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.

 

President Obama Says U.S. Constitution Guarantees Same-Sex Couples the Right to Marry

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Spruce

Alright done. Batchlors degree in history and English specializing in classical history and literature.

So can you answer the questions I asked? Or not?


You're certain you have the answers. Nothing I say will make a difference.




posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Spruce

So, no, you can't back up your claims and want to appear mysterious and wise?

How disappointing.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It doesn't address the issue, so why the arguing?



“The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs. It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian. It does not say anything about marriage, nor does the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not say these things because these are moral issues, and the Bill of Rights was not written to address moral issues. The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not a moral ones. Moral issues are covered by an individual’s conscience and religion and by laws passed by local or state communities and can change as the moral culture changes, for better or for worse. What I mean is, from the federal government’s perspective, moral issues are not addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and ergo those issues are off limits to the federal government. Over time, as morality changes, it is the laws enacted by the people at the community, county, and state level that are intended to handle changes in moral values. If the people of California vote to approve or ban gay marriage, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to intervene for or against it. Marriage is not a political freedom issue. Likewise, the federal government has not been granted the power to impose itself upon any state policy regarding murder, robbery, drugs, or any other issue of moral law. Therefore it is given: The Bill of Rights was written to protect the states’ and the people’s political freedom from a federal government, and the Bill of Rights is not a moral values document.” Before any of you start yelling at me, please think about what our Constitution is and does. It defines our freedom and protects us from a tyrannical government. That is, if we follow that great document. So, what does our Constitution say? It says, via the Tenth Amendment, that the States and the People of those states should decide what they want to do about gay marriage without any interference from the federal government. C Howard Diaz


C Howard Diaz



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Yeah it's those pesky Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that address the issue. The issue is equal protection of the laws. You cannot deny access to a legal contract based on the sexes of the makers of the contract.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I say let them HAVE a legal union and BE DONE with it!
It has NOTHING to do with Christianity it was DEFINED BY CHRISTIANITY so let them have their legal definition and form their own faith in GOD if they wish to.
MY faith is clear. IT IS A SIN ,love the homosexuals but not their lifestyle which is THEIR mess and should be INSIDE THEIR bed rooms.
It isn't MY place to say bad or good. So knock your socks off.
HOW I perform any intimate acts isn't anyones business.
edit on 25-10-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Oh wow! We can have a civil ceremony? Thank you sir, thank you!

Newsflash it's only a matter of time before we will have marriage equality in all 50!

I wonder how people were married before Jesus came then? Since you know, the Christians invented defined marriage.

Guess we can leave all the Old Testament stuff behind then?
edit on 16Sat, 25 Oct 2014 16:06:37 -050014p0420141066 by Gryphon66 because: Precision.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
However, the Constitution certainly says that groups shouldn't be discriminated against, but sexual preference is NOT mentioned as being one of those groups.


The Constitution doesn't say that groups shouldn't be discriminated against. It says ALL CITIZENS of a state are to be treated equally under the law. No groups are mentioned at all.



Most Americans don't know that you can still be fired because of your sexual preference, or lose an apartment, or be denied service at a business.


Being fired falls under Employment discrimination laws.
Losing an apartment falls under Housing discrimination laws.
Being denied a service falls under Public Accommodation laws.

Each state, and sometimes cities have their own laws on these issues. So, the blanket statement above is not correct.

edit on 10/25/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

If you are a Christian, it is not clear in your religion that homosexuality is a sin. Your basing your opinion on a fictional storybook that has been rewritten and retranslated tons of times.

Saying that the act of same sex is the sin and not the fact that the person is homosexual is like saying walking upright is fine but running is a sin.

I choose to believe God isn't that stupid and that was just the work of man.

There are many LGBTQ+ Christians, they don't need to form a new religion, they know that there are errors and flaws with the traditional Christianity.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

It's not even that really ... I don't think. Many Christians do not ascribe to the anti-gay stuff.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

SIGH!
OK then...WE have our OWN PSYCHOLOGICAL ,MANIPULATIVE ,DOGMA based on the Council of NICEA.
ON THAT PROPAGANDA is what I am basing MY decision on for civil discourse via the METHODIST definition.

GO get married FINE,I want YOU to ALL be able to do THAT,it is a good thing and you should.
You just CANNOT define it acceptably by MY psychological ,manipulaive ,dogma.
GO MAKE YOUR own up like we did.

I hope that clarifies the statement.
HELL we'll ALL only GET it when we're DEAD any way.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

So you're related to the 12th century French?

Because you know that's the etymology of the word.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Really??? I know you're smart enough to figure this out. Even if you weren't it's already been explained in detail by others. However, I'm confident though that this time you'll surely get it. I know you can get this so read carefully.

One has two Consenting Adults.

The others have just one consenting party while the other party involved is not of consenting age or cannot give their consent. This one is akin to rape or physical/sexual abuse.

Is that clear now??



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No I'm a bastard actually.
DRAGOONS aren't CAVALRY,as we know them now and since you FORGOT the MAIN subject. I can but GUESS at which you in fact, meant
edit on 25-10-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Wow.

To be specific, I'm challenging your "ownership" of the word marriage. You implied it "belongs" to you Christians.

My statement is that you own neither the concept nor the word.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

NO not at all..can't really tell what MY representation would be in YOUR context but I AM A SOLDIER first because I made that choice in life and ALL that goes with it.
Not too bright OK but to somehow misconstrue I have SOME kind of authority as a result of my faith that couples cannot be wife and wife or visa versa has no bearing here,LEGALLY however DOES ,at least on the current PRIME material plane.


Who cares WHAT you call it anyway? GO DO it.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

No I'm a bastard actually.
DRAGOONS aren't CAVALRY,as we know them now and since you FORGOT the MAIN subject. I can but GUESS at which you in fact, meant

His point was you're nobody special and don't have a claim flag planted in the idea of marriage. You, nor any other Christian now or centuries prior, did not invent the concept of pairing off. That also applies for all the other religions. What are you going to do if someone finds out there's some document or wall painting somewhere that clearly spells out marriage was done first by a gay couple anyway? Yeah, yeah, "FRAUD!" will be what the bible clutcher screech, I know. Point is, you don't know who held the first marriage title here, and probably never will. But the "MINE MINE MINE!" 2 year-old temper-tantruming over who owns the definition of 2 in-love people dedicating themselves to each other will not stop unless you, you know, grow up. Just a tad, I'm not asking for massive acceptance. Just stop acting like I need to break out the diapers & binkies all the time.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don'tcha know that Christian invented marriage, crucifixion and giant wooden boats?

Let's listen to the Christians on what God wants, after all they know that God wanted them to slaughter millions of people.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Actually I think Cavtrooper may be pointing to an issue that is quite important, even though he's kinda doing it with the business end of a bayonet.

A similar thing happens whenever long-standing cultural inequities are in the process of being corrected. The former majority trending into the new minority are sputtering: "Just be glad that you've got what we've given you and shut up!"

And within that is the essential worry that should have been and should be troubling all of us: some Americans are not as good as others. Doesn't matter what parameter we down others on, the fact is that we are having a real difficult time lately with that whole "out of many, one" thing.

And if we can't change that fact, and find ways to work together, we're lost and the Great Experiment is winding down.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
As the above poster said.
CREATE your OWN paradigm stop BANGING uselessly as a wall that is bigger that YOU and me.

GET LEGALLY hitched being the ONLY outcome that matters.
If you are a PROG I STILL wouldn't like you anyway and YOUR lives will continue WITHOUT your DEMAND for my reeducation.
You aren't up to it anyway.
SO WHY are you attempting to connect legality to Christianity?


It's the LAW not the faith and those who say it is WRONG have clearly VIOLATED that faith if THAT is their reasoning.
IT'S totally ICK to me but it's YOUR thing..HAVE fun.
I'll keep my guns you keep your sexual PROCLIVITY. Win,win.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Agreed. It really bothers me how some humans aren't seen as humans just because of something different, whether it be skin colour, sexual preference, religion or social status. A human is a human end of discussion. Until that human is proven guilty of a crime, they should have the same rights as everyone other human being. Equality for all.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join