially, and had no weight constitutionally. The bill goes on the November ballet in Texas.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060605dntexperry.11c3fc0c1.html

     
  12. jwp1964 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Enterprise, KS
    #12
    Thanks for the reasoned well thought out reply.

    I occasionally like to jump into what is a political discussion without having everything degenerate into FLAMES and name calling so let me state up front that I think reasonable people can have lively debate and probable disagreement on issues and still be civil (and in some cases even friends).

    If we assume your contention that homosexuality is the equivalent of gender and or race then you would be correct, but I don't see it that way. Homosexuality, as I understand it, crosses all ethnicity and all genders so at best you're describing a very small group within every ethnicity not readily identifiable on sight amounting nor reasonably comparable to what other minorities like African-Americans have historically suffered (ie there is no economic disadvantage to being homosexual...actually quite the opposite because most studies show homosexuals have higher education and income than most). So far my liberal/left friends have not been able to convince me that being homosexual is the equivalent of being of another race. Convince us unenlightened folks (70ish % in most polls regarding gay marriage) that we are wrong through debate and dialog not decrees by judges who answer to no one. Elect representatives who see it your way...don't try to dictate to the majority via courts on every issue that you disagree with the majority on.
     
  13. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #13
    you are correct. that why we have constitution and rights. the civil rights movement was largely decided in courts, protest, and through adminstrations both pro and against it. The laws were stacked, and perception and culture of america had to be forced to change.
     
  14. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    You can be kicked out of the military or fired from any job (in a state that does not forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation) for being a homosexual. That sounds like a disadvantage. Also, the numbers tend to indicate that gay male couples make more on average than heterosexual couples, while lesbian couples make less than the average heterosexual couple. Far more than any difference in incomes between gay and straight is the difference between what men and women make.

    Being deprived of the right to marry is a huge economic disadvantage. Marriage affords a long list of economic rights, such as inheritance. It also affords a long list of social rights.

    Why is economic disadvantage the only aspect you mention? Surely there are other disadvantages to being a minority.
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    Ah, but there is the folly of your argument. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is a choice (I don't believe it is, but I will humor those who do). Well... so? They choose to be homosexuals. Then let them. Doesn't affect you or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if 90% of the voters think they can take away the rights of others based on their own beliefs, especially consdering that not too long ago the same could be said of women and minorities. This should not even be up for a vote because it is a non issue. There are so many other things going wrong in this country, this world, right now. I can't believe we're even talking about this.

    I'm sorry you feel that way about homosexuality. But just as you wouldn't want them telling you what you can and can't do in your bedroom, I would expect you'd give them the same courtesy. THAT is what we do in a free society, not let voters vote to take away the rights of citizens just because they are different.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    You're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

    Your argument sucks.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    Folks used to say the same thing to justify slavery.
     
  18. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #18
    So if the majority of this country wanted to burn homosexuals alive, you'd jump right on the wagon?

    Gotcha.
     
  19. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    I love it. Get 'em where it hurts.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    Govt is trying to legislate behavior. I dont recall that one in the constitution. Are we the land of the Free or the land of the Police state? I would have to vote Police state. We can have the Gay police working right next to Marijuana Police working right next to the Fat police in fact why dont they just throw everyone in jail who isnt republican and a religious freek. Its what they are working towards isnt it? Next thing will be a camera in everyones home so big brother makes sure we live "Our" lives according to "their" will.
     
  21. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #21
    I'll explain the numbers since you are using population as your argument. 6% of Americans are gay. Looking at Asian American and Pacific Islander from the last Census the combined total combination is 3% of the American population. There are more gay American than there are 2 combined ethnic groups. Does being gay give them less rights because 70% of Americans don't agree? No, it doesn't.

    Although, I believe you are right though most American's don't like the idea of gay marriage. A valid compromise would civil unions, full legal rights of marriage, but without the title.
     
  22. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #22
    Separate but equal doesn't fly in the world of civil rights.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    This isn't necessarily a separate but equal proposal. Not to start this debate all over again (though it might be inevitable), I've suggested several times that the government get entirely out of the business of deciding who can be married. In my plan, the government would oversee the legal-contractual issues between people, as it does now. Call this a "civil union," or whatever you like, but it gives two people all the legal rights currently associated with marriage, but without the title. Churches could then decide, entirely free of government interference, which of these civil unions they wanted to sanctify as marriages.

    I think this solution should give everybody what they want -- except for the bigots, of course. And they can -- well, you know... ;)
     
  24. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #24
    Works for me.

    Marriage is nothing more than a financial contract anyway.
     
  25. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    I'm really going to try to hold my tongue with you and be as civil as possible. But let me ask you something-how would you feel if the majority voted to invalidate your marriage on whatever basis? Would it be OK with you to just sit back and debate with others? I don't think it would. You'd fight to get it any way you could. This is a free society- we should be able to get married if we want. It has nothing to do with you. I shouldn't have to convince you of anything to have the same rights as everyone else.
     

Share This Page