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.

 

Constitutional Admendment to Define Marriage is in the Senate.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The bottom line is this.. man can call it whatever they want. But in God's sight, marriage is between a man and a woman. All the legislation in the world will not change that.

I'm not slamming any group. It's just common sense.



We say its not in GODs eye cuz its in the Bible? If so Documents are changed all the time to fit agendas. The bible is atleast 2000 Years old thats alot of agendas.

How can there be a new testment? Shouldnt it all be the same. Is there an origanal?


According to the bible - and you can believe it or leave it - God created marriage.

I just don't get why God allowed gay DNA into people's makeups, since He deemed it - and I quote - "an abomination." Just doesn't seem right.



[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]


has it been proven that homosexuals are thee way they are because of a different genetic makeup?if so, i wasn't aware. ive had a lot of people try to tell me this, but it doesn't make sense.




posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I will not believe all the "evedence" in the world.

This is not a genetic thing. It is an emotional and mental thing.

Each person is predesposed to process information a different way due to their makeup and life experiences.

It is a choice. All people want to be accepted. Anyone could be emotionally close to someone that they are having sex with, period.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
No, dunk, there was an attempt to make that case years ago, but it was proven to be junk science with no evidence.
Regardless of one's position, that was proven to be false.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
this sounds like another step in a plot to slowly rape the citizens of the us of our civil rights. maybe im the only one that sees this, but it seems like descrimination. aren't all men created equal in the good ol' US of A?

I also think it is pathetic and irresponsible to use religion, which may i remind you has no place in government, is th reason supporting this ammendment.
Sanctity of marriage, please. as if any heterosexual marriage will be threatened by gay marriages.

*sniff* *sniff* what is that smell?
*sniff* i cant quite put my finger on it.
*sniff* ohhhh. i know. it's grade A, U.S. choice bull#!



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
1. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." --10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The federal government does not have the constitutional power to override laws made by the states. To allow an amendment to the Constitution on this issue will, at the same time, override the 10th amendment and render it useless.

2. Marriage is a decision and vow between two consenting adults. It should not even be up for debate in the government. We allow for a child to marry an adult, if his/her parents give their consent, but we are trying to say that 2 grown adults who want to get married cannot, if they are the same sex? I think that allowing a 14 year old boy to marry a 42 year old woman (like what recently happened in Alabama) is more of an insult and a threat to the institution of marriage, then gay marriage could dream of being.

3. What exactly IS the threat to the sanctity and institution of marriage that homosexual marriages present?



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'd like to site the Preable of the Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is the scope of the rest of the Constitution. Meaning they wrote the rest to enforce these ideas.

Domestic tranquility-As of 2001, 81% of the United States was religious (being mostly Jewish, Christian, Mormon and Muslim). If forcing them to change their personal and religious definition of marrage is promotion of Domestic tranquility, then we are a seriously confussed nation.

General Welfare- There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that says that they must have the right to be married.

It is not promoting general welfare of the nation to have 12 (max) States accepting gay marrage, and 38 states not.

Won't the IRS have a field day with that one.

It causes more problems than it solves. The domestic partner, or civil union is the SAME THING, only called something else.

But no, homosexuals will not be happy until they have what we want.

If 81% (roughly) of America defines marriage as a man and a woman, then that is what it is.

We can only afford homosexuals the same rights, not the name.

Sorry, it's not going to happen the way you want. So Sad.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
And your opinion on this is?

2. Marriage is a decision and vow between two consenting adults. It should not even be up for debate in the government. We allow for a child to marry an adult, if his/her parents give their consent, but we are trying to say that 2 grown adults who want to get married cannot, if they are the same sex? I think that allowing a 14 year old boy to marry a 42 year old woman (like what recently happened in Alabama) is more of an insult and a threat to the institution of marriage, then gay marriage could dream of being.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I also disagree with children marrying adults even with their parents consent. If they are so much in love, then wait until you are 18.

Marriage is a union between two people in the eyes of God.

That is not my view point alone. Jew's believe it, Muslims, Christians, Buddism, Hindus

Take your pick. Do not redefine thousands of years of history and religious belief. It is an excersize in futility.

I am interested in giving them their rights, but not the classification of Married.

That would fly in the face of the great majority of the country.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
This whole thing about civil unions and marriage being the same thing is crap. It's like saying that African Americans shouldn't b*ch about having to ride the bus in the back...it's the same thing...they still get to ride the bus, right....WRONG. Please, no offense to anyone, I'm just trying to make a point.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I understand and agree with you.

I am surprised no one has brought up Seperate But Equal yet, but I wasn't going to bring it up... DAMN, I just did. Oh well.

While I agree with you, we are not talking about homosexuality like we talk about race.

If I choose to have kids, then that makes me a parent. I am born white.

The issue of limiting rights due to an uncontrolable atribute is very different than homosexuality.

They are looking for acceptance from the government and to have the same rights as the rest of us due to the choices they make.

What about that is unfair about a different word? It would not anger the religious folks and they would get what they want (or should want). Acceptance from the government as a legal entity.

Should they want a marriage, find a person of the opposite sex. Being gay is a choice and one that it outside the mainstream. So. They should have the rights, because it is not for me to say otherwise because of my beliefs.

But, it is not for the them to decide what most people say marriage is.

They are after all, a minority, and the majority gets what they want in our system of government (supposedly).

Case Closed



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Well, if the majority of the country believed what we define as 'murder' right, would that make it 'right'?

I'm pretty positive if they put the legalization of marijuana to vote, it would pass, at least in some states.

Beware of majority rule. That is why we live in a Republic, a (supposed) nation of 'rule by law'.

In the case of gay marriage, the decision should be left to the individual states. Anytime the Federal government gets involved, it eradicates state's rights. If the issue comes up where the gay couple moved from a state where gay marriage is legal, to a state where gay marriage is illegal, that is when they need to voice their opinions.

But the underlying question is.....

If a gay couple gets married, how does that effect you personally?

Doesn't effect me one bit. Doesn't effect my kids. If a gay couple moves in next door, I am positive my kids won't, in the terms of Focus on the Family, " turn into one of them there homosexualls, who need therapy and counseling to rid them of the devil!".

Live and let live.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Another thing about "choice" that people don't understand. If gay people "choose" to be gay then that inturn meens that straight people "choose" to be straight. Is that what you have done?



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
This whole thing about civil unions and marriage being the same thing is crap. It's like saying that African Americans shouldn't b*ch about having to ride the bus in the back...it's the same thing...they still get to ride the bus, right....WRONG. Please, no offense to anyone, I'm just trying to make a point.

That was exactly the point the judge was trying to make by saying "Separate is rarely, if ever, equal."

Essentially, this all boils down to the fact that mainstream religious groups want the government to make a law about a religious belief, so they can subject all Americans to it, whether they believe the same thing or not.

What's funny, is that if the government made a law that subjected them to, say, Hindu beliefs, they'd all cry foul quicker than you could say "Shiva, save me"



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Alright in the case of "Marriage" it should not be left up to government of any kind state federal city or county. Marriage should be left up to Religions.

Civil Unions on the other hand can be left up to the states or the federal government for all I care.

If the government allows Gays to be married then they are putting their hands back into religion and actually mandating what a religion can practice. I beat you all the money in the world that if Gay marriage is approved there will be a lawsuit in a few weeks after against a priest, minister, reverend, Rabi, etc... claiming that he would not marry a gay couple. I guarantee it.

This is the reason why it should be outlawed because it is government deciding what a religion can and can not practice.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This is the reason why it should be outlawed because it is government deciding what a religion can and can not practice.


It should not be outlawed. It should not be a law, either. It should be left up to the people to decide who they marry and if a particular ordained minister doesn't want to marry them, then find one who will. Straight people cannot sue, if a certain pastor won't marry them, why would gay people be able to. It's a matter of personal choice for all involved and the government should have no hand in it, Period!



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
While I agree with you, we are not talking about homosexuality like we talk about race.

If I choose to have kids, then that makes me a parent. I am born white.

The issue of limiting rights due to an uncontrolable atribute is very different than homosexuality.

They are looking for acceptance from the government and to have the same rights as the rest of us due to the choices they make.



religion is also a choice. would you find it fair and equal to discriminate against someone because of their religion?



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Another thought......

The religious here are sooo worried about stopping gay marriage from happening, but what about conventional marriage? Isn't the divorce rate almost 50% in America?
Conventional marriages are falling apart all around us.

Do they also want a law criminalizing divorce, or is that on a future agenda?



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
That which destroys the health of the society hurts all.
The very idea that after thousands of years, marriage needs defining only goes to prove the moral degradation of this society and why we are in a moral dangerous time in our nation's history than any other time yet.


Why does gay marriage represent moral degradation? Why are basic human rights immoral?



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
KrazyJethro




What I am saying is that they SHOULD be afforded all the rights as a married person, but not be "married"


I have to disagree on this one, as long as we are talking adults, and no one is being forced I will always be on the side of more freedom for everybody.

I am aginst the drug laws for the same reason, it a matter of personal choice as long as you are not hurting someone else. Why is everyone so concerened over what the other guy is doing? As long as it doesnt affect me I could not care less.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
This is stoping two souls from loving eachother. Marriage is a symbolic ceremony between two souls.

Deep



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join