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.

 

Same-Sex Marriage ... 'You Ain't Seen Nut'n Yet'

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
( or more specifically ... same-sex divorce )

Just think about this license-(list?) for a few moments ...

Folks have (or come up with) many reasons for choosing divorce.

Google-Search: "why divorce"

Imagine what it might be like to listen in on any

courtroom Same-Sex Divorce proceedings.

AND

WHAT-IF: Common-law Marriage ???


Common-law marriage ... is a legal framework in a limited number of jurisdictions where a couple is legally considered married, without that couple having formally registered their relation as a civil or religious marriage.


-
OPINIONs:

1. Typical Courtroom-Battles Involve Disputes Relating to Children, Money and/or Property.

( or most likely in these cases, just 'money' and/or 'property' )

2.MSM Will Eat These Events Up.

( and the remainder of us having to endure )

3. A New Form Of ... 'Zoo' and 'Ology' )


edit on Mon Jun 29 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: fixed tags



+4 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Now you're complaining about Same-Sex Divorce?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne

Well, I live in a state where divorce is NO-FAULT, which means, among other things, I wasn't required to discuss my wife's infidelity or use it as a lynch-pin in my divorce. We simply agreed that our marriage had dissolved and that our differences were irreconcilable.

As for the rest of us being forced to "endure" the details of a same sex divorce (or ANY divorce for that matter), get a hobby, and stop making stupid people famous.

Celebritard marriage and divorce isn't even interesting to them; I have no idea why it would matter to anyone outside of the marriage at all.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I bet the OP is coming out of his closet soon enough.
The first part is always denial...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
You also have to consider that forever the law assigned parental rights automatically to biological parents, but with yesterday's ruling, now the state has to rewrite those definitions opening the doors to more state intrusion into all families. After all, parents are now not just mommy and daddy, so neutral terms of legal parent 1 and 2 will have to be assigned across the board.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Why would anybody want to listen to any divorce proceedings, period!? If that is what people do for entertainment Oy Vey.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
You also have to consider that forever the law assigned parental rights automatically to biological parents, but with yesterday's ruling, now the state has to rewrite those definitions opening the doors to more state intrusion into all families. After all, parents are now not just mommy and daddy, so neutral terms of legal parent 1 and 2 will have to be assigned across the board.


Consider how the mother is typically given priority in divorce cases involving children, what happens with gay divorces? With guys, who is the mother? With women, who takes priority since both are technically moms...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Funny.

I have been saying the following for over 6 years now....

Gay people should have to marry. That way they can help figure out how stupid a divorce is.

Not for registration purposes but to help expose how dumb a divorce really is.

There are a lot of potential positives for this. The only negative being the number of gay divorces that actually happen.

I'm not against gays. I am against divorces. Not because I have been divorced. But because my parents did.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
It's time for the reset button to be pushed on this world.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
You also have to consider that forever the law assigned parental rights automatically to biological parents, but with yesterday's ruling, now the state has to rewrite those definitions opening the doors to more state intrusion into all families. After all, parents are now not just mommy and daddy, so neutral terms of legal parent 1 and 2 will have to be assigned across the board.
There were only 13 remaining states that did not have same sex marriage. Married people of the same sex , who have children (whether adopted or biologically belonging to 1 parent), have divorced before. I have not read that it caused the local divorce court to implode over the issues of money and child custody. You are assuming that this is new.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GiulXainx
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Funny.

I have been saying the following for over 6 years now....

Gay people should have to marry. That way they can help figure out how stupid a divorce is.

Not for registration purposes but to help expose how dumb a divorce really is.

There are a lot of potential positives for this. The only negative being the number of gay divorces that actually happen.

I'm not against gays. I am against divorces. Not because I have been divorced. But because my parents did.

You assume that same sex married couples know nothing of divorce- (seeing as how the heterosexual divorce rate is about 50%) yet about half of their parents had divorced. I am not sure what they will expose. I am glad my parents divorced, I really do not care for my Father.
Others very upset at their parent's divorce.
edit on 27-6-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Polygamy will soon be legal. There is absolutely no reason it shouldn't be if two people of the same sex can marry. I also suspect we will see cases where you will have overlapping marriages too (two people are married to each other, but each person can be part of another separate legal marriage).

I don't subscribe to comparing gay marriage as the same as beastality or under age marriage, but it does have ramifications for all kinds of other marriages between consenting adults.

At this point, I believe government should basically just get out of defining "marriage" and just focus contract law as it relates to civil unions between consenting adults. Marriage as a religious institution should only be recognized by whatever church / religion a person subscribes to in their faith. If a particular church doesn't want to marry homosexuals, that is fine by me, but government should recognize the relationship and grant whatever rights would apply to any committed couple.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I fail to see how you think the MSM will report on same sex divorces.
Maybe, just maybe on near the end of a newspaper they may mention out of interest that the first one has happened and the crappy celeb obsessed ones will proably cover any celebrity going through a same sex divorce but it really won't be much different to any other vapid coverage of anything else they report.

Also........ what point are you actually trying to make in this useless thread?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Gay people become more vocal about what should, and should not be done.

I'm not saying they never divorce. I am saying that gay people will start to change certain things from being normally inhibiting to something more supportive.

I hated when my parents split up. I also hated how I was raised when they were together. But my point is people get divorced for some pretty stupid things. Most of the time marriage only happens because of money. Other times itis for dumb love. But when you start giving these roles to gay people and you will see some wild and wacky outcomes.

I just wish people were smarter. Instead we have a bunch of half wits suing for money or estate.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne

I am baffled, I really am.

Why are so many Republicans, Christians, men, and general straight people so desperately OBSESSED with gay people and their relationships?

Why are you so desperately obsessed with how other people live their lives, and how is it any different at all to how others live, marry, divorce...?

I'm especially wondering why so many "traditional marriage" ranters around the US seem to have such an obsession about same sex couples getting married, but have absolutely nothing at all to say about the numbers of straight people getting divorced - usually it's because they're hypocrites if they do, because most of them have been divorced themselves.

Really, I'm fascinated by this insistence by so many, usually Christian, usually Republican, Americans that everyone else's lives are their business, kind of funny considering these are the same people who then rant about the government being in THEIR business.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
I bet the OP is coming out of his closet soon enough.
The first part is always denial...


It's weird. I kinda sense by your hostile response to the op that you are in favor of gay marriage, but then you try to use gay as an insult? So which is it?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: ketsuko
You also have to consider that forever the law assigned parental rights automatically to biological parents, but with yesterday's ruling, now the state has to rewrite those definitions opening the doors to more state intrusion into all families. After all, parents are now not just mommy and daddy, so neutral terms of legal parent 1 and 2 will have to be assigned across the board.
There were only 13 remaining states that did not have same sex marriage. Married people of the same sex , who have children (whether adopted or biologically belonging to 1 parent), have divorced before. I have not read that it caused the local divorce court to implode over the issues of money and child custody. You are assuming that this is new.


Why would you?

The media controls the narrative and no one would want that kind of issue in the news so people can see it, not before the agenda is achieved. So it isn't newsworthy.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013



Really, I'm fascinated by this insistence by so many, usually Christian, usually Republican, Americans that everyone else's lives are their business, kind of funny considering these are the same people who then rant about the government being in THEIR business.


No kidding !

It's a head-scratcher, that's for sure.

Apparently, these people live by the ideology that everybody else's business is theirs to dictate... but their own personal business is their own and only their own.

Self-righteous hypocrits to the enth degree.




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Rocker2013



Really, I'm fascinated by this insistence by so many, usually Christian, usually Republican, Americans that everyone else's lives are their business, kind of funny considering these are the same people who then rant about the government being in THEIR business.


No kidding !

It's a head-scratcher, that's for sure.

Apparently, these people live by the ideology that everybody else's business is theirs to dictate... but their own personal business is their own and only their own.

Self-righteous hypocrits to the enth degree.



This is different from gay marriage proponents redefining the word for EVERYONE how?

I fail to see how you are any different. You have now decided to legislate your ideology and make my business yours to dictate.

I wanted the state to issue civil unions to everyone and leave marriage up to the individual and groups to decide. Leave the state out of it, so that no one had to surrender their personal beliefs or definition to anyone else, but apparently no one felt that compromise was good enough.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Leave the state out of it, so that no one had to surrender their personal beliefs or definition to anyone else, but apparently no one felt that compromise was good enough.

Except that some states were very involved with it. To the point of making it illegal.
That's why the SCOTUS said, "Nope. Can't make that sort of law."



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join