Gay Couple Uses Skype to Legally Marry in Texas

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Silmarunya

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
390
0
18,930
0
I'm not sure what annoys me more - the fake handbag spam or the christians that seem to believe their religion gives them the right to decide how others should live their lives. How can a western democracy ignore a basic right like the right to love a person of choice? I understand that priests don't want to marry gay couples, but a civil marriage with all the legal benefits of marriage should be possible imo.

I wish those guys all the best and hope they're happy together and that's the end of it.
 

4Ryan6

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2002
175
0
18,640
4
[citation][nom]reynod[/nom]A good christian wouldn't judge others in such a hateful and shameful way as some of you have posted here.If it takes an existentialist like me to tell you so ... then you need to read your bible a little more carefully ... because i have read it.After deleting all of the nasty comments (which the moderators can still see) it is clear the world won't progress far with some of you in charge of anything beyond a forklift or a steakknife.Remember, regardless of ideology, religion or beliefs we all have to live together, and whether your straight or gay, or into robots, I wish you well.[/citation]


I totally agree!

And I am a Christian!
 

Anaxamenes

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2010
39
0
18,580
0
Another story not about tech, but about a liberal promoting some 'cause' instead.
Actually I think it was about the use of a technology to circumvent Texas laws concerning gay marriage. Seems a rather clever way to use the technology too. It's interesting that Skype would be the technology to bring equal rights to the couple in Texas.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
25
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]wotan31[/nom]Wait... who is the intolerant bigot here? Hypocrisy makes me LOL![/citation]

Or maybe you simply aren't using your cerebral cortex properly. Yeah.. the reason we humans have a forehead is due to a genetic mutation allowing for our brains (Cerebral Cortex) to grow. This allows us the capacity to reason, rationalize etc.

Now that I've explained that... I'll tear your argument apart (with relative ease).

I am not the one being intolerant here. You're attempting to throw around a reverse racism charge. I could care less if an individual is Buddhist, Christian, Muslim etc. Your life, your choice.

But what YOU choose to do with your life ought not have a negative impact on the lives of others. You being a Christian doesn't give you any special permissions. It does not allow you to deny other people rights (rights you yourself enjoy) just because your religious doctrine does not approve of their lifestyle.

Therefore I am intolerant of intolerance. That means that I don't sit back and allow these hateful bigots free reign on the rights of my fellow citizens. I stand up and call them out for the dreadfully ignorant individuals (willfully might I ad) that they are.

Plus my post was factual. Don't like it? Too bad... reality is what it is.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
25
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]wotan31[/nom]Wait... who is the intolerant bigot here? Hypocrisy makes me LOL![/citation]

See I can do this all day because I am not arguing out of opinion. I am arguing out of fact. This isn't my opinion... this is reality.

What we know to be real is what we have been able to observe (scientifically). There are most definitely things which we know exist but which we have yet to discover exist. (It can be summarized this way: Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns).

These things are things like dark matter for example. We know dark matter must exist as the theory of relativity (Einstein) calls for its existence. Without it... the theory falters.

So we search for it. We use technology as a means to find this dark matter (hadron collider for example). Should we not find it... then we move on from that point. Science changes and molds. Science self corrects itself as new evidence and new ideas come to the table. Science seeks understanding.

Your religious texts are set in stone and have yet to predict anything or explain any natural phenomenon in any factual way. Religion cannot explain the natural world the way science does. So there is nothing which religion can explain that science can't. On the contrary there is nothing that science cannot explain which religion can.

Nothing about intolerance here. Pure simple fact.

Now as for Homosexuality. One could use an argument out of nature. Homosexuality has been observed throughout nature in nearly every species. Homosexuality is therefore natural.
What your creationists and theocratic imbeciles try to do is deny nature. You are so uncomfortable with the prospect of two men, two women or anyone who doesn't identify based on genders being together and loving one another that you seek to deny them their very nature.

What gives YOU the right to do so? Who died and made you dictator?

The funny part is many of you tend to bitch and moan about Freedoms and Liberties being taken away by Obama (yet you can't pinpoint any true/concrete example of such lost freedoms at the hand of Obama) but when a TRUE question of Liberty/Freedom is brought to the table (the right to marry whomever you so choose) you are against it!

Now that is true hypocrisy.
 

Usersname

Distinguished
May 10, 2010
129
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]The translations of the bible are using the exact context that they were written in originally, and I can confirm that without a doubt. Source: I'm a semester and a couple weeks away from my masters in theology. (kinda my job to know this stuff)[/citation]Then you know the bible is a product of humanity not divinity. Constructed as it was over many centuries and interpreted in a myriad ways, it remains a product of humanity. Not one word of it is the word of a god. At best it is fanciful hearsay and at it worst heavily redacted mythology. Either way it is insubstantial. Thus any context is interpretatively meaningless.
 

colbey

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]rpgplayer[/nom]idk, it's kind of hard for me to listen to someone say something is wrong because their religion says it is. on the other hand atleast 80% of the wars in history were over religious differences. so it's ok to kill, just not ok to love another person regardless of sex.i'm not gay btw, it's just that it's my opinion that if gays want to marry then go for it. [edit] [/citation]
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i have yo say you are wrong. i say you cant look at any history more than 2000 years old and expect the whole truth, when you cant ever get the whole truth of things that happen 10 years ago. like why a war starts. popular opinion may state that the war was religious, but look at this in terms of the ruler. whats easier to rally people to your cause? telling them the truth, ro god says this, they do that, lets get um.hell i can only immagin that the ruling parties of the world know what bs religions are, they just keep the people ignorant enough to manipulate them, but not dumb enough to be useless. the smarter a person is the less they believe in any religion, they may believe in something, but not anything organised.[/citation]

alidan, but that simply proves rpgplayer's point. even if a "ruler" doesn't want, or start, a war for religious reasons, but tells his/her people that they should fight for religious reasons, the people STILL decide to fight for religious reasons. and even if, in some wars, there are those who fight for different reasons (economic/political/whatever), it is still true that the vast majority of those fighting the war or supporting it have done so (do so) for religious reasons.
 

1pp1k10k4m1

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2008
69
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]skine[/nom]Ah, the old gay marriage online debate. I will send a cookie to anyone who can think of an argument that doesn't boil down to one of these: -"I disagree with heterosexual marriage law." -"My religion/acquaintance says that it's bad." -"Eww, gross!"[/citation]

Exclusive girl/girl or guy/guy relationships means we can't reproduce and the human race goes extinct...therefore it is unnatural. Plus, homosexuals have much higher insurance and STD rates than heterosexuals. I'd like oatmeal chocolate chip please. Two in fact.
 

Usersname

Distinguished
May 10, 2010
129
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Combat and d*** sucking do not mix.[/citation]Alexander The Great, Hadrian, Samurai, William of Orange (William III) and, um, countless others would take issue with your hateful words. Semper Fi.
 

Spanky Deluxe

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2009
181
0
18,630
0
I'm very pleasantly surprised at the response in the comments section here. The site's had somewhat a 'redneck' reputation for it's registered users but the response here disproves that entirely (apart from the few nasty people).

This couple have found a fantastic technological solution to being able to find happiness despite the 'religious' views that control the law in a country who's first amendment to it's founding document is there to stop precisely those things from controlling the law.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
25
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]1pp1k10k4m1[/nom]Exclusive girl/girl or guy/guy relationships means we can't reproduce and the human race goes extinct...therefore it is unnatural. Plus, homosexuals have much higher insurance and STD rates than heterosexuals. I'd like oatmeal chocolate chip please. Two in fact.[/citation]

I'd have to disagree as the science (facts) are not on your side.

You are claiming that because a gay couple cannot reproduce then their relationship is unnatural. Many straight couples cannot reproduce. Seniors cannot reproduce. Women who have gone through early menopause cannot reproduce. Are they all unnatural?

Science (Theory of Evolution) explains how we do not have sex with the aim to consciously reproduce (per-say). We have sex because it is pleasurable. Evolution has ensured that it is pleasurable in order to ensure we do it and then reproduce. But the primary driving mechanism is not reproduction but rather personal gratification.

As for STD rates, Lesbians have far lower STD rates than Straight Couples. Are they not homosexual?

Homosexuality does not lead to STDs. Unprotected sex, coupled with a promiscuous tendency, does. Men are biologically programmed (thanks to Evolution) to seek out as many mates as possible (generally). Women, on the other hand, are programmed to be selective of mates (generally). So a Male/Female or Female/Female relationship is likely to be based less on sex than say a Male/Male relationship. So the STD rates amongst gay males can be explained by the Male evolutionary sex drive.

Should we ban male/male relationships? No. What we ought to do is raise the social consciousness of the society through education (safe sex education). Individual members of society have a right to decide for themselves who they love and want to marry. The state has NO place in the bedrooms of the nation.

:)
 

Usersname

Distinguished
May 10, 2010
129
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Wheres a sniper when you need one...Oh wait im trained in that too hehe.[/citation]Being a marksman who competed at Bisley I turned off training in Sniper Elite, guess you didn't...
 

Griffolion

Distinguished
May 28, 2009
263
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]You do understand that there are no anti-gay statements in the bible. I'm serious. Those passages which are supposedly "anti-gay" in there are actually mis-translations and contextual in nature. I'm just saying, if you want to use the bible to defend your position, then make sure you educate yourself enough so that you don't come off as a mere sheep following the teachings of hateful and ignorant preachers and cultists (i.e. the pope and his fellow pedophiles).[/citation]

There are a number of statements in the bible that could be referred to/interpreted as anti-gay. In leviticus, there are phrases such as "if a man is to lie with another man the same way he would lie with a woman, he is to be cut off from his people, for he has done the detestable".

However this is often said out of context because the very same verse goes onto give other rules about out-of-wedlock heterosexual and bestial sexual encounters (basically to not do them) and basically give the same level of punishment and judgement to the people who do these as well as the gay individuals. Leviticus is a hard read, written at a time when the Israelite people were barely a fraction above barbaric as a society, therefore such harsh, blunt rules were put in place because the people simply wouldn't be able to understand the abstract concepts and forward thinking we all enjoy today as a modern society (Christian abstractions and forward thinking is most epitomized by the emergent church movements across the world). We people today really have to have a light touch when it comes to extracting and interpreting from these old testament books.

I'm a Christian and i'm really saddened about some of the other people who say they are Christians and so quickly judged this. Christians love, not judge; if a gay couple were to meet me or to befriend me, i'd welcome them with open arms as readily as anyone else i may meet. That is the core message of the Christian faith.

But from a tech point of view, what an ace workaround haha, those two were smart people.
 

ElMoIsEviL

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2006
25
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]usersname[/nom]Being a marksman who competed at Bisley I turned off training in Sniper Elite, guess you didn't...[/citation]
Careful... he might threaten to "take you out" LOL

I'm not sure if he meant take me out on a date (as he is clearly a closeted gay man) or kill me.
I'm starting to think he asked me out on a date. Maybe he is making progress and coming out of the closet. :)
 

ambra

Distinguished
Nov 14, 2010
1
0
18,510
0
that was brilliant. finding that loophole.

Nice to see equality is winning. Hope they legalize prostitution soon. (I'm serious. only reason prostitution is illegal is because its "immoral" and "anti-religious" like gay marriages used to be)
 

mustbhacks

Distinguished
Apr 22, 2010
13
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]I won't get into this debate, primarily because it's stupid. But this statement, debate or not, is just plain wrong. The translations of the bible are using the exact context that they were written in originally, and I can confirm that without a doubt. Source: I'm a semester and a couple weeks away from my masters in theology. (kinda my job to know this stuff)[/citation]

Being a student, doesn't make it your JOB to know anything.
And being as you're a student that means you're learning the views/perceptions of those that came before you.
 

of the way

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2010
102
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]omnimodis78[/nom]You do understand that there are no anti-gay statements in the bible. I'm serious. Those passages which are supposedly "anti-gay" in there are actually mis-translations and contextual in nature. I'm just saying, if you want to use the bible to defend your position, then make sure you educate yourself enough so that you don't come off as a mere sheep following the teachings of hateful and ignorant preachers and cultists (i.e. the pope and his fellow pedophiles).[/citation]

Holy pants Batman! Have you studied Hebrew and Greek and looked at the untranslated Bible? I'm going to go ahead and assume not. You can't believe everything you read on the internet. Many things are not translated perfectly (and some things just are hard to translate), and many many religions and non religious people take things out of context, but this is not one of them.

As far as the tech-ish aspect of the article goes, I'm surprised they could do it over Skype. Think people could get married out of state over the phone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Y Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 3
C Streaming Video & TVs 9
I Streaming Video & TVs 0
R Streaming Video & TVs 7
L Streaming Video & TVs 2
H Streaming Video & TVs 1
E Streaming Video & TVs 1
1 Streaming Video & TVs 2
dsr07mm Streaming Video & TVs 4
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 31
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 37
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 47
Z Streaming Video & TVs 1
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 56
A Streaming Video & TVs 1
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 31
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 70
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 41
G Streaming Video & TVs 15

ASK THE COMMUNITY