1. Welcome to Oklahoma Shooters Association! Join today, registration is easy!

    You can register using your Google, Facebook, or Twitter account, just click here.

Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by gerhard1, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. donner

    donner Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    4,330
    Likes Received:
    793
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    nothing wrong with supporting it, but i also don't see anything wrong with expanding it, either. If you want to bring trans folks into the mix, we can. But as a concept (two people loving each other and forming a family) i have yet to see a legitimate reason two grown adults can't form such a bond* (*excluding subjective religious reasons, i mean).
     
  2. donner

    donner Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    4,330
    Likes Received:
    793
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    isn't the foundation of marriage love? Or are you including things like arranged marriages, child marriages, etc (you know, from centuries old). Why does two men or two women 'drastically change the ingredients' if the foundation is still love?
     
  3. donner

    donner Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    4,330
    Likes Received:
    793
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford, MS
    My apologies for misrepresenting your position.

    That said, if the media didn't create the issue, then the issue was already there and the media drew attention to it, i guess. Like 'hey, did you know there is a group of people in America who are being denied equal access under the law? Maybe we should do a story or two about it. I wonder if anyone would care. Lets find out!'
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  4. RustedBeef

    RustedBeef Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    786
    Likes Received:
    237
    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    Location:
    Stillwater
    Rating
    100%
    I think it's gross. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to become legally married.

    I've talked with some people who seemed to have some kind of hatred for gays before, but I can't really tell if they're serious or not. Doesn't make a lot of sense to get bent out of shape over something that doesn't affect you. I think most of the time they're just exaggerating their opinion for show

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
     
  5. ignerntbend

    ignerntbend Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    12,865
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Does anybody remember back in 1957 when McDonalds WED catchup and Mustard?
    People have begun to improperly marry verbs and adjectives. Young people. "Eat Healthy, Play aggressive"?
    The feminist's are forcing us to couple singulars with plurals. "Everybody should eat their lunch." "It's cold outside so everyone should wear their coat."
    Doctors, Lawyers, and college professors are misusing "hopefully."

    When Terry and I were kids, nobody would dare say Hopefully, when they meant "It is to be hoped."
    or "we can be hopeful." It's getting out of hand. I blame the Democrats.
     
    dlmcm likes this.
  6. MacFromOK

    MacFromOK Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    6,987
    Likes Received:
    5,822
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Southern Oklahoma
    Rating
    100%
    Nobody said the foundation is love. Marriage and love are neither mutually inclusive, nor mutually exclusive.

    The foundation of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, the concept of adulthood has changed over the centuries, but the concept of marriage has not.

    There have been (and probably always will be) loveless marriages. Arranged marriages (whatever the criteria) can still result in love between the man & woman.

    Your sandpile is not a pyramid.
    :drunk2:
     
    dlmcm likes this.
  7. ignerntbend

    ignerntbend Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    12,865
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Sure it has, Mac. How long ago was it that interracial marriage was not permitted? What about the Jew marrying the catholic?
    The Reform Jew marrying the Ultra- Orthodox.?The Roman Catholic marrying the Eastern Orthodox?
    You have all kinds of people over the centuries defining marriage. It's not really that big a deal to me, but I don't see how anyone can claim ownership of a word. A certificate of marriage, in the modern world is a contract between two people and the state. That doesn't prevent anyone from being joined in Holy Matrimony in the church. It doesn't change your rights at all.
     
    Rooster1971 likes this.
  8. MacFromOK

    MacFromOK Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    6,987
    Likes Received:
    5,822
    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Location:
    Southern Oklahoma
    Rating
    100%
    Historical restrictions on marriage due to race or religion nevertheless did not redefine marriage to include anything other than a man and a woman.
    :drunk2:
     
    blake711 likes this.
  9. blake711

    blake711 Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    2,543
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Location:
    Tulsa
    Rating
    100%
    The only reason the government is in the marriage business is to tax it plain and simple. Marriage was created by GOD and defined as a union of A Man and A Woman before GOD.

    I could care less what the government calls the tax form I have to buy to make them give me tax credits due to my cohabitation with my wife. I could also care less if 2 men, 2 women or 1 alien and one Q person get that same credit.

    What makes my marriage a marriage is the vow my wife and I took before GOD. Not the paper I had to pay $25 for that made the government acknowledge it for tax purposes. My oath is to my wife and GOD not to the state.
     
  10. gerhard1

    gerhard1 Sharpshooter

    Messages:
    2,877
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Location:
    Rural Grant County
    Rating
    100%
    Thank you; that's very kind.

    I see a difference between reporting and promoting. Take guns as an example again. The NRA and other pro-gun groups feel--and I agree with them--that the media does not do a good job of presenting their views largely because the media has prejudice against them and conservatives in general. Like I said earlier, the media in general shouts the views of the Brady Bunch from the rooftops, rarely asking challenging questions but will vigorously grill pro-gun people. Even Fox, which is fairer by far than other networks did not challenge a Colorado sheriff when he opined that concealed carry would lead to more violence. Then there was a reporter who worked for NBC (but don't hold me to that) who was researching a gun bill, and contacted then-Rep. Charles Schumer for information and then contacted the Brady Center, and got their input. When it was suggested that the NRA be contacted this was flatly rejected on the grounds that the NRA was 'biased'.

    And then there's this. One issue was almost entirely a creation of the media. That is the 'cop-killer' bullet. KTW, the maker had a policy of restricting sales to LE and military only, so there was no problem with them. This media-created controversy enabled the gun-control advocates to advance the notion that cops were in grave danger because of these and other AP rounds. The claim was brought forth that the NRA had a new group that it cared nothing about; cops. Earlier, it was babies and little old ladies. Okay, I’m exaggerating slightly there. My brother, a cop at the time, was pissed-off at the NRA for opposing the bill, and was not aware until I told him several years later that the final bill passed with the support of the NRA. Somehow that little detail never got reported. The suspicion is there that the primary reason it was not reported was so the gun-control advocates could claim credit for the bill.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019

Share This Page