It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush vs Gay Rights

page: 17
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 08:48 AM
What if she were to adopt him, could she do it then?

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
What if she were to adopt him, could she do it then?

I'm sure his biological mother would have a problem with that.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:35 PM
That certainly does complicate things.
I would love to have my spouse adopt our son and have all the legal rights of parenthood, but this is simply not an option for same sex couples.

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:30 AM
Why? Republicans rant and rave about how evil single mothers are and how they should be forced to marry abusive husbands so why not allow two adults adopt a kid just because they are the same sex? Or does this fall under republican illogic?

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:52 AM
Opposing gay rights appears to be more about money and power than about morality. I suspect the gov't wants to continue to tax folks as single and insurance companies want to refuse coverage. I would think this country has more to worry about than who is sleeping with who and if they should marry.

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:56 PM
I'm not so sure about that, with republicans/christians it could just be kill kill kill. They did/do that with blacks, jews, gays, smart people, women, hispanics, basically anything not Rich/White/Heterosexual/Christian/Male or their wife. Not sure with them it is about money just pure hatred for anything that won't bow down to them.

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:25 PM
James, I'm not really sure what you are talking about, and while there are a good number of ravenous righties, aren't you discounting the insanity of the new age progressive movement (which constitutes the same marginal minority as the rights you bitch about).

I used to talk reasonably with you, but you seem to have turned into my wife in a way.

You take a portion (normally a minority) and apply that to the whole. Much like saying all blacks are criminals, or all mexican nationals that live here are here illegally.

It's bogus, and a complete misrepresentation of our side in total (which if you could actually put a label on them, then 1) you might as well come up with one for your own side, and 2) you'd be the best boildown engineer in the country).

I'd be glad to have a discussion with you about this if you want, but you'd really have to start denying ignorance, or you'll win no battles with anyone except equally as vitriolic conservatives (and then it's a toss up or a draw).

You game?

posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 01:41 PM

That certainly does complicate things.

It certainly does not. Complication is only found in the conventional discourse between religous extremists finding it abhorant that same-sex couples can adopt children. It's this defeatist and negative discourse which leads unto plagerism of sociology to fit thier own accord, and thereafter, it's these studies that plauge society into being disuaded from accepting same-sex adoptions. It's not pluasible to say samesex adoption will be complicated when a plethora of complications are arisen from hetrosexual couples raising children; each, to his own accord, will find economic insecurities; external variables that impede a familial atmosphere, etc etc etc. Homosexuals are as rational as hetrosexual and herein they abide by the same praxeological axioms as the rest of society. Don't distinguish them into two different species of man.


posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Bowser
The real debate is under Article IV of the Constitution which says that states have to treat equally citizens of different states. So when a couple (heterosexual) get's married, that marriage is recognized by all other states, they have to under Article IV; however, some states do not recognize a legal marriage between homosexuals, if a couple (homosexual) get's married in Vermont and then goes to a state where that type of marriage is not allowed, then the state does not recognize this, even though they legally have too. It's almost just coincidence that gay marriage was what brought up this debate, it could of been any other conflict.

[Edited on 2/17/2004 by Bowser]

But this exact argument has been shot down by the Supreme Court. Some states view minor status as continuing to age 18. Other states (Texas, for instance) view adulthood as commencing on the 17th birthday.

And defendants from 18-years-of-age states are not treated as juveniles in Texas. They are treated as adults when in that state. The same argument could be applied to marital status. People who have certain rights in one state may not have the same rights in another state, where the "portability" of said rights would violate local laws.

Note that I'm not taking sides on the marriage issue; merely pointing out how legal precedent could be used to counteract the argument that other states can or should be forced to acknowledge Gay marriage.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:46 PM
True, in the south/red states black couples were treated like well, all blacks were treated by republicans, little more then smart monkeys. Since monkeys can't get married they didn't consider two blacks married. Thankfully in the 1980's this pretty much ended, for the most part.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
True, in the south/red states black couples were treated like well, all blacks were treated by republicans, . . . .Thankfully in the 1980's this pretty much ended, for the most part.

You're hilarious, and a butcher of fact as well as history!

Back before the '80s, the "South" was solidly Democrat. That overt racism came to an end in the 50's and 60's, not the 1980's. But then, you'd have needed to actually read some books or something to have learned that.

Funny that you think the overt racism ended in the 1980's!

Was that due to Reagan's two terms, or the First Bush ?!?!?!

Have you ever heard of the "Dixiecrats?" They were DEMOCRATS who attempted to defeat the civil rights legislation in the south. They were so adamant that they threatened to leave the Democratic party after LBJ (a Democrat) "pushed" civil rights legislation.

Do you know what a "Carpetbagger" is?

Here's a hint: They weren't democrats.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by dr_strangecraft]

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:01 AM
James: Yes, if you think the bulk of the problems in the south were from Republicans, I think you should look into a film called "Birth of a Nation" and how it revived an almost dead KKK.

The Democrats aided in the continuation of racism and bigotry for decades after the civil war.

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:03 PM
Carpetbaggers??? I believe someone is referring to the Republican Party and their lies.

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:25 AM
..... So we have 3% of the population trying to change the definition of the word "Gay." Doesn't sound right to me. Homosexual is the correct term.

There are no "gay" rights. I don't see it anywhere in the Bill of Rights.... sorry.

Marriage IS a joining of a man and a woman. If you change the meaning of marriage to mean "anything", then it will mean nothing.

Take, for instance, the woman who recently "married" her pet (male) dolphin.

Since 86% of the people in America have some religious belief, then as a Democracy it should be a states issue. Let them have votes on it by the peoples in their respective states; but that wouldn't mean that all states would recognise the "union".

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 11:29 AM
"....Why? Republicans rant and rave about how evil single mothers are and how they should be forced to marry abusive husbands...."

REPLY: Could you please provide a link to this assertion

"I may not agree with what you say , but I will have Iraqis killed for your right to say only Republican-think phrases." Bush

REPLY: Again, a link for this (obviously crap-ola) quote?

new topics

<< 14  15  16   >>

log in