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 is same-sex marriage wrong?

page: 15
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

You are connecting gas chambers to the leveling out of parental androgens in gestation to prevent congenital disorders.

So I missed that connection.




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: akushla99

You are connecting gas chambers to the leveling out of parental androgens in gestation to prevent congenital disorders.

So I missed that connection.


…..and you are connecting headache pills to miracle drugs that cure homosexuality in fetuses..hopefully they will experiment on you when you are in a comma to cure your brain deadness.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: akushla99

You are connecting gas chambers to the leveling out of parental androgens in gestation to prevent congenital disorders.

So I missed that connection.


No. I'm connecting Eugenics to Eugenics.

When you squint your eyes, Hitlers' reasons that eventually led to the gas chambers (since you mentioned it) for targeting jews, homosexuals etc. had to do with the notion that these people were subhuman and/or defected...similarly, amongst white supremacists was/is the notion that a black pigmented skin was/is somehow a sign that they were/are 'as above'...we don't 'experiment' on selected groups of people now, do we, because we think they are defected or diseased (even before they are born)?...my reading of what you've written suggests that it might...'curing diseases' before birth should always be a parental decision - but, regardless who decides, if and when it goes pear-shaped, and for whatever reasons you can mount, somehow society will pay - and all you need to do is speak to the parents of Down Syndrome children, and ask them, IF they would've changed anything...similarly, parents (who have come to terms with what they have, rather than what they could've had) of all the brands of alt. sexuality...ask them, IF they would have changed anything.

My guess is you will hear NO, more than YES.
...so many things change in hindsight - even 'peer reviewed' research that forgets to test a simple analgesic on pregnant women...

Å99
edit on 9-7-2015 by akushla99 because: Adddd

edit on 9-7-2015 by akushla99 because: Same



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

For someone supposedly Atheist, you are showing a very RELIGIOUS trait.

You are placing a lot of FAITH and BELIEF in a theory that is absolutely riddled with ifs, buts and maybes.

Actually, I'm done debating with you. You're as blind and belligerent as the best Fundies.
edit on 9-7-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime


So you accept the Same-Sex ruling than?.. i mean by your words "If the constitution is obeyed" and in this case the 14th was, so you agree?

Please go back to my post and re read it.

Quote
I am upset by any circumstance where the constitution is being trampled regardless of the situation. If the constitution is respected and obeyed then I would accept that authority. I am not saying that I would agree but I would accept. The problem I have is that a population of between 318 million to 319 million people are ruled by five lawyers.
Unquote

Prior to the SCOTUS unlawful ruling, same sex marriage was a state right. 37 states already had same sex marriage and 13 states did not. By a ruling of five lawyers all 50 state rights were trampled by politicians and lawyers and power grabbed by politicians. How? Because now the state has no rescinding or approving power in the matter. It has now moved from a state right to a federal law by nine life appointed lawyers.

Apparently you believe that taking a state right away from the state by five lawyers is not dictatorial. If that can stand then any law can be made under the very same group of lawyers who are appointed for life without a single vote of the populace at the pleasure of the political party chosen by the POTUS. You want this type of government then enjoy it while it is still here.

The nation just got screwed again and they love it.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I suppose that you support state's right to continue slavery in 1860's and oppose the Civil Right's Act of 1964?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

They ruled that the states that said Same-Sex Marriage was Illegal was against the constitution... sorry not sorry

Ok, so how about if a state rules that churches must Marry a Same-Sex couple, even though that is protected in the constitution, the state made a rule that forced them too.. you would be Ok with that?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


I suppose that you support state's right to continue slavery in 1860's and oppose the Civil Right's Act of 1964?

That is two separate circumstances. Civil rights act of 1964 had zitch with owning a slave. Also it would depend upon which states you reference. The union or the confederacy?
The thread topic is same sex marriage, not slaves from Africa which are no longer needed because we now have illegals.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime


They ruled that the states that said Same-Sex Marriage was Illegal was against the constitution... sorry not sorry Ok, so how about if a state rules that churches must Marry a Same-Sex couple, even though that is protected in the constitution, the state made a rule that forced them too.. you would be Ok with that?

A state cannot make a law in violation of the constitution. Only the federal politicians and nine black robed lawyers are given that unlawful privilege. If a state would do that then the black robed lawyers would change that law to suite their purpose. Your beginning to catch on.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

The Civil War was fought over "State's Rights". Slavery was supposedly a "State's Right" issue. The Confederacy lost.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about "State's Rights". The Supreme Court ruled that states DON'T have the right to discriminate based on race.

You have addressed the Supreme Court ruling that states DO NOT have the right to ban same sex marriages. State's rights (10th Amendment) were trumped by the 14th Amendment, not for the first time, either.

Get with the program! States don't have the right to violate the Constitution of the United States. Same sex marriage bans violate the Constitution of the United States.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Darth_Prime


They ruled that the states that said Same-Sex Marriage was Illegal was against the constitution... sorry not sorry Ok, so how about if a state rules that churches must Marry a Same-Sex couple, even though that is protected in the constitution, the state made a rule that forced them too.. you would be Ok with that?

A state cannot make a law in violation of the constitution. Only the federal politicians and nine black robed lawyers are given that unlawful privilege. If a state would do that then the black robed lawyers would change that law to suite their purpose. Your beginning to catch on.


The Supreme Court Justices don't make laws. They just rule if they are Constitutional or not. You should go restudy Social Studies, you appear not to know how our Constitution and various branches of our government work.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The Supreme Court Justices don't make laws. They just rule if they are Constitutional or not. You should go restudy Social Studies, you appear not to know how our Constitution and various branches of our government work.

Total double talk. The law was a state law and now is not a state law. Complete double talk. Without the SPOTUS the entire 50 states would still govern themselves as to their own law but now are unable to do so. And that is not changing the law? I don't need to study to realize that the nation has been taken once again by five lawyers and their boss.

If it were only a rule of constitutionality then who voted on that after the finding? Congress? You? No it was nine lawyers that made it law. Get over it. You got screwed and didn't even know it.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   


The Civil War was fought over "State's Rights". Slavery was supposedly a "State's Right" issue. The Confederacy lost. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about "State's Rights". The Supreme Court ruled that states DON'T have the right to discriminate based on race. You have addressed the Supreme Court ruling that states DO NOT have the right to ban same sex marriages. State's rights (10th Amendment) were trumped by the 14th Amendment, not for the first time, either. Get with the program! States don't have the right to violate the Constitution of the United States. Same sex marriage bans violate the Constitution of the United States. a reply to: windword

Yep, your right on. Now where is the congressional vote. Not the ruling but the vote to make a law? Got to go back to the nine lawyers do you not? They just made a ruling. Now where is the proposed law for that ruling? You got snookered by a bunch of lawyers that you did not even vote on to pass your law. Man talk about getting with the program. At least I know when I got took.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede



The Civil War was fought over "State's Rights". Slavery was supposedly a "State's Right" issue. The Confederacy lost. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about "State's Rights". The Supreme Court ruled that states DON'T have the right to discriminate based on race. You have addressed the Supreme Court ruling that states DO NOT have the right to ban same sex marriages. State's rights (10th Amendment) were trumped by the 14th Amendment, not for the first time, either. Get with the program! States don't have the right to violate the Constitution of the United States. Same sex marriage bans violate the Constitution of the United States. a reply to: windword

Yep, your right on. Now where is the congressional vote. Not the ruling but the vote to make a law? Got to go back to the nine lawyers do you not? They just made a ruling. Now where is the proposed law for that ruling? You got snookered by a bunch of lawyers that you did not even vote on to pass your law. Man talk about getting with the program. At least I know when I got took.


The "vote" you keep asking for was the ratification of the 14th amendment which is the basis for the rulings on the constitutionality of making it a felony to marry a person of another race based on the Due Process Clause. The same clause that the court decided disenfranchised same sex couples. It's really much simpler than you're making it out to be.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The Supreme Court Justices don't make laws. They just rule if they are Constitutional or not. You should go restudy Social Studies, you appear not to know how our Constitution and various branches of our government work.

Total double talk. The law was a state law and now is not a state law. Complete double talk. Without the SPOTUS the entire 50 states would still govern themselves as to their own law but now are unable to do so. And that is not changing the law? I don't need to study to realize that the nation has been taken once again by five lawyers and their boss.


Double talk? I CLEARLY just said that the Supreme court doesn't make laws. It's RIGHT there in the quote you quoted me in. OBVIOUSLY removing laws as unconstitutional is changing the law, but that is moving the goal posts and/or a strawman because that isn't what I originally said.

Not to mention , the SCOTUS has had the power of judicial review since 1803. It's funny how ONLY when the SCOTUS says a ruling YOU disagree with that suddenly it's a problem that they have this ability. Also the SCOTUS isn't preventing the states from self-governing. The Constitution is by placing the Federal government over the state governments. It's been like that for a LONG time now, the SCOTUS didn't change that with this ruling.


If it were only a rule of constitutionality then who voted on that after the finding? Congress? You? No it was nine lawyers that made it law. Get over it. You got screwed and didn't even know it.


They didn't MAKE it law. They REMOVED laws. It's funny how you are trying to use word wrangling to flip the idea that the government just reduced its overall power to saying that the government is taking liberties away from you. There are LESS laws on the books now. NOT more. Less laws = smaller government. Talk about double talk...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

So, if all the states went back to allowing or disallowing Same-Sex Marriage without the Supreme Court Justice ruling, you would be 1000% Ok with a state that Ruled Churches Had to marry Same-Sex couples?



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: akushla99

Problem is though correcting androgens is not eugenics.
If one has a chemical imbalance and the levels are corrected that has nothing to do with genetics.

You are making a false accusation based on incorrect analysts.

The whole idea is based on the fact that homosexuality is not genetic. Being born dark skined is much different from being born with jaundice.

For your assertion to be correct you must show that it is genetic.
edit on 10-7-2015 by alphastrike101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

while i wait for your answer, i think we can summarize: "Why is same-sex marriage wrong?" - It's Not



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Seede

while i wait for your answer, i think we can summarize: "Why is same-sex marriage wrong?" - It's Not


forgive me my pet peeve....When possible I avoid saying or writing

It's not.....because it is exactly like saying..... "It's snot".....just saying.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282




My Grammar is gag worthy, i apologize




top topics



 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join