It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

:-)

I hear you sheepslayer


...but I get a bit frustrated and think to myself "AHHHHHHH...quit #ing around and legalize it already!


Seems like obvious rights are obvious - it defies explanation that this is even a thing




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Yes, I know that being anti-gay marriage is part of the overall PARTY platform, but it does not reflect the beliefs of ALL or the majority of Republicans.



"Muslims, peaceful Muslims, need to publicly speak up more, and loudly against extremists".

I know I've heard that rant from the Right.

Same goes for Republicans who support Marriage Equality. That political voice is few and far between.


edit on 8-10-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The supreme court is certainly opening the doors for gay marriage. But why stop there? If marriage is not a religiously based holy union between a man and a woman for the benefit of children, it would seem that anybody could marry anybody, or anything! Personally, I can think of a number of attractive women all of which would be great to have as my wives. And why not? - And, I have a friend who is closest to his cat. Why should they be deprived of the economic and legal benefits of marriage, and being accepted by the community as a legitimate couple. Clearly the efforts toward equality by liberal Americans are eventually going to pay off for everyone!



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: skeptikal1

I haven't heard the slippery slope argument against gay marriage in ages. Thanks for making me giggle.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: skeptikal1

Second tavis notion.

We can draw the line at 2 consenting adults how's that sound?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis



Seems like obvious rights are obvious - it defies explanation that this is even a thing


Exactly.

a reply to: Annee

Excellent point. Never thought of that.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

A man who claims to support and defend the constitution also vows to amend it so as to deny one group of people the rights they already (should) have

Ted Cruz can kiss my liberal ass



Oh yeah! Here's a gem from Mary Fallin, governor of Oklahoma.

States having marriage rights, does not trump Federal Civil Rights of Equality.

By values, I'm sure she means Christian values. These types really do want a theocracy.



Fallin isn't pleased with everyone calling this a victory. "Today's decision has been cast by the media as a victory for gay rights," she said. "What has been ignored, however, is the right of Oklahomans and Americans in every state, to write their own laws and govern themselves as they see fit. Those rights have once again been trampled by an arrogant, out-of-control federal government that wants to substitute Oklahoma values with Washington, D.C. values."

www.advocate.com...

edit on 8-10-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: skeptikal1

The entire "what stops them from marrying their dog/cat" narrative is silly. A dog, cat or whatever animal you choose does not have the ability to effectively represent or express their intent or desires. They're fricken animals.

The dog doesn't know what marriage is.

So I tend to toss that entire premise in the trash where it belongs. It's laughable and is no comparison to two adults.
edit on 10/8/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1
The supreme court is certainly opening the doors for gay marriage.


First rule is CONSENT. Animals, children, inanimate objects CAN NOT consent.

Beyond that, who's business is it if you choose multiple spouse marriage?

IMO --- monogamy is religious, specifically Christian forced in America.


edit on 8-10-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: itguysrule

You liberals are constantly harping about letting people "live their lives any way they want to" but that apparently only applies to people who want to live their life the way YOU would have them live. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?


It isn't a "Liberal" issue, it is a basic human rights issue. They are people with many of the same hopes, dreams and fears that you have. Why shouldn't they have the same rights to live their lives as we do? The answer is they should.

The persecution of people based on who they love has gone on too long. Let them be happy.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
There's really only one reason you would hate this or disagree with this and that's because your religion told you to.

I'm married, to a woman, I live in America. Gay marriage has not destroyed america or the sanctity of my marriage. LOL

It's about human rights. You either think all people are equal or you think you are superior. We know from history, that thinking you are superior to other humans is the cause of much human suffering. We're all equal.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1
The supreme court is certainly opening the doors for gay marriage. But why stop there? If marriage is not a religiously based holy union between a man and a woman for the benefit of children, it would seem that anybody could marry anybody, or anything! Personally, I can think of a number of attractive women all of which would be great to have as my wives. And why not? - And, I have a friend who is closest to his cat. Why should they be deprived of the economic and legal benefits of marriage, and being accepted by the community as a legitimate couple. Clearly the efforts toward equality by liberal Americans are eventually going to pay off for everyone!


Go outside and shoo the kids off your lawn.

It is not a "liberal" issue, it is a human rights issue. And your worn out homophobic rant is old and tired and shows a complete lack of understanding of the true nature human sexuality. Besides, your argument against it on religious grounds is even more discriminatory.

Why are you against the happiness of other people? Why not live and let live. Nobody is asking you to enter into a gay marriage.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

i agree with you all that marriage requires the ability to consent, that its a human rights issue, and a discrimination issue. I really resent discrimination against my right to marry several very attractive women, especially since I am sure they would all consent readily to marrying me.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: Leonidas

i agree with you all that marriage requires the ability to consent, that its a human rights issue, and a discrimination issue. I really resent discrimination against my right to marry several very attractive women, especially since I am sure they would all consent readily to marrying me.


Is there something wrong with a multiple partner marriage?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
The 19 Most Anti-LGBT Members Of Congress, According To Pro-LGBT Group

One Male Dem, One Female Rep, all the rest Male Republicans

Here’s the full list of Human Rights Campaign’s “Hall of Shame”:

House

Michele Bachman (R-MN)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Andy Harris (R-MD)
Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Walter Jones (R-NC)
Mike Kelly (R- PA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Tim Walberg (R-MI)
Randy Weber (R-TX)

Senate

Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

www.buzzfeed.com...


edit on 8-10-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1
a reply to: Leonidas

i agree with you all that marriage requires the ability to consent, that its a human rights issue, and a discrimination issue. I really resent discrimination against my right to marry several very attractive women, especially since I am sure they would all consent readily to marrying me.


A bigot AND narcissist! Any other wonderful characteristics you posses?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: skeptikal1
If marriage is not a religiously based holy union between a man and a woman for the benefit of children, it would seem that anybody could marry anybody, or anything!


Marriage CAN be religious or not. My marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or breeding. If one chooses, however, they can have a religious marriage and many children. It's called freedom. Freedom to choose. Isn't it cool?



Personally, I can think of a number of attractive women all of which would be great to have as my wives. And why not?


I can't think of a reason.



And, I have a friend who is closest to his cat. Why should they be deprived of the economic and legal benefits of marriage, and being accepted by the community as a legitimate couple.


Marriage is a legal contract. To enter a legal contract, you must be human and of consenting age.



Clearly the efforts toward equality by liberal Americans are eventually going to pay off for everyone!


Too bad the right doesn't support these "efforts toward equality"... They're not big on equality.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: corvuscorrax

I certainly hope you are not overlooking that we have a diversity issue here. It is certainly not proven that gay marriage is the only kind of alternative marriage that could work for people. I also certainly trust that you are not falling into the oft repeated liberal trap of assuming your interpretation of diversity is OK but another person's is not! Also, remember the words of an American patriot: I disagree with what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it". That goes for what people think too. It is important that liberals attempt to read the constitution and understand the freedoms in guarantees to to all Americans, And to rely less in their thinking on a Manifesto written in the late 19th century by.........well, who was it?.... one of the Marx brothers?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Marriage-Equality-Back-On-In-Nevada-As-Justice-Kennedy-Vacates-That-Part-Of-Stay-OrderThe Idaho and Nevada cases were joined together for hearing by the circuit court.

The circuit ruled against it.

Nevada said, "Okay, we're done. Let the marriages begin!"

Idaho said, "Oh, Hell No! We're fighting this to the Supreme Court and Beyond!" And pressed for a stay so they could appeal.

Justice Kennedy issued a stay for the case before the circuit -- the combined cases of Idaho and Nevada.

Nevada said, "WTF?"

Kennedy said, "Okay, no stay for Nevada!"

The end -- for now.

www.dailykos.com..../story/2014/10/08/1335219/-Marriage-Equality-Back-On-In-Nevada-As-Justice-Kennedy-Vacates-That-Part-Of-Stay-Order


edit on 8-10-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
a reply to: skeptikal1

Second tavis notion.

We can draw the line at 2 consenting adults how's that sound?


Why?

Who's business is it, other then those in the marriage?



new topics




 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join