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.

 

Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

Because it has nothing to do with the discussion that I can see, which is why I question whether you know what the discussion is you decided to jump into.


Enlighten me.

Does "being born that way" automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way.




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?



Why are gay rights more important than religious rights? Bottom line is this is a contrived conflict that could be easily resolved by someone else performing the ceremony. No one has to lose unless the goal is to be vindictive. The only reason we have conflict here is because some a-holes want their pound of flesh.


Are the rights of this judge being violated?

As far as I know he can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

The only rights being violated are those of gay people that want to marry and this judge is not allowing them to marry


Why can't the government do their job and start enforcing immigration laws? Why didn't you put Obama in jail when he refused to enforce DOMA? Why are you leftist commies in such a row over a county clerk asserting her 1st amendment rights?

But, more importantly, why did you compare your Same Sex Marriage movement to the Civil Rights Movement and MLK's fight to end segregation? Because you leftist commies wiretapped his phone and put him under surveillance, and used his sex life to drag him through the gutter to undermine the Civil Rights Movement. Just like you are using this county clerk's sex life to drag her through the gutter. You even threw MLK in jail when he asserted his religious convictions too ....

But .. since you are claiming that people should just obey the damn law like good little peasants, can you exp-lain to me in as much detail as possible how 5 unelected judges get to redefine marriage for the whole country without our consent?


Leftist? Commie?

DId I somehow enter an alternate universe where the Internet was invented the 1920s and we're currently in 1955 or something?

Did Stalinist Russia have marriages between gay people? Does capitalist/oligarch Russia have it now?

Do you even know what communism is/was?

BTW: We don't elect Supreme Court justices. We have three branches of government and a separation of powers under the Constitution. This was done to protect everyone's rights under the Constitution. You might want to learn a bit about all that stuff.



Please, refrain from answering a question with a question.

Why isn't Obama in jail for refusing to enforce DOMA?


Duh, because DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. Again, please look up the separation of powers. I'm only 20 years old and I understand them and you strike me as someone a lot older.

As for NSA spying on citizens for no reason, we're on the same side on that issue. I disagree with that. "Onward Cascadia".


Correction - DOMA was not enforced before the Constitutional ruling by advocate judges.

It was law when it was not enforced. So why isn't Obama in jail?

Why isn't he in jail for refusing to enforce immigration laws? Are you guys waiting on a advocate judge to rule that unconstitutional as well?

It is the law, and he should do his job - right?
edit on 7-9-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

Because it has nothing to do with the discussion that I can see, which is why I question whether you know what the discussion is you decided to jump into.


Enlighten me.

Does "being born that way" automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way.


Your question assumes that LGBT people are not acceptable from the very beginning.

That's the problem with it.

No one asks "does being born with red hair automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way."

edit on 7-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar
Your question assumes that LGBT people are not acceptable from the very beginning.

That's the problem with it.

No one asks "does being born with red hair automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way."

My question actually assumes nothing. You left the land of logic and entered the land of bias and assumptions. I have actually not made a single statement about whether LGBT is acceptable or not, not one. The problem is your refusal to use logic and instead dive deep into the pool of biased assumptions.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?



Why are gay rights more important than religious rights? Bottom line is this is a contrived conflict that could be easily resolved by someone else performing the ceremony. No one has to lose unless the goal is to be vindictive. The only reason we have conflict here is because some a-holes want their pound of flesh.


Are the rights of this judge being violated?

As far as I know he can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

The only rights being violated are those of gay people that want to marry and this judge is not allowing them to marry


Why can't the government do their job and start enforcing immigration laws? Why didn't you put Obama in jail when he refused to enforce DOMA? Why are you leftist commies in such a row over a county clerk asserting her 1st amendment rights?

But, more importantly, why did you compare your Same Sex Marriage movement to the Civil Rights Movement and MLK's fight to end segregation? Because you leftist commies wiretapped his phone and put him under surveillance, and used his sex life to drag him through the gutter to undermine the Civil Rights Movement. Just like you are using this county clerk's sex life to drag her through the gutter. You even threw MLK in jail when he asserted his religious convictions too ....

But .. since you are claiming that people should just obey the damn law like good little peasants, can you exp-lain to me in as much detail as possible how 5 unelected judges get to redefine marriage for the whole country without our consent?


Leftist? Commie?

DId I somehow enter an alternate universe where the Internet was invented the 1920s and we're currently in 1955 or something?

Did Stalinist Russia have marriages between gay people? Does capitalist/oligarch Russia have it now?

Do you even know what communism is/was?

BTW: We don't elect Supreme Court justices. We have three branches of government and a separation of powers under the Constitution. This was done to protect everyone's rights under the Constitution. You might want to learn a bit about all that stuff.



Please, refrain from answering a question with a question.

Why isn't Obama in jail for refusing to enforce DOMA?


Duh, because DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. Again, please look up the separation of powers. I'm only 20 years old and I understand them and you strike me as someone a lot older.

As for NSA spying on citizens for no reason, we're on the same side on that issue. I disagree with that. "Onward Cascadia".


Correction - DOMA was not enforced before the Constitutional ruling by advocate judges.

It was law when it was not enforced. So why isn't Obama in jail?

Why isn't he in jail for refusing to enforce immigration laws? Are you guys waiting on a advocate judge to rule that unconstitutional as well?

It is the law, and he should do his job - right?


I believe there were legal challenges against it moving through the courts and there was some real question as to whether it was constitutional in the first place.

What can you tell me was done on a federal level prior to the Supreme Court ruling that violated DOMA?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   
The ten commandments and God no longer feature in the court system,the satanists have won,the judge should recuse himself due to a conflict of interest



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JadeStar
Your question assumes that LGBT people are not acceptable from the very beginning.

That's the problem with it.

No one asks "does being born with red hair automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way."

My question actually assumes nothing. You left the land of logic and entered the land of bias and assumptions.


Hardly.

Asking whether something is acceptable implies that it is unacceptable. #LanguageAndContextMatters



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Government has no right to determine what an individual wants to do, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

This isn't rocket surgery.


What about when it infringes on the first amendment rights of someone freely exercising their religion? Is it ok then? Even when the 1st Amendment makes it specifically clear that the government cannot do that?

Even when the 9th Amendment makes it clear a right has to be retained by the people before it can be considered a right?

When has same sex marriage ever been considered a right by the people? When has it ever been a right for the US Supreme Court Justices to write new laws and invent rights that have never been retained by the people?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: beezzer
Government has no right to determine what an individual wants to do, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

This isn't rocket surgery.


What about when it infringes on the first amendment rights of someone freely exercising their religion?


Except that it doesn't. Furthermore if someone were to deem that it did it would negatively impact the rights of other people.

You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded space for the same reason.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean they can bust down your door for the same reason.

edit on 7-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

Why can't this guy just do his job and not push his beliefs on people?
When did his rights become more important then others?



Why are gay rights more important than religious rights? Bottom line is this is a contrived conflict that could be easily resolved by someone else performing the ceremony. No one has to lose unless the goal is to be vindictive. The only reason we have conflict here is because some a-holes want their pound of flesh.


Are the rights of this judge being violated?

As far as I know he can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

The only rights being violated are those of gay people that want to marry and this judge is not allowing them to marry


Why can't the government do their job and start enforcing immigration laws? Why didn't you put Obama in jail when he refused to enforce DOMA? Why are you leftist commies in such a row over a county clerk asserting her 1st amendment rights?

But, more importantly, why did you compare your Same Sex Marriage movement to the Civil Rights Movement and MLK's fight to end segregation? Because you leftist commies wiretapped his phone and put him under surveillance, and used his sex life to drag him through the gutter to undermine the Civil Rights Movement. Just like you are using this county clerk's sex life to drag her through the gutter. You even threw MLK in jail when he asserted his religious convictions too ....

But .. since you are claiming that people should just obey the damn law like good little peasants, can you exp-lain to me in as much detail as possible how 5 unelected judges get to redefine marriage for the whole country without our consent?


Leftist? Commie?

DId I somehow enter an alternate universe where the Internet was invented the 1920s and we're currently in 1955 or something?

Did Stalinist Russia have marriages between gay people? Does capitalist/oligarch Russia have it now?

Do you even know what communism is/was?

BTW: We don't elect Supreme Court justices. We have three branches of government and a separation of powers under the Constitution. This was done to protect everyone's rights under the Constitution. You might want to learn a bit about all that stuff.



Please, refrain from answering a question with a question.

Why isn't Obama in jail for refusing to enforce DOMA?


Duh, because DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. Again, please look up the separation of powers. I'm only 20 years old and I understand them and you strike me as someone a lot older.

As for NSA spying on citizens for no reason, we're on the same side on that issue. I disagree with that. "Onward Cascadia".


Correction - DOMA was not enforced before the Constitutional ruling by advocate judges.

It was law when it was not enforced. So why isn't Obama in jail?

Why isn't he in jail for refusing to enforce immigration laws? Are you guys waiting on a advocate judge to rule that unconstitutional as well?

It is the law, and he should do his job - right?


I believe there were legal challenges against it moving through the courts and there was some real question as to whether it was constitutional in the first place.

What can you tell me was done on a federal level prior to the Supreme Court ruling that violated DOMA?


There were no questions as to it being constitutional in the first place - it was signed into law by Bill Clinton. It was an Act of Congress, not a "new law" written into existence by unelected judges.

So why isn't Obama in jail for refusing to enforce it? A swell as other federal laws he is refusing to enforce?

Why discriminate against another government employee ?

because A) this is an agenda driven usurpation on the individual rights of those who exercise their religious beliefs. and B) people think they are "more equal" than those whom they disagree with and C) they think they are more "right" than other people and are willing to use government force on them if necessary.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
The ten commandments and God no longer feature in the court system,the satanists have won,the judge should recuse himself due to a conflict of interest


Where in the ten commandments did it say anything about "Thou shall not marry gay people?"

America is not a theocracy.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: beezzer
Government has no right to determine what an individual wants to do, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

This isn't rocket surgery.


What about when it infringes on the first amendment rights of someone freely exercising their religion?


Except that it doesn't. Furthermore if someone were to deem that it did it would impact the civil rights of other people.

You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded space for the same reason.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean they can bust down your door for the same reason.


Your argument makes no sense. This county clerk is not yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. She is exercising an established religious right - one that has been retained by the people.

She is not forcing you to agree with her religion - she is refusing to agree with your ideology based on her religious beliefs - people are allowed to do that. When they were not allowed to do that - the King of England lost the American colonies as a result.

You should read Thomas Jefferson's letters about the freedom of religion (he wrote the 1st Amendment) - he did not want the government forcing people to go to a government sanctioned church - such as the CoE - he did not want the Church to be the government. He also did not want people being oppressed by the government in swaying their religious beliefs - the governmet has to stay the heck out of religion - and when they redefinied marriage - they stuck their nose in it.


edit on 7-9-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: JadeStar
Your question assumes that LGBT people are not acceptable from the very beginning.

That's the problem with it.

No one asks "does being born with red hair automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way."

My question actually assumes nothing. You left the land of logic and entered the land of bias and assumptions.


Hardly.

Asking whether something is acceptable implies that it is unacceptable. #LanguageAndContextMatters

First, it actually doesn't. Your comprehension is really, really poor. Asking something most certainly does not imply the opposite is true. For instance if I asked whether it's acceptable to drink a glass of wine while pregnant, you believe that is implying it's not? Just a terrible command of English.

Second, I never asked any such question, here is the original comment I made.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The basis is that LGBT claim they are born that way so it necessarily must be alright. The response is pedophiles are born that way, so is that alright? It's less a rebuttal that makes LGBT wrong, and more one that shows that reasoning is flawed.


There is no question about LGBT being acceptable. If you mean my later question I posed to the other poster ..


Does "being born that way" automatically make it alright and acceptable just by virtue of having been born that way.


Refer to the wine question, there is no implication of the opposite, if you think there is please retake composition 101 and 102.

#LanguageAndContextMatters
edit on 7-9-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But gay people aren't saying that because they were born that way they are automatically alright. What they are saying is that they are born the way they are - the same way that heterosexual people are born the way they are. They are specifically comparing themselves to heterosexuals when they make this assertion. They are saying that they did not "choose" to be gay any more than a heterosexual "chooses" to be straight.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Lets play bait the Christian,sorry not playing,you'll find out soon enough Gods thoughts on such matters



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But gay people aren't saying that because they were born that way they are automatically alright.

Actually it's an argument I have heard numerous times. So while not all might, that argument is used.


What they are saying is that they are born the way they are - the same way that heterosexual people are born the way they are. They are specifically comparing themselves to heterosexuals when they make this assertion. They are saying that they did not "choose" to be gay any more than a heterosexual "chooses" to be straight.

Which usually carries the connotation of that makes it equally right, due to the fact it's not a choice. It's an illogical argument, regardless of where you stand, the argument is illogical.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You are taking the argument out of context. Every single time I have heard that argument from a gay person, it was because someone else said that the gay person chose to be gay, so they could choose to be not gay. You don't choose your sexual orientation - it is simply something you were born with. That has ALWAYS been the context of that argument.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You are taking the argument out of context. Every single time I have heard that argument from a gay person, it was because someone else said that the gay person chose to be gay, so they could choose to be not gay. You don't choose your sexual orientation - it is simply something you were born with. That has ALWAYS been the context of that argument.

That's your experience, I accept it, my experience has been different.

In 1 second I found websites that show my point. Being "born this way" is an argument used to show why it's not wrong.


• “Its unnatural.” – I think I would know if I made a choice or not. I’m gay. You’re not. You don’t know. I never made a choice. I was literally born this way.

gayokay.wordpress.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

LOL so you found 1 example of a kid who gets the unnatural argument confused with the choice argument. Got any others?

Let me ask you this: do you find logical fault with the argument that one is born with their sexual orientation?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

LOL so you found 1 example of a kid who gets the unnatural argument confused with the choice argument. Got any others?

Let me ask you this: do you find logical fault with the argument that one is born with their sexual orientation?

I found 1 in 2 seconds. I have personally heard the argument more times than I can count.

That question is not a logic question. It's a stupid position to take though. For years the nature vs nurture argument raged until people let their ego go and admitted it was both. The same is true here. Each person is a unique individual and case, there is no one size fits all answer.

What would you say if I told you I have a coworker who was straight, was married, unhappy in her marriage, and decided to be a lesbian. Dated only girls for about 6 years. Then she decided girls were too much drama and now she is back to dating guys and considers herself heterosexual now.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join