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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Hey, let's put gays in an island on the pacific, and then anihhilate it with a 1000 atomic bombs!!!







posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Hey, let's put gays in an island on the pacific, and then anihhilate it with a 1000 atomic bombs!!!





You are disgusting.


You and Hitler would make good friends.

I wasn't going to post on this thread, frankly, I'm tired of defending myself against the same 2000 year old arguements from ignorant people who think the world has to go the way of Christian law only. But, I'll add my two cents anyway.

The Government has no right or business dictating who can marry who. That is my choice. Just as it is a womans right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

Gay marriage is not a threat to anyones existance. It will not effect any of you in the slightest.

You just can't stand to see something you hate so much bring happiness to people who are different.

In this world, this is the least of our worries. Allowing two people to commit their lives together legally, is not an issue that needs to be debated like this.

oh and for the record...being gay is not a choice. So stuff that arguement right now.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I believe the original laws concerning marriage to start with were probably written by wise men not God, so that selfish men wouldn't leave pregenate women lying everywhere in there wake. With no one, especially in those days to provide for the children. Then they lived outside in the elements and food was hard to come by. The penalty for adultry was death. I think as times have gotten easier laws have relaxed some because women can make it own thier own now a lot easier than they used to in the days of the horse and buggy.

Some people may naturally be gay and some may have simply tried it and like it. What if the government (or God) banned all hetorosexual marriage, except for a chosen few so that the population of the population would stay at a predictable minimum. How would that make all the straits feel?

A lot of our deepest convictions are not our own, but that that has been driven into us since the day we were born. We are born into a world with all these preconcieved notions. And to fit in we go along with the flow, whether it be hating the blacks or the queers or the jews. It doesn't matter as long as we fit into our little circle of friends and aquaintances who we hurt or hate.

What if one day such a person was singled out for his hatered. What if the most dispicable thing one day was to hate another for the way he or she is? What if it was a crime to hate? God may just change the rules one day.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Zeo...you have my vote!!!@!!

Sorry ment Zero


And now I'm adding TgSoe!!!!!...you guys rock....keep it up!!!

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by MacMerdin]

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by MacMerdin]



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Masterp....lets put crimilans on an island and blow that up...yeah...good thinking. Oh, sorry that was tried...it's called Australia...no offens to any aussies out there.

Sorry can't spell criminals

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by MacMerdin]



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
drug testing in schools, bush's 'healty marraige' crap.. a possible 'constitutional amendment' defining marraige..........and they say that the govt isn't trying to get deeper into your personal life..........



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The government has the right to do what the people want. If you think the majority of people want gay marriage then you are living in the wrong places.

Simple as that. No pro/anti gay stuff. I could care less about them one way or the other.

Religion or not, polygamy is not against the bible, but yet we have made a definition that excludes them. The people have the right to define that which we live by.

If they say no, then it's no.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
by the way Master P, I can only hope you were joking. If so then nevermind.

If not, then I feel really sorry for you and your idiocy. Please do not procreate.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Has anyone ever thought about this from a financial point of view yet? A gay couple who wants a child has to adopt due to the obvious physical limitations. A lesbian couple can adopt or if they are so inclined go through artifical insemination. Hetero copuples can hatch out children left and right with out any diffculty. Could it be possible this is partially an economic move to keep people having children to create future consumers at a rate acceptable by the rich who want to stay rich?



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   
There are better ways to increase future sales.

If this were about profit, then they would all be Pro-Life. Lots of kids murdered each year.

I don't think the gay marriage topic has to do with corporate profit



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The government has the right to do what the people want. If you think the majority of people want gay marriage then you are living in the wrong places.

Simple as that. No pro/anti gay stuff. I could care less about them one way or the other.

Religion or not, polygamy is not against the bible, but yet we have made a definition that excludes them. The people have the right to define that which we live by.

If they say no, then it's no.

Personally, I don't think that there should be legislation on this one way or the other, but it is.

If they cared about the opinion of the people, they would allow the people in their respective states to vote on the it and make their own state laws. Then people could do what was intended. They could choose to live in whichever state best reflects their personal ideals. To make an amendment to the Constitution, which is voted for within the government and not by the people, is not called for.

"Government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. [Because] if I do not like what my local community does, I can move to another local community... [and] if I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. [But] if I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternatives in this world of jealous nations." - Milton Friedman

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. It's a matter of personal choice for all involved and the government should have no hand in it, Period!

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"

"For in a Republic, who is "the country?" Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant--merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." --Mark Twain



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven
Has anyone ever thought about this from a financial point of view yet? A gay couple who wants a child has to adopt due to the obvious physical limitations. A lesbian couple can adopt or if they are so inclined go through artifical insemination. Hetero copuples can hatch out children left and right with out any diffculty. Could it be possible this is partially an economic move to keep people having children to create future consumers at a rate acceptable by the rich who want to stay rich?


It is economically motivated in part, though I have my doubts about whether or not the goal is to promote population growth. Corporations and the government don't want to have to recognize a person's gay partner as a legal spouse. That would make them eligible for benefits, and they don't want to pay for straight couples, so they sure as hell don't want to pay for gay couples. If you are gay and not allowed to marry then they won't ever have to worry about paying for dependants.

I think homosexuality may be an evolutionary reaction to the ever increasing number of births coupled with the extended life-spans of adults thanks to technological advancement. We are quickly becoming overpopulated and it makes sense that nature would react to counter the problem, as it always does.

The more people pack themselves into cities where they have less and less breathing room, I would be willing to bet, the more homosexuals there will be in those cities. There seems to be a far smaller number of gay people in rural communities where there is a larger ratio of land to people, then in urban areas.

Maybe it's coincidence, maybe not, but it seems logical to me.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
this is just another step in the slow process of the govt, namely the bush admin, stripping us citizens of their civil rights. bush is using Christian ideals, and the bull# "war on terrorism" to justify this. it's known by any free-minded individual that less govt is better govt. they have no business interfering with citizens lives unless their actions are harming, or even affecting anyone else, which in this case is painfully obvious.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   
What is painfully obvious, but yet you people can not seem to get through your head, is that this is a heated topic. One which would cause countless feuds between the states.

Why don't we just make abortion the same way? Because you nitwits would be out again saying that we are out to strip people of civil rights.

Marriage is a religious thing that has taken on a government dynamic. Not the other way around. Let's not over simplfy this.

Answer this. Should polygamy be allowed? Should NAMBLA marriage be allowed? Should Animal Husbandry be allowed?

If you say no to any of these, then you should be on the anti-gay marriage side because it is unjust to alllow on "alternative" lifestyle these abilities and not another.

As it is now, none are. As it will stay.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   


I think homosexuality may be an evolutionary reaction to the ever increasing number of births coupled with the extended life-spans of adults thanks to technological advancement. We are quickly becoming overpopulated and it makes sense that nature would react to counter the problem, as it always does.


You know I have never thought of that but it does make some sense. Nature has a way of evening things out and humans have unballanced the equation. Look at all the new diseases out there. The problem with that though is our science is advanced enough to combat them fairly effectively. I saw a show on discovery that had mice with an unlimited food supply in a limited space and a LARGE riase in homosexual contact between the mice was reported. Oddly enough mice killing other mice and even "rape" or males having sex with females that were not "ready" was also reported.. This COULD be natures attempt at birth control.

I have read some where else that sperm counts are down worldwide this could also be part of the issue.

Would that not be strange that nature or "God" was causing this



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   


Answer this. Should polygamy be allowed? Should NAMBLA marriage be allowed? Should Animal Husbandry be allowed?


I think polygamy should be allowed as long as it is between consenting adults it has been normal through most of history.

Now about the other two, can you not see the difference between two ADULTS getting married and an adult raping a child or animal?

Please tell just what in hell do they have in comman? One is two consenting adults the other two are not.

[Edited on 7-2-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
K.J., I think animal husbandry should not only be allowed, but encouraged. Google it and you will see what I mean.



posted on Feb, 7 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I have to leave for a bit but I figured I better post this so I'm not thought as a perv. Animal husbandry is a science used to ensure heathy and prolific livestock. A great majority of meat industry is due to it.



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Sorry, spoke too soon. Animal Husbadry is not the right term, but you know what I mean.

About NAMBLA. YOU say that it is raping a child. Who are you to impose your beliefs on another person.

Shouldn't a cognizant young man of 15 know if he is ready for serious relationship with another man?

Seems to me that you are striping them of their rights.

Again, how can it be fair to say that gays can marry, but a man and a boy can not.

You damn ageist facists want to keep people from their rights as humans.



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Ok.,..so it is a religious issue? What about people who go to a justice of the peace? Are they married or just have civil unions? NO!!!!!!! They are considered married. How? When they didn't get married in a religion or even close to one. Explain that Jethro!!!! You are giving away your intelligence just by your name. If you don't know what I'm talking about....watch the beverly hillbillies!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join