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.

 

Gay Marriage Ban=State Sponsored Discrimination?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Why waste your time? Its pretty obvious I dont care...

You insinuate that I make things up, am homosexual and exaggerate. When confronted with contrary information, your only response is that you don't care.

Everyone who takes the time to read this thread can now see that you are not willing to assimilate information that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions. You are willing to reject the facts. The only thing I'm left wondering about you is are you sure a site that exists to deny ignorance is something you feel comfortable with?

I didn't waste any time, I made my point. You just can't seem to respond to it in a reasonable manner.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Duzey]




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Civil marriage offers to gays what they primarily need

We're both Canucks, so I'll mention that in Canada there was a gay movement for civil unions over a decade ago. People freaked out and said no, paving the way for a challenge of the Charter of Rights, which led to same-sex marriage being legal in Canada. If we had just let them have the civil unions without all the whining and hand-wringing, Canada would have same-sex 'civil unions' intead of same-sex 'marriages'.


True I agree but the charter does not mention 'sexual orientation' and is explicit when it mentions male and female.

The view of people on the right is that if a more moderate or dare I say it conservative supreme court existed then the 'rights' of gays would be more narrowly defined. But the Supreme court has primarily been a liberal creation so the interpretation was broad.

Ask yourself this: would the Queen have signed it if she could have looked forward to this time? I don't mean to imply that she has any biases but that what was written was not what was delivered.

I'm glad that we are in agreement because you and I know that gay marriage is less of a struggle in Canada and the US is watching with anxious eyes what happens up here.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Ask yourself this: would the Queen have signed it if she could have looked forward to this time? I don't mean to imply that she has any biases but that what was written was not what was delivered.

That's an interesting question.

My opinion is that the Queen would have signed most anything that was put in front of her, because Canada will deal with having the Queen of England as our Head of State as long as she doesn't interfere in our politics or laws. Trying to tell us what to do would probably be the end of Canada being in the Commonwealth. I like the Queen and I support the Royal Family as our whatever the heck they are to us, but that will all change the moment they try to inject themselves in Canadian issues. The people who are against having the Queen as our Head of State would have a field day if she (or the Governor General on her behalf) refused to sign our laws.

Unless it was something like 'all blonde-haired, green-eyed people should be put to death on their 15th birthday' or something like that. I'd be OK if the GG refused to sign that.

I think that the thing about the Charter is that the courts had already ruled that sexual preference was implied, but that was when they were talking about job discrimination etc. All the courts said is that our current marriage laws were against the Charter. The previous government is the one that decided not to redraft the law. The opinion I tend to hear, from all but the most stauch anti-same-sex marriage people, is that it's a done deal and there are more important issues we should concentrate on.

The Conservatives will be putting the revisitation question on the table in December. In my opinion, the best thing for the Conservatives would be to have it fail and then drop the issue. That way they can tell the people that voted for them that they fulfilled their election promise and still not freak out all the homosexuals and the women who think that the next thing they'll go after is abortion. Winning that vote will not help their goal of a majority government.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Heterosexual couples DESERVE special status. Without them the human race would perish!


I'm not suggesting we do away with heterosexual couples. People who have no argument always resort to the extreme. It doesn't have to be one or the other, gay marriages OR straight marriages. Both gay and straight people can happily coexist and marry who they choose. Allowing gay people to marry isn't going to make the human race extinct. This is another totally flimsy argument.


Originally posted by jsobecky
What is wrong with gays living in a civil union as opposed to marriage?


There's nothing wrong with it. If that's what they choose. Being without the choice is my issue. What's wrong with YOU living in a civil union instead of marriage? Why do you insist on having the choice to marry? How would you feel if that choice were taken away simply because someone decided that you should be satisfied just having a civil union instead?



Marriage's purpose is to bring a certain stability and order to a society.


We all have what we think is the purpose of marriage. There are many, many purposes. We each get to choose our own. We don't all marry for the same reason and society isn't failing because of it.


Originally posted by SkyWay
You could end up with a bunch of heterosexual men and women pretending to be homosexuals just to obtain the special rights of married heterosexuals.


This makes no sense at all. Straights don't have to pretend to be gay to have the rights of straights. They already do!

And we already have gay people pretending to be straight so they can marry people of the opposite sex to obtain health insurance and so on.


Originally posted by semperfoo
If all the ppl of the world would some how turn gay, what happens to humanity?


Is that a fear of yours? That if we let gay people marry, we'd all "turn" gay?



Its ADAM AND EVE... Not ADAM AND STEVE.


That's so original! And so funny!



Originally posted by semperfoo
Im still wondering if this thing falls through (same sex marriages) Can i still marry my horsie?


Hey, bud, if that's what flips your switch...

Another example of someone without a good argument going to extremes...

One of the basic conditions of ANY legal contract (which marriage IS) is that both parties are capable of making the decision of exercising their free will upon entering the contract. We have no way of knowing whether or not your "horsie" possesses that capability.

But I do hope you're very happy together...


Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I fail to see where there is discrimination when the right was never extant in the first place.


American women and blacks didn't have the right to vote "in the first place". We had to grant these rights because not to do so was recognized as discrimination.

What negative effect does gay marriage have on your marriage? How does it RUIN the sanctity of your marriage?

Anyone?





[edit on 10-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
You have voted Benevolent Heretic for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

p.s. that is the best avatar ever.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I've had this discussion over and over and OVER, and always the arguments against gay marriage come down to fear, bigotry and a desire to limit the freedoms of those with whom someone disagrees. Always.

Marriage in the United States is a secular contract. A marriage may have a religous component, but the legal contract is required for a marriage to be considered valid.

Secular legal contracts in the US are bound by the nation's laws, not the nation's religions. The 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens of the US. That right there is reason enough to say that bans against gay marriage are invalid. At least in my opinion.

The issues about marrying a horse or a car are total nonsense. Again, since marriage is a legal contract, all parties must be competent to enter into one. Machines are by definition not competent to enter into a contract (at least at the current level of technology), and humans and animals cannot communicate well enough to be able to ensure with any degree of confidence that all parties want to enter into the contract. Someone may want to marry their horse, but what if the horse doesn't want to marry the person? And this argument also tries to reduce gay people to the level of machines, or to put forth the idea that gay people are of a different species than quite human. And yeah, nobody in this thread has proposed marrying their car... as I say, I've had this conversation many times.

It basically boils down to "I don't like gay marriage, so you should not be allowed to do so."

It's the same failed argument that the gun control crowd tries: "I don't like guns, so you shouldn't have one."

Or the argument is that God doesn't like it. Well, I don't pretend to know what God likes, or what the Gods like, but I do believe that, given the omnipotence generally ascribed to God, if he or she or it doesn't like gay marriage, he/she/it is quite capable of dealing with it without help from humans.

Bottom line - prohibition of secular gay marriage is bigotry, plain and simple. I have NEVER heard any argument that limiting marriage based on the relative plumbing of the adult, mutually consenting partners is anything else.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic. Sorry it took me a day to get back to you, that little thing called life, dammit
.

Anyhoo... The issue should be decided by the voters, its up to you and I, and others to educate the voters. For good or for ill, the issue needs resolving by the people. We don't like the results, no. It therefore becomes our task to change minds and alter views. As distasteful as it is, its how our republic should work, and lately all too often doesn't. The only other way to address it would be through the courts, and I have issues with legislating from the bench (that's a topic for another thread). Voting in favor of any form of discrimination is as abhorent to me as it is to you, the issue hasn't yet reached Washington state, though I suspect that it will soon. I will do what I can to defeat such a notion, its all I can do.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
So we should deny homosexuals equal protection and benefit under the law because heterosexual people lie? It's not like there aren't already marriages of convenience. I could marry a friend of the opposite sex and achieve the exact same thing.


Just saying that such legislation will lead to alot of other headaches -- opening a pandora's box.


Why is it a big deal - here's a scenario. Two men have spent 25 years in a monogamous relationship. Partner A, whose parents haven't spoken to him in years because they don't like homosexuality, is in a horrific car accident. He is dying and nothing can be done to save him. All the doctors can do is make him comfortable for his last days. Partner B shows up at the hospital and is unable to visit or spend any last moments with his spouse, because he is not family. Partner A's parents can swoop in give permission to let him visit, but they don't because they don't like gay people.

Partner A dies without the comfort of seeing the person they consider their spouse. Partner B has no right to be a part of any funeral planning that may go on and could possibly even be barred from attending by the parents, who would have all the rights in such a situation.


If such a pair had been together for 25 years they should have prepared for such a possible scenario by putting their wishes into legal forms to insure that they could be present at each others bedside incase they are hospitalized...especially in light of the disapproval of the parents.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   


quote: Originally posted by SkyWay
Heterosexual couples DESERVE special status. Without them the human race would perish!


I'm not suggesting we do away with heterosexual couples. People who have no argument always resort to the extreme. It doesn't have to be one or the other, gay marriages OR straight marriages. Both gay and straight people can happily coexist and marry who they choose. Allowing gay people to marry isn't going to make the human race extinct. This is another totally flimsy argument.


And people who have no reply to an argument create a different one. Either that, or you just didn't undrestand what I wrote. I never suggested that you suggested that "we do away with heterosexual couples." All I wrote in the statement that you quoted above is that because the contribution by heterosexual couples to the survival of the human race is so unique and indispensible, they are entitled to special status and rights. And let me add...until homosexual couples can equal the contribution that heterosexual couples make to the continuation of human civilization they are not entitled to equal status nor equal treatment. Same goes for unmarried heterosexuals. No one deserves equal treatment if they do not contribute equally.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by SkyWay]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

You insinuate that I make things up, am homosexual and exaggerate. When confronted with contrary information, your only response is that you don't care.


WHOA... captian clueless.
Theres clear distinction between calling you a homo and asking if you are one.

And to be quite honest, I dont care...


Originally posted by DuzeyEveryone who takes the time to read this thread can now see that you are not willing to assimilate information that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions. You are willing to reject the facts.


Ok..... Heres the thing. Honestly, I just dont give a sh*t what a bunch of ppl over the computer think of me.. Thats just one of those things that doesnt faze me. Oh well. I guess you can just blame it on me for having a life.. Im sure you can make a post about that and make it all biased to!.




Originally posted by DuzeyThe only thing I'm left wondering about you is are you sure a site that exists to deny ignorance is something you feel comfortable with?


Then you have more time on your hands then most ppl.
Heres a clue.... Get a life!



Originally posted by DuzeyI didn't waste any time, I made my point. You just can't seem to respond to it in a reasonable manner.


No... Trust me on this. You wasted your time. But think what you want


You did make your point..... You clearly have yourself convinced.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I am gay. someone please tell me why I can't marry the one I love.

Please don't bring religon in to all of this.


[edit on 10-11-2006 by Ford Farmer]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
. No one deserves equal treatment if they do not contribute equally.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by SkyWay]


Then, by your own logic, shouldn't there be a marriage clause that states that any heterosexual couple who marries is required to procreate?

Since heterosexual married couples who choose not to bear children cannot "contribute" to the growth of our species, why is it ok for them to still marry?




[edit on 11/10/2006 by pstiffy]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is that a fear of yours? That if we let gay people marry, we'd all "turn" gay?


I was pointing out that without Penis in Vagina this world as we know it doesnt exist.

By nice way to try and twist my words


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's so original! And so funny!


So original and yet so true.... I can see your easily amused... NICE......


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic Hey, bud, if that's what flips your switch...
Another example of someone without a good argument going to extremes...
One of the basic conditions of ANY legal contract (which marriage IS) is that both parties are capable of making the decision of exercising their free will upon entering the contract. We have no way of knowing whether or not your "horsie" possesses that capability.
But I do hope you're very happy together...



The horse crap was a bit extreme. But it could happen. It doesnt even have to be a horse. But the point in the horse arguement is to show just how stupid this argument as a whole really is..



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pstiffy
Then, by your own logic, shouldn't there be some marriage clause that states that anyone who marries is required to procreate? Since heterosexual married couples who choose not to bear children cannot "contribute" to the growth of our species, why is it ok for them to still marry?
[edit on 11/10/2006 by pstiffy]


Becase they have "compatible" organs, and there's no more excuses for them to come up with.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pstiffy

Originally posted by SkyWay
. No one deserves equal treatment if they do not contribute equally.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by SkyWay]


Then, by your own logic, shouldn't there be a marriage clause that states that any heterosexual couple who marries is required to procreate?

Since heterosexual married couples who choose not to bear children cannot "contribute" to the growth of our species, why is it ok for them to still marry?
[edit on 11/10/2006 by pstiffy]


Actually, procreation is a given when hetreosexuals marry, since most couples marry for the purpose of raising a family. And most heterosexuals do not plan to be celibate if they marry, so it is pretty much a given that they will produce children. If a couple chooses not to have children then they are betraying the purpose of marriage. If they do not contribute they do not deserve the same rewards as those who do contribute. This is applied justice.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by SkyWay]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
I am gay. someone please tell me why I can't marry the one I love.

Please don't bring religon in to all of this.



That's not fair, that's like saying "please don't say anything I disagree with". I mean like it or not religion plays a big role in determining the way the faithful want to live and shape their communities.

Gays are sinning against the law our Lord has given to us....and I want to live in a community that respects the Bible. So passing laws that directly go against the teachings in the bible is something that I will fight. It's my right....as it is yours to ignore the Bible and go against it's teachings...

Don't get me wrong, we all sin, I'm a sinner, as are you. My sins are as bad as yours so I'm not trying to say that gays are the scum of the earth, it's just a sin, like any other sin....but still I don't want to see laws passed that condone sin.

So why can't you marry the one you love in a homosexual relationship? Because the majority of the people that live in our communities believe it's wrong.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay


Actually, procreation is a given when hetreosexuals marry. If a couple chooses not to have children then they are betraying the purpose of marriage.


Actually, no its not, that is your view of what marriage is for. People get married for many reasons. The main one would be because they love each other and want to express that love in union. Some people get married for money, some for security, some for other reason (including procreation i assume).



If they do not contribute they do not deserve the same rewards as those who do contribute. This is applied justice.


Alright..then, should all heterosexual married couples, who don't want, and will never want kids be forced, by law, to divorce?



[edit on 11/10/2006 by pstiffy]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
You know this may sound odd, but the gay rights..thing...kinda sounds like when Blacks fought for their rights. The blacks just had more numbers. But with gay people, unlike black folks, we have to deal with more than one group of people.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
now i have to say that kinglizard has posted the most articulate reason HE has against gay marriage and done so without flaming people. he did it from HIS point of view and i can respect that.

i disagree with him, but thats my right.

personally i think that if a given church is against gay marriage, then its that churches right to not marry same sex couples. i dont think the government should have a say in it. telling gays they cant marry is like telilng gays they cant be protected by EO laws. why the double standard?

but sadly it does come down once again to majority rule when its a voting issue.

but king...while i respect your opinion, would you be willing to offer whether or not you feel its discriminatory? if not why/how not? i mean, rednecks who hate black people arent allowed to pass laws that blacks cant live in their communities...



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pstiffy

Originally posted by SkyWay
Actually, procreation is a given when hetreosexuals marry. If a couple chooses not to have children then they are betraying the purpose of marriage.


Actually, no its not, that is your view of what marriage is for. People get married for many reasons. The main one would be because they love each other and want to express that love in union. Some people get married for money, some for security, some for other reason (including procreation i assume).


Some people get married for the wrong reasons, as you so well pointed out. Thank you. Yes, people marry for many reasons, but the most important and noble reason is to bring children into the world. Nothing else compares with that.




If they do not contribute they do not deserve the same rewards as those who do contribute. This is applied justice.


Alright..then, should all heterosexual married couples, who don't want, and will never want kids be forced, by law, to divorce?
[edit on 11/10/2006 by pstiffy]


Two wrongs don't make one right. It would just make a bad situation worse by forcing people who are married to divorce.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join