California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional., page 12

privacy

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 07:03 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by heliosprime

helios, you are so wrong, and so arrogantly wrong, you are part of the problem that keeps holding humanity back from full enlightenment.

Seventy years ago that very mindset you just displayed would lead to white robes and pointy hoods.....

Please wake up, and find the Christian in you that is being stifled by your ignorance....

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 07:21 PM by Majic

Civil Union

No more personal commentary in this thread, please.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 07:33 PM by WickedStar

reply to post by heliosprime

Thank you HeliosPrime...now please find your rock and await your doom. And if you happen to own a Prius...please leave it to me in your will. Actually, will me your money too since you won't be needing it where you're going.

Edit to Mod:
I didn't see your request when I replied to Helios...I'm sorry.

[edit on 17/5/08 by WickedStar]

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 07:41 PM by Solarskye

Originally posted by WickedStar
However, who are you to say that the love shared between two men or two women isn't as equally sanctified as the love you share with your wife? Who are you to suggest that their union wouldn't also be as equally sanctified as the union you share with your wife?

I didn't say it wasn't equally sanctified. A word is just a word that has a definition.

Marriage is a social institution that joins a man & woman as husband & wife , not a couple who pretend to be husband and wife. Just call it a union or whatever and be done with it. I'm happy for any human being to be happy and to love who they want to. Who gets half or more of the property and assets when gays divorce

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 07:50 PM by WickedStar

Originally posted by Solarskye

Originally posted by WickedStar
However, who are you to say that the love shared between two men or two women isn't as equally sanctified as the love you share with your wife? Who are you to suggest that their union wouldn't also be as equally sanctified as the union you share with your wife?

I didn't say it wasn't equally sanctified. A word is just a word that has a definition.

Marriage is a social institution that joins a man & woman as husband & wife , not a couple who pretend to be husband and wife. Just call it a union or whatever and be done with it. I'm happy for any human being to be happy and to love who they want to. Who gets half or more of the property and assets when gays divorce

Fair enough Solarskye. And I'm sorry for sounding as harsh as I'm sure I did. This topic just riles me up something fierce. As for property division..i'm sure it would work out the same way it works out with straights. I don't know why there would be a difference. If there is then I assume that property would be divided in such a proportional way as to represent the percentage of properties that each party had when entering into the union.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 08:03 PM by Solarskye

reply to post by WickedStar

Well thank you for being human.

It really doesn't bother me who is gay, straight, black, white etc... Like I said, this subject is hard to post to. I just want people to have a choice to, and I think same sex unions should have a choice with only a different word. You can't be black and call yourself white. Or Indian and call yourself black. I wish the best for the same sex couples and I hope they are never treated any less than any other human being. Marriage is sacred and has a definition. They should make their union sacred and have a definition too.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 08:04 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by WickedStar

I remember, in my career, hearing a lot of straight men....on their third or fourth marriage....joking about how 'I just met my future ex-wife!'

Har-de-har-har-har.....so much for the 'sanctity' of marriage....

Others tell a similar joke: "Well, I just met this woman, and instead of marrying her, I just gave her half of my house!"

This is the contempt that STRAIGHT people exhibit toward marriage!!!

So....if the 'holier-than-thou' wish to chime in.....chime away!!!

WW

[edit on 5/17/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 08:53 PM by TKainZero

I am sad.

I am sad that so many people here at ATS are taking the bait, and looking the other way.

The Social issue is not the Core of what happen here.

That is not the important thing, it is of no consequence.

These are the actions of a Facist state.

I realy thought people here at ATS would be better suited to catching this gimick.

But yet, everyone talks of the pointless issue, while high treason is commited.

It is a shame.

Enjoy your entertainment.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 09:02 PM by Solarskye

reply to post by weedwhacker

I hear about from gay men who have the same problems with relationships and are trying to find the right one.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 09:26 PM by WickedStar

reply to post by TKainZero

i know for a fact that i have personally responded to you. You have failed to respond back however. Let me again make my point to you. The constitution of California protects the equality of ALL it's citizens. That includes it's homosexual citizens. It has been a travesty that it has taken California (much less the rest of the United States) so long to realize this. Just because the majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage (by what ever margin of victory) does not justify nor nullify the fact that their vote to restrict the rights of its homosexual citizenry was unconstitutional. The judges (3 of whom were republican) realized this and voted objectively and for the betterment of all. This was not a fascist move. It was a move towards freedom and liberty.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:01 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by weedwhacker

Do you know any gay men? They have just as much a "type" as any other hetero male. There's no difference. What this is saying is that genetically, gay men react to other men as women would. This alone is a very basic biological function and it is directly tied to emotional responses, that said, pheromones can be rejected by either party at any time. It happens all the time between people. For instance: "She's hot, but she's just not my type"

And then there's direct emotional engagement. Which changes the dynamic a little and moves it away from a biological discussion, to that of a psychological one. But none of that changes the fact that it happens naturally in heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. It's natural. Completely. There's no "abomination" or anything here. There's no genetic breakdown or defect(which some bigots would have one believe). Also, just because a man is gay doesn't mean he wants every man he sees. That makes a much sense as me wanting every woman I see. There's just as much scrutiny in heteros as there is in homos when choosing an ideal partner.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:14 PM by projectvxn

Originally posted by Buck Division

Over and over again, in this thread, I have seen the assertion that homosexuality is something that is genetically predetermined.

Can anyone post a link that definitely shows this? To my knowledge, this has never been proven. It is my understanding that the cause for homosexuality is still unknown. I am not following the science here that closely, so I might be wrong.

#

If homosexuality is PURELY genetic, the conversation is over -- we cannot discriminate against what people ARE. That is clearly wrong. However, if there is any component of homosexuality that is free choice, it is fair game to be discriminated against.

So I think this is a critical aspect to the discussion.

What causes homosexuality?

Try page ten of this thread in which I posted this link in a response to pretty much the same inquiry:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

serendip.brynmawr.edu...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.dowling.edu...

www.skeptictank.org...

Really....How much more is needed here? I've provided links from as many sources as I felt like putting effort into.

There are differing opinions on there but they come from places like the CATO institute(Right wing think tank), Rev. Fred Phelps(God Hates Fags Movement), and so on and so forth.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:29 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by projectvxn

projectvxn,

you asked 'do I know any gay men'?

Sometimes, the boundaries of the forums....can be humourous....because of the implied anonymidity....sorry for the spelling...

Answer...Yes! I know Gay men...starting with me.

That is one reason I have posted on this thread. I see the word 'preference' too often.

You see, according to my dictionary, the word 'preference' connotes a choice, or a decision.

When it comes to a sexual identitity....it is not a 'choice'....not a direct choice, as in...."I'd prefer my steak medium rare" kind of choice.....THAT is a preference!!

For you 'straight' people....a preference might relate to whether you like blondes or redheads....if you're a straight man....or, if a straight woman, whether you like a guy with blue eyes or green eyes....or....whatever floats your boat!!!

THAT is a preference....it's not about gender, it's about whatever 'preference'...within your bias....makes you horny.

So....I just intorduced a new word....'bias'.....oh, crap!!! Let the stones and arrows fly now!!!

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:31 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by weedwhacker

Well, then I severely misunderstood you, and I apologize. Text isn't always a good way to convey context.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:34 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by projectvxn

Gotcha!!!

I admit, I'm watching TV while trying to write at the same time...rude, ain't I?

ps....watching Graham Norton, so I'm adopting his accent....

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:39 PM by projectvxn

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by projectvxn

Gotcha!!!

I admit, I'm watching TV while trying to write at the same time...rude, ain't I?

ps....watching Graham Norton, so I'm adopting his accent....

All I'm doing is presenting the information that seems appropriate at the time. The problem with these debates is that hardly anyone actually posts any real information to back up their claims. So I just do it before any one even asks.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 10:41 PM by GideonHM

reply to post by WickedStar

Oh that is not true! I said 'positive' and mentioned the age of 16, where many young men and women experiment with sex often.

Sexual abuse is something entirely different. There has to be a true relationary bond, not a child's parents having sexual abuse with their children. Like you said, that would not create the healthy environment required for what I was talking about.

Really, have you heard of any long lasting, positive relationships where the partners don't change each other? Not in a healthy one. If someone were to test the hypothesis I proposed, I bet you a correlation would be found. Yet, this isn't going to be tested, nor do I think that would be the most ethical experiment, so I don't have my proof. That alone isn't going to change that one's genetic predispositions are able to fluctuate and adapt. All beings adapt, and throughout life countless factors affect our development.
This is no different.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 11:26 PM by nataylor

Originally posted by heliosprime
Genetic homosexuality is complete BS and an abomination. If it were genetic the entire mutation would have died out centuries ago.....

Nonsense. If that were true, people with blue eyes would have died out centuries ago. It's called a recessive trait. Just like two people with brown eyes can have a child with blue eyes, two heterosexual people can have a homosexual child.

reply posted on 17-5-2008 @ 11:30 PM by nataylor