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.

 

Why all the focus on gay marriage?

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
1. yes, he would consent, the big lug would so anything i ask
2. adult? yes, he's 12
3. human? well, he thinks he's human. and i FEEL he's human. I can feel like being the opposite sex, or feel like being a different race, why can't I feel my dog is human. Stop judging me! I have rights!
4. A citizen? Heck ya!



a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Your dog is not human and can not give consent please stop comparing it because it just makes you look foolish and desperate.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

You can say those words, but that doesn't make it true. NONE of the things you said are true, much less all of them, which is required for marriage. I would suggest that you just give in to your desires and "live together in sin".

Or, there's always... Marry Your Pet



So, you adore your pet, consult him when channel switching and give him fish every Sunday. But if you really love him and you're in this for life, isn't it time you married your pet?


I'm thinking you're a male, though, so if your dog is also male, it would, indeed, be a "gay pet wedding". But if it's important to you, go for it.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


I'm thinking you're a male, though, so if your dog is also male, it would, indeed, be a "gay pet wedding". But if it's important to you, go for it.


Ha ha! He walked right in to that one.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
"You can say those words but it doesn't make it true"

Brother, I couldn't agree more. See? We both see eye to eye then. We now know how each other views the other's views. *wink*

Have a great day.


a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

If you really want to have sex with your animal go ahead....

So your argument is more logical than mine because i am actually a Human, and you feel your dog is... and gays have a Mental Illness?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
1. yes, he would consent, the big lug would so anything i ask
2. adult? yes, he's 12
3. human? well, he thinks he's human. and i FEEL he's human. I can feel like being the opposite sex, or feel like being a different race, why can't I feel my dog is human. Stop judging me! I have rights!
4. A citizen? Heck ya!




You bring up another issue which is very important for the discussion.

Competence

One of the benefits of having a spouse is that you have a partner who is competent to make decisions on your behalf when you are not able to; "should we pull the plug now?", "There's a 40% chance that the operation will be successful, should we go ahead with it?" "Only family members are allowed to visit."

As far as your dog goes, you are already competent to make those decisions as his "owner". In your case, your dog wouldn't be considered competent to make those types of decisions for you. If your dog died, you would automatically inherit all his property. If you died though, he would not be competent to carry on in your stead, sell some, keep some, give some away.

When it comes down to it, those benefits can be enjoyed by same-sex partners already, by means of several legal documents; A Will, A Living Will, General and Limited Powers of Attorney. The benefits are also available to others in most states through one legal document, a Marriage Certificate. For most people in most states, the state laws themselves state what one spouse can decide for another, what one spouse inherits from another, and for the purpose of visitation, who is next of kin to whom.

Bottom line is: Should same-sex partners be allowed to benefit by the one legal document just like the other people?

Very many people would say "Yes" to that.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
holy crap...

This thread took a sharp turn down a very dark ally...

We just hit reality TV standards people...

Im OUT




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Oh come on!

I just nailed it!

At least give me a star
I love stars, I want to marry stars.
forget that last bit.

About 15 years ago in the U.S. the issue of Civil Unions was on the political table. IE. Like Marriage but Not Marriage.

That got shot down then, 15 years ago, so here we are again, if not Civil Union then go the whole nine yards to Marriage. It really didn't have to come to this.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Absolute marriage equality is the only valid option here. None of this " just like marriage but not called marriage" stuff. The license should be exactly the same for any legal-consenting adult-citizen, regardless of sexual orientation (or religion or race). It's the only way.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Hmmm!! Absolute marriage equality, would that mean a pakistani gay can have up to six husbands as is the custom there? A pakistani gay wedding!! A sight to behold for surea reply to: kaylaluv




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: spaceeyes
Hmmm!! Absolute marriage equality, would that mean a pakistani gay can have up to six husbands as is the custom there?


In Pakistan I guess. I'm talking about marrige equality in the U.S. Whatever the heterosexuals can legally do in this country, that is what the homosexuals should be able to do. That means getting a marriage license to wed the consenting adult of your choice.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv



The license should be exactly the same for any legal-consenting adult-citizen, regardless of sexual orientation (or religion or race). It's the only way.

My son married a non-citizen. She later became a citizen, but I don't think that was mandatory.

I wasn't involved in the debate 15 years ago, I only heard about it on the radio. But, yes, I think the license & certificate should be the same. Compromise 15 years ago, was seen by many as a stepping stone, while rejected by others. In hindsight, I think the steppingstone, if taken then, would have been gone past by now. Just conjecture.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Agreed, there is no other way, unless you want to live in an America that discriminates like other countries that the US is allegedly better than



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Background


Meet The Couples Fighting To Make Marriage Equality The Law Of The Land

The Supreme Court will soon issue its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, named for Ohio resident Jim Obergefell, who wants to be listed as the surviving spouse on his husband's death certificate. Obergefell married his partner of 20 years, John Arthur, aboard a medical jet in 2013, while Arthur was suffering from ALS. Arthur passed away in October of that year, three months after the couple filed their lawsuit.

"The decision to file suit -- I know from John's perspective -- it was a way for him to say, 'Thank you, Jim. You've given me 20 years. The past couple of years have been pretty awful with ALS, and this is something I can do to thank you, to protect you and to just let you know once again, how much I love you.' And I can think of no better reason to be going to the Supreme Court than to remember that and honor that," Obergefell said recently, during a moving speech at the Human Rights Campaign's headquarters.
. . .
Michigan's contribution to the Obergefell suit revolves around just one couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse. Their 2012 lawsuit originally made no mention of gay marriage, and was instead aimed at changing state law so they could both be recognized as legal parents to their four adopted children. The couple only switched course after a federal judge invited them to expand their challenge to target the state constitution's ban on same-sex marriage.
. . .
"When parents get angry about their children not being treated equally, that’s where you're going to get somebody to react, and that’s when we reacted," DeBoer said.

"If we win," she added, "not only will we be recognized as a full family, but Jayne and my relationship will finally be recognized legally as well."



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The 'set' (human), divided (for the purposes of the question at hand) into the subsets gay/non-gay, need identity markers to plant themselves in one group, or the other...which can only be done with behaviours, appearance, activity etc...
The 'dominant' group will claim whatever is deemed to be theirs - as if it 'belonged' to them, claiming then that the thieving 'other' group is stealing its identity (or what it can be identified by)...i.e. Marriage...(or, "if anyone is allowed to get married, how can people know I am NOT gay?")...

It's a psych issue that stems from deep seated insecurity about identity...otherwise it wouldn't be opposed so vehemently.

Å99



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Yes i totaly agree, we have the same kind of unreasonable arguments against gay marriage in britain, mostly from the religious establishments but also from the narrow minded morality morons who believe that everyone should conform to an outdated and devissive code of morals for how males and females must force themself's act. But i think the majority of people are supportive equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender or beliefs. Im a white hetrosexual male but i dont label myself as if that is the section of society i belong to, i think of myself as a human being, being "me". And everybody else has the right to be who they are, without predjudice and with equal standing in society.a reply to: kaylaluv



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

But keeping gay marriage illegal is imposing morality through law... gay people shouldn't be able to get married because of another person's religious views? That's imposing morality.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme

I think they view it as "Freedom of religion" they are allowed to impose their beliefs on everyone and try and control everyone's lives.. yet our "Gay Agenda" is being shoved in their face because the GLBTQ community is only a bunch of whores..

now when i say "They" i don't mean everyone who follows a belief system, only those that distort their religion into "Freedom of Bigotry"



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
First of all, Hi ATS! Finally signed up


This is the reason why I refuse to stay quiet when people warn me to do so, for fear of me offending religious communities. Such intolerance has got to stop, and just because it's on the basis of religious doctrine does not excuse it. Think about it from my non-religious perspective. The prejudices of an ancient work of fiction are interfering with the lives of other people and denying them their civil rights. We are supposed to be in the Age of Reason, yet we are still dragging behind ourselves the dead weight of primitive fairy tales. If it's preventing equality, then of course I'm going to speak out! Religion seems to have this elevated status that grants it immunity from criticism. This is why hostility towards the concept of gay marriage is allowed to carry on. They get away with too much. Just look at the US.



new topics




 
9
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join