Replies

Human rights are another issue altogether -the law in texas can not deny human rights or take away human rights nor does it.

I agree. Let's hope that such is upheld under any appeals. My referent to Human rights had to do with the freedom of individuals to association with each other. The way section 1 is written might be seen to violate such rights if, under the guise of the "similar to marriage" clause, it is ruled by courts that individuals are not allowed (for example) to Will property or engage in Power of Attorney contracts with non-relative people of the same gender. As-written, Section 1 of the proposed Amendment would do that. Section 2 tries to mitigate this problem, but it is written so poorly that all it does is send up a red flag for the 14th Amendment. This was my point in the very beginning ... my premise, if you will ... and yet you have failed to inquire as to my meaning on this point. Rather, you've tried to CREATE a premise which I have never held. In other words, you've read into what I wrote content that was not there so as to have an argument with someone you thought was holding a different position. This is the quintessential essence of the "strawman tactic."

Equating human rights that all individuals as humans created in God's image merit with marital rights is quite a moral relative and morally liberal stretch (flawed premise).

IF that is what I were doing, you would be correct. I am not, however, doing this. What I'm equating with human rights is the VERY REAL human right of self determination of one's property, assets, and with whom one will associate ("freedom of association").

Nice try but the argument is as old Sodom & Gommorah -you really need to rethink your flawed perspective which I point out and in charity and offer fraternal correction to.

I entirely disagree. Your attempt to brand me with this self-constructed false premise is, in and of itself, a strawman and false. I advise you, in all charity, to cease and desist.

There is no comparison between marriage and homosexual 'coupling' -period (flawed premise)...

I NEVER EVER made such a comparison (that's another strawman on YOUR part). There IS a comparison, however, between the rights and responsibilities commensurate with the marriage contract as recognized by the State and legal contracts of various kinds which individuals enter into to obtain personal fiduciary and security which would, otherwise, come by way of the marriage contract.

Love does not require sex especially sex that is declared legitimately abomination...

Agreed entirely. My point has NEVER been that such was the case. My point is concern that all of this is simply going to turn out to be a WASTE OF TIME because the Proposed State Amendment will be overturned at the Federal Level due to conflicts with the 14th Amendment, said conflicts stemming from the poor drafting of Section 2. Your attempt to claim I have a faulty premiss is NONSENSE.

I'm sorry about the "To" line not filing in your ID last time ... I don't know why or how that happened ... maybe have been the cat walking over the keyboard while I was I was away from the computer.