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.

 

The REALITY of Marriage Equality

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
d/p
edit on 2-7-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: d/p




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ironically, what you say is too true.

However, you use that 'truth' as spin. To further cloud the simplicity of it.

What you imply is we indulge those so why not indulge the gays. Then everything else under the sun, like transgenders...aka the slippery slope...


My rebut is there is a line to be drawn-also known as 'definition'-and, apparently, that line is being drawn and fortified as well speak.

I, for one, endorse that line. (Mine was crossed when civil unions wasn't enough for the gay community) Enforcing Christians to betray their faith, but just Christians, their rights in the name of gay rights and the 'line' becomes obvious, I suspect for many..

Either way this won't resolve on these boards/posts.

'Rights' have been subverted into enforcement. Force is always met with force....



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   


sometimes you just have to smile, if not it gets depressing hearing how people talk about other people..


Why should anyone care about GLBTQ+ people? maybe there is no definite reason, but you would think that you would care about "Freedom" for everyone..

"I don't care about Gays or what they do"..."Everyone needs to stand together the government wants to take our guns"

do you want us with you then?
edit on 2-7-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You make good points.

Lots of indulgences out there.

A line is being drawn in those indulgences partly due to the enforcement of those indulgences.

The 'law', in this case, enforcing 'equal treatment' is being met with much more resistance,and I've posted this a number of times before, will continue to increase as the enforcement increases.

Like it or not, more and more are offended. They will and are responding.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Heh, heh, that was then...this is now. We shall see....



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
The 'law', in this case, enforcing 'equal treatment' is being met with much more resistance,and I've posted this a number of times before, will continue to increase as the enforcement increases.


Yes, those people who are all for freedom when it's THEIR freedom, but don't like freedom when it's other people's freedom, are certainly resisting... They are offended that everyone gets equal rights and they are responding to that. So what? They'll get over it.

Like it or not, equal treatment for SOME is not equal treatment.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You leave out the enforcement aspect.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

In my case, I could care less who marries who. Marry a billy-goat for all I care, just keep it in your state and don't enforce it on mine. That's where SCOTUS has stepped in the doo doo.

It will come back and bite them in the arse...rightly or wrongly. That part is subjective in the extreme, obviously.

Bottom line, like it or not, this one is far, far from over....


edit on 2-7-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

No... There is already legal precedent for the Supreme Court ruling on these things with Brown v Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia. You are quite clearly VERY wrong. The Supreme Court has EVERY right to settle this dispute once and for all across all states.


It will come back and bite them in the arse...rightly or wrongly. That part is subjective in the extreme, obviously.


Kind of like how Christians originally giving the control of marriage to the state for racist reasons then never taking it back is biting them in the ass?
edit on 2-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
That's where SCOTUS has stepped in the doo doo.


If that's what you think, then you don't understand the ruling or the Constitutional amendment on which it was based. The 14th amendment says that states cannot have laws that apply to only SOME citizens. So, if a state has a law called "marriage", it must be available to all citizens of the state equally.



No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This will not be reversed.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wrong, eh? That remains in dispute despite your diatribe. it will be the winner who defines who was right or wrong. Not you.

Precedent doesn't really resonate with the conservative/Christian side of it, What effects their daily lives does.

The question is how far is each side willing to go to enforce their version? I actually see this as the start of a huge backlash that will be reflected in the upcoming presidential elections-hopefully no more than that.

After all, we have plenty of precedent for Executive privilege don't we?




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

What YOU don't get is the degree of contempt that the federal Gov't is already held by many. This issue is but one of many.

'Laws' are only observed when they are perceived as just. Many see this as just another 'unjust' imposition. That number is growing. It is reflected by the political leaders on the right jumping on the backlash band-wagon as we speak.

Laws can and are changed, they are ignored via nullification, so on.

This will not be settled via 'law' or statute or SCOTUS. It will be settled by the people, themselves....



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wrong, eh? That remains in dispute despite your diatribe. it will be the winner who defines who was right or wrong. Not you.


The winner has already been determined. The Supreme Court made its decision already.


Precedent doesn't really resonate with the conservative/Christian side of it, What effects their daily lives does.


Who cares? Our country has operated under legal precedents since 1776. The Supreme Court established the precedent of Judicial Review in 1803


The question is how far is each side willing to go to enforce their version? I actually see this as the start of a huge backlash that will be reflected in the upcoming presidential elections-hopefully no more than that.


You mean, are the losers going to be so bitter about it that they break the law? Good question. Good thing there are jails for those assholes.


After all, we have plenty of precedent for Executive privilege don't we?



Yes we do. What's your point?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Not impressed with your contribution. This thread would be better without your comments. No reason, point, or purpose for you to be here other than to spread your bitterness.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
What YOU don't get is the degree of contempt that the federal Gov't is already held by many.


I TOTALLY get that and I share in some of it.



Many see this as just another 'unjust' imposition.


Many are crazy. How is this an imposition on ANYONE?



Laws can and are changed, they are ignored via nullification, so on.


Good luck changing the 14th amendment to the Constitution. I



This will not be settled via 'law' or statute or SCOTUS. It will be settled by the people, themselves....


It HAS been settled by the Constitution. It's a done deal. The few people crying like babies because they can't deny rights to others have LOST, they just don't know it yet.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What my point is is you think this is over. You've 'won'. Cite legal precedent as if everyone will go 'oh well'...we've lost.

What's actually happening, and this is verified by the political hypocrites of the right by their rhetoric, it nothing could be further from the truth.

Rather than the SCOTUS decision being the end, it is, in fact, a rallying point that is and will continue and grow.

The political hypocrites on the left, like Obama and Hillary, who have previously stated being opposed to gay marriage, could reverse that that flip-flop given sufficient political pressure. Believe me, there are FAR more Christians than gays, even with their supporters and politicians constantly put finger to wind for survival's sake.

My point/prediction is the will be much, much more to come on this issue, both due to the issue itself AND as a potential last straw reaction to the overall direction of the country.

I fear it could very easily get out of hand before all is said and done.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Such a great reply!
Are the losers going to be so ticked off that they'll break the law to remain actionably bigoted!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I AM SO SURPRISED THAT ABOVE TOP SECRET HAS MEMBERS , in any number, that so loathe homosexuals that they would keep man-made rights from gays, and embarrassingly, PROUDLY add their 1¢ to this thread . Reveal your intolerance! The level of your enlightenment! Show us JUST HOW EVOLVED YOU REALLY ARE! It's all farts and roses when it's talking about the gubmint takin our jobs, taxin our livelihoods, and the like... But they better protect your right to be base and cruel! Gubmint better sanction your tradition of sanctioned bigotry!

Some people were on the other side of the right in the late 60s, too. They would say if asked that black people truly did not deserve equal treatment.

At least THAT kind of attitude can't be brought out in public. Your opinions on gays will be tucked in to the darkness, too, soon enough.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Lightworth

You have a lengthy paragraph about how "...bigots/homophobes tend to generalize all or most homosexuals".

You are generalizing all the people who disagree with homosexuality as bigots and homophobes. I am not a bigot and I am certainly not afraid. I simply do not believe that homosexuality is what was intended in the grand design. One look at the genetalia of the species makes it fairly clear what the intent, and outcome, of union should be. Just because two men or two women can do something together does not necessarily equate to the fact that they should.

Personally, I am tired of being branded a homophobe because I disagree with homosexuality. That is the LGBT group trying to empower themselves at my expense by presenting themselves as "better" than me. Its about equality, not greater than, right?

Sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. I think homosexuality is perverse by definition. One of the definitions is, "Having an effect that is opposite to what is intended or expected." Again, the male and female are obviously meant to work together, the end result is procreation. To intentionally manipulate that into something of personal gratification with no expectation of the intended result is, by definition, perverse.

Does that qualify as proof, or is the dictionary a bigoted homophobe?



I disagree with your douchebaggery.

What gives you the right to disagree with somone's sexuality? I disagree with your heterosexuality.
Homosexuality is everywhere and is natural. Its in the animal kingdom, everywhere.

No matter what, even stating that makes one a douche bag.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
There are far more Christians than Gays but only a few So-called Christians are vicious, sanctimonious bigots. Every Christian who is a true Christian does not make this a point. Jesus, spitting vile and bitterness at the feet of public equality. I don't think so.a reply to: nwtrucker



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
So what, the genitalia is made for procreation? Severely mentally retarded people have working genitalia. Doesn't mean their purpose in creation is to reproduce. And I am not compring homosexuality to mental disability.
There was a study that showed that having a gay uncle (mother's brother) increased the likelihood of survival in the past. And that genetically, showed that the mother was predisposed to have more children.
That shows a genetic, evolutionary benefit to having some gays aroUnd. reply to: THEatsking



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: kkrattiger
There are far more Christians than Gays but only a few So-called Christians are vicious, sanctimonious bigots.



There are many gay Christians (also in other religions). I think "we" need to stop separating gays from their belief in a God.

I try to be specific when speaking of anti-gay and/or extremist God believers. (I do sometimes forget).




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join