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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
WHOA... captian clueless.

That's Captainess Clueless, to you.

I already explained to you that I am female. I'm not really surprised that you ignored it.



Originally posted by semperfoo
And to be quite honest, I dont care...

So why did you ask?


Originally posted by semperfoo
Heres a clue.... Get a life!

But then I would have two lives, and that just seems like a lot of work. Thanks for the clue though, a person can never have enough of those. I hope you saved a few for yourself.



Originally posted by semperfoo
No... Trust me on this. You wasted your time.

Why would I trust you?


It's my time, and I am the only person who can say whether or not it was wasted. When I want you to track the usage of my free time, I'll ask you for help.

Now did you have anything else to say about the topic, or would you rather just talk about me? If it's me you would care to discuss, I can't say I blame you.

I'm pretty darn fabulous.

...

I've had enough quoting for one post, but I would like to announce to one and all that I have always been upfront about the fact that this baby factory is closed for business. Aside of the usual 'You'll feel different when you're older' crap, nobody cared that I had no intention to procreate when I got married.

If I wanted kids, which I really, really don't, I would adopt. There's enough kids to go around for everyone. I could accessorize with children from all over, just like Angelina Jolie and Madonna.

I shall now return to the scheduled topic, gay marriage, and how it will cause the collapse of civilization because people will want to marry horses.



[edit on 10-11-2006 by Duzey]




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
From a UK/EU perspective it's really puzzling that you guys tie yourselves up in knots about this - it's no biggie.

Same sex marriage has been legal for years in Holland and a more healthy, mature and fair society you couldn't hope to find. Oh and it hasn't destroyed those Dutch communities that are still very pious, god-fearing etc. (almost Amish-like). We have it here and it hasn't messed us up - other things have done that!

It's such a minor matter in the grand scheme of things. Surely you have bigger better issues to worry about?

Oh and Duzey the Queen of Canada is err the Queen of Canada, not the Queen of England - it's a completely different title / role, just happens to be the same person. As she herself has said to all you crazy colonials (joke) it's up to you / your govts - if you want her to stay she'll stay, if not she'll be happy to be republicked out of existance



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
From a UK/EU perspective it's really puzzling that you guys tie yourselves up in knots about this - it's no biggie.


You are right. It's all Bright Lights and Shiny Things to distract the population from the out-right criminal activities of the so-called 'leadership' here. People would rather froth at the mouth at the thought of two guys holding hands than worry about the institutionalized corruption wherein for example representatives of various industries write the legislation that regulates those industries.

Oh, and Duzey? Women can be Captains, so it would be Captain Cluessa...



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   


And with those two corrections, I would like to announce that I have been promoted. Henceforth, you will refer to me as...

Commodore Cluelessa

I'm glad I chose the Navy.


Regarding the Queen of Canada - I don't really want her to go away. I view her as the dead man's switch for our government. Just in case we do something really crazy.

In an effort to be sort of on topic...

I'm not really sure why the whole same-sex marriage thing is a big deal. I was brought up Christian and it never occurred to me that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as others.

I had a cheeseburger with bacon at lunch while wearing a mixed-blend sweater and neither of these things seemed to bother anyone, even thought the OT says that's wrong.

McDonald's is destroying our morals.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I had another thought and since it happens so rarely i figured i'd tap it out really quickly.

Most contend that the reason they are so against gay marriage is that homosexuality is a sin and since they are straight they take the route of sinning by judging gay people (judge not lest ye be judged and all that...).

but my question is this...if homosexuality is such a HUGE sin against christ...why isnt it on the stone tablets in the arc? i mean, why not 11 commandments vs 10? why not just give it to moses from the get go? "thou shall not commit murder, though shall not bone bob in the bum" etc

if it was carved in stone, id understand a little more...but it isnt.

so, to this point, i still just dotn get it.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but my question is this...if homosexuality is such a HUGE sin against christ...why isnt it on the stone tablets in the arc? i mean, why not 11 commandments vs 10? why not just give it to moses from the get go? "thou shall not commit murder, though shall not bone bob in the bum" etc


Ten is an even number.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ford Farmer
Ten is an even number.



okay, nice joke aside
the problem is that the USA is full of people that have been afraid of things that are different for decades
let's list off the other groups that have been the target of STATE SPONSORED discrimination

1: the chinese
2: mexicans
3: african americans
4: atheists
5: non-christian theists



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I hate when gay people equate their struggle to those of the blacks... I was gonna stay out of this until I saw someone bring that up. How is the opression of an entire race the same as not letting gays change the American ideals of marriage? Don't even dream that your plight parallels theirs.

The simple fact remains that majority rules in this country, and the majority believes that homosexuals are a perversity that shouldn't be accepted. Tolerating something that is unpleasant in the eyes of the majority is something that we all as Americans will do, but asking to be married goes one step beyond tolerating into accepting and I for one do not accept that homosexuality is ok. I do not care what arguments are put forth, the simple fact is that it is a denigration of nature.

I know I'll be passed off as a bigot and closed minded, but I don't care.



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
masterjedi, since when was personal belief based off of religious foundations acceptable as a reason for discrimination under the USA's constitution?

can you bring up any objections to homosexuality that are not religious in nature?

also, you're right, majority rules
but not at the expense of a minority
just because the majority in the south wanted segragation, doesn't mean it is right

and where do you get your evidence that the majority doesn't want same-sex marriage?

[edit on 12/6/06 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I don't believe I stated anything at all about religion... merely what the majority wants, regardless of religious affiliation. I am an atheist and still think that homosexuality goes against the basic grains of nature...



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterJedi
I don't believe I stated anything at all about religion... merely what the majority wants, regardless of religious affiliation. I am an atheist and still think that homosexuality goes against the basic grains of nature...


oops, i made an edit to my post before realizing you replied

where is your evidence that the majority doesn't want same-sex marriage?
and since when does a majority get to oppress a minority?
and how do you explain gay animals in nature?
how can it be unnatural when other animals have homosexual members in their population?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
so, i guess this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


should really read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.........as long as you are a straight, white, christian male over the age of 21


????????????????


meh, i dont buy it. if thats really our country then maybe im in the wrong place.


Edn

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
People forget that the term 'marriage' is NOT a religious term anymore in the western world as soon as politics get involved (in this case married couple get certain rights together than those not married) it becomes a legal term and gay couples should have the exact same rights that straight couple benefit from when married. Call it a marriage, union, partnership whatever you want is all the same in the end and has nothing to do with religion at all its about the rights a couple gain when being married and anyone should be allowed those rights.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Yes it is state sponsored discrimination.

And for anyone who thinks it is a sin, why does God cares who you love or how you love them?



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien42
Yes it is state sponsored discrimination.

And for anyone who thinks it is a sin, why does God cares who you love or how you love them?


I cant speak for the big man up stairs but my guess would be sense he made women for man, and man for women. I personally dont care, I mean I think its wrong, but its not my life. Im just against the marriage part of it all. Why should gays have the same rights as a married couple (all the perks)? Thats really what its all about. "in holy matrimony" which is a religious term used in marriage. I think it makes a mockery of religion. Why do gays feel the need to get married? I think its because they want all the perks that straight couples get for being married.

Again, its penis and vagina that populate this world we live on. Not vagina to vagina and penis to penis.
Its just not natural. Just my take on it.

[edit on 023131p://3803pm by semperfoo]



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
I cant speak for the big man up stairs but my guess would be sense he made women for man, and man for women.


God obviously created gays too, or else they wouldn't exist.


Originally posted by semperfoo
Why should gays have the same rights as a married couple (all the perks)?


Why shouldn’t they? Just because they can't "help populate this world"?


Originally posted by semperfoo
Why do gays feel the need to get married?


Why does anybody who is not religious feel the need to get married? People should have the right to marry anyone they want to.

I still think that it's state sponsored discrimination, and I don't see why God would create homosexuals and then call them evil sinners, and send them to hell.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   
well i stand by my statement that if a CHURCH chooses, as an organization to not marry gay people then thats that organizations right.

my original question is where does the GOVT have the right to deny gays the right to be legally married, or in a union or whatever.

my wedding was a civil ceremony with a state approved wedding commissioner. church had nothing to do with it. (i married a woman btw, in case you havnt read the whole thread)

so thats the basis of my question, why can the govt deny these rights?



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Good thread, and I agree.
If people are supposed to be equal and all, how can it be that things work like this in the USA?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
There are no legal benefits of marriage... any more than there are legal benefits of being a child. There are simply shifting laws that have as part of the definition of how those laws work, triggers and other mechanisms that represent the innerworkings of the law.

Example, a law might give $1,000 to anyone that became married. It might then be changed to say that you have to pay $1,000 if you become married, and serve as a revenue generator to the state.

Neither has ANYTHING to do with marriage, except to use it as a trigger.

Marriage has NO benefits of any kind that are innate to it. Marriage simply *is* and any law can say anything with respect to marriage, and can change literally in an instant.

Next, the notion that marriage has "evolved". There is nothing that suggests that marriage has evolved. How we USE marriage has changed. How we celebrate it has changed (including celebrating it at all). We register it.

Marriage also did not bind (your historical citation is limited and flawed).
Marriage did not BIND to guarantee paternity, but rather was the social POINTER to paternity. Now one can certainly write laws that said that the pointer had to remain intact... but that was NOT the case for all groups. there were groups where paternity was not strictly possible due to multiple husbands... but the since the husband group was defined, the marriage pointer pointed toward that group of men (who would be considered the fathers to the children, and the husbands to all of the wives).

Certainly some groups used more modern concepts of law (which came LONG after marriage) to try to cement the pointer such that paternity could be determined (in other words, law limiting the scope of the mating pair to be fixed for all time).

So the marriage was the relationship of a man to a woman, regardless of how lax or tight the rules *surrounding* the marriage were.

Marriage is NOT the rules. Marriage is the direct mating pair relationship, existing by observation and or declaration, and the rules could vary from social group to social group... but in all cases, the mating pair was a pointer to paternity.

As such, the pointer can NOT evolve. Either you are part of a mating pair (or pairs) or you are not. (Mating pairs exist in many species... none of which require "law" or concepts of "property", and exist only in the form of behaviors)

Best regards.




top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join