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.

 

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

page: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Yes It is unconstitutional! Have any of these clowns heard of separation of church and state and the"paper"aspect of this is going to do for the insurance industry? I see a rise in fraud and a rise in cost for the privilege to have insurance.

think of it a life-partner divorce? just another ground for freeloaders to sue each other. It may be a lifestyle but no one doesn't owe anybody anything.

Are you handicapped? are you entitled? -no more than anyone else so stop trying to sell us your shadow because you don't own the sun that makes it.




posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

I would like to ask what it is that gays have gained by this decision, other than the "right" to say they are married?

What have they gained that cannot be achieved by a civil union approach?

I have an answer, but I want to hear it from the membership.


"Separate but Equal"

As my gay friend explained it to me. Even if all benefits are the same - - - the terminology is not - - making civil union not equal by social standards.

Only - using exact terminology gives equal status.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
It is amazing how far some will go to defend an abomination.

The issue was NOT the actual eye color, it was the point of passing a REAL genetic marker through actual reproduction. If gay was a gene, there would be no further reproduction.

Last time I did check, it takes two of a different sex to reproduce, without manmade help. If gay were really a gene, how could two of the same sex reproduce?

Gay is a choice............


Again, you show your lack of understanding of genetics. You can have two kinds of traits, dominant and recessive. In greatly simplified terms: Brown eye color is a dominant gene. So if you have one gene for blue eye color and one for brown eye color, you eyes will be brown. If two people with this configuration reproduce, there is a chance the child will get one blue gene from each parent, giving them two blue genes. This child will have blue eyes.

Same thing goes for homosexuality, if it's a gene. A parent could have one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene. If heterosexuality is a dominant trait, the parent will be heterosexual. If two people with this configuration reproduce, the child may have two homosexual genes, making them homosexual. But the child could also end up with one homosexual gene and one heterosexual gene, just like the parents. This would make them them heterosexual, but they would still have a homosexual gene and be able to pass the trait on to future generations. Hence, you can see how homosexuality may be genetic and will not die off because homosexuals don't reproduce. This is basic 4th-grade genetics here.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 



Originally posted by Bhadhidar
The California ruling merely recognized the right of all citizens to be treated "Equally under the Law"; therefore, if the Law "allows" heterosexual couples to marry, the Law must "allow" homosexual couples to marry.


It is not a matter of "permission". It is a matter of "recognition".

If two gays choose to celebrate a wedding ceremony, they will not face legal penalties. The marriage will just not be recognized.






Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Obviously, as most in our society can recognize but ill-define, the contract known as "Marriage" carries some additional cache, some unique "gravitas" within the context of our culture.


And, in fact, go on to make the case!

So the cachet or gravitas you are seeking is recognition, correct?




Originally posted by jsobecky
As it should be, since it is a deep committment, not only to each other, but to any offspring of the relationship. The laws have been written to recognize this.



Originally posted by Bhadhidar
"The laws have been written to recognize this (deep commitment)."


I would say, "The laws have been written to recognize this contribution."



Originally posted by jsobecky in reply to Bhadhidar

Incorrect. Unmarried people are also considered full members. As are widowed or divorced.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar

Are you being purposefully obtuse here?

The qualification, as stated, is "Allowed to Marry":

As I stated above, it's recognition, not permission, that you're missing.




Originally posted by jsobecky
And a final question: What do you bring to society's table that two single people do not bring?


Originally posted by Bhadhidar
I hope you are addressing this rather impertinent question, facetiously, to married hetereosexuals reading these posts. That you are trying, impishly, to bring into question the vaulted status of marriage in a modern society.


You are interpreting my statement incorrectly. Marriage, as legally defined, is a union between a man and a woman. Procreation is society's hope for the marriage. Society strives to be stable. A married couple bring a level of stability to society.

In that context, What do you bring to society's table that two single people do not bring?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

You are interpreting my statement incorrectly. Marriage, as legally defined, is a union between a man and a woman. Procreation is society's hope for the marriage. Society strives to be stable. A married couple bring a level of stability to society.

In that context, What do you bring to society's table that two single people do not bring?


That is really archaic thinking. Good think some people believe and support moving forward in social reform and thought patterns.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Well, I believe marriage is simply a religious ritual performed by a church and should not be hindered by government. If a church feels they would want to marry two homosexuals then that's ok. In the eyes of a government, these couples should have the same rights and privileges as any other couple. And homosexuality is not a defect, it is a choice. By the way, the male G-spot is in the rectum!



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


The citizens of California voted AGAINST gay marriage. The CA supreme court overrode the will of the people. Gays in CA have civil unions which give virtually the same rights to gays as those enjoyed by heterosexuals in matrimony. This is social policy and ought to be set by the people or their elected representatives, not by supreme court justices who have NO accountability to the people.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
So disapointed that gays are winning all over the world.This will just accelerate the depravation of sociaty and to the depravation of the human kind. I must say and I do not want to be vulgar but the ass is not a sex organ.When 2 people mate they use their sex organs to mate?

Not natural because:
1 The other person does not use his sex organ.
2 The two can not reproduce.
3 Why do homosexuals dress like girls? I have seen gay parades on tv with homosexuals dressing like girls? if a man loves another man why do they need to talk like girls? and dress like girls? and act like girls? , they are guys , right ? so what is with the acting? A man is a man and can not be a woman, it not possible and it's related to biology.This only indicates depravation of the human race.If a man loves another man then I guess he loves him because he is a man and not a woman? because he is gay?


It's simply disturbing, I don;t want to see my future kids looking at this sort of things on the street and then asking me, what is that dady?
They might get the wrong idea and think it's allright to do that in the future.











[edit on 19-5-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


It's all about equality, brother.

I wouldn't say they're 'winning over the world' because I think it's gross, but I'm glad they are overcoming prejudice and getting treated as equals.

[edit on 5/19/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
So disapointed that gays are winning all over the world.This will just accelerate the depravation of sociaty and to the depravation of the human kind. I must say and I do not want to be vulgar but the ass is not a sex organ.When 2 people mate they use their sex organs to mate?

Not natural because:
1 The other person does not use his sex organ.
2 The two can not reproduce.
3 Why do homosexuals dress like girls? I have seen gay parades on tv with homosexuals dressing like girls? if a man loves another man why do they need to talk like girls? and dress like girls? and act like girls? , they are guys , right ? so what is with the acting? A man is a man and can not be a woman, it not possible and it's related to biology.This only indicates depravation of the human race.If a man loves another man then I guess he loves him because he is a man and not a woman? because he is gay?


It's simply disturbing, I don;t want to see my future kids looking at this sort of things on the street and then asking me, what is that dady?
They might get the wrong idea and think it's allright to do that in the future. [edit on 19-5-2008 by pepsi78]



You sure need some serious education.

You live your life - hopefully your future kid will be more aware.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by Annee]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Um....hate to break it to you, pepsi.....but it's quite likely more straight people enjoy anal sex than gay people....

The mouth isn't a sex organ....get my point yet?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


bigbert....while your intent is admirable, when you said 'they'...it rang as completely disengenuous.

Imagine you replace 'gay' or 'lesbian' with any other word that has had the connotation 'they' in the span of history.....then re-read what you wrote.

It IS NOT about 'tolerance'....which is how I read your reply. Tolerance is a cop-out.

It's about acceptance....that takes work, and understanding.

For instance, I'm constantly working on trying to accept people who believe in religion. I think it's disgusting, but I am trying to understand...



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Tolerance, acceptance, it's about equality.

Gay people deserve to have the same rights as straight people, nothing less, nothing more.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Um....hate to break it to you, pepsi.....but it's quite likely more straight people enjoy anal sex than gay people....

The mouth isn't a sex organ....get my point yet?

Don't you get it, they can't have normal sex? Not that other people do other things, they can't ,a man and another man, they were not built to have sex , take it any way you like it, religios or by evolution.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
who cares, let them marry, how is that going to affect your life either way?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


What about a woman, and a woman?? You are only focusing on men...

As I said, the mouth isn't a sex organ....should we not be allowed to kiss? how does kissing help with procreation?

Say, a man after a vasectomy marries a woman after a hysterectomy .... should they be allowed to marry?? They can't reproduce the natural way .... guess they can only have a civil union, since they are less than fully human???



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   



You sure need some serious education.

You live your life - hopefully your future kid will be more aware.

What should I educate my self about, guys wearing lipstick that dress like girls? It aint no math problem. Don't you find that strange a bit? The world is full of wanabes, like that southpark episode some people want to be dolphins It's simply a disorder, people get perverted all the time, this is just another form of it.Can't blame the genes either, scientists can't confirm it so it's back to the drawing board. Some think they are vampiers did you know that, they feel the need to drink blood, they look like a vampire , they dress in black , they dive their nails black.They think they are vampiers but they are not, just people with serios problems gone bad.

Why do you think crazy people are crazy? why not call them just difrent? with other opinions? Do you think being vegetarian is genetic? We all make our choices influenced by other factors , most of the time when we are under development when our brain colects information at a very early age.Abuse no proper education and negative influence by other people caused on a target can cause alot of damage.As a human being you have the desire of reproducing with out you even knowing it,as a man you have the desire to hunt, protect.Dressing and acting like a woman means that something went wrong and has nothing to do with male instincts.

Being gay is simply unatural.It's a disorder.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pepsi78
 


What about a woman, and a woman?? You are only focusing on men...

As I said, the mouth isn't a sex organ....should we not be allowed to kiss? how does kissing help with procreation?

Say, a man after a vasectomy marries a woman after a hysterectomy .... should they be allowed to marry?? They can't reproduce the natural way .... guess they can only have a civil union, since they are less than fully human???


Vasectomy is not an evolution in the human race, it's not the individual cases but it is what we are, what we were built for from the begining.

Hey how come there is a limited number of gay people vs straight people? If it were normality why are they not equal in number with us or more.Maybe because it's a disorder?I do not know the numbers but let's say out of 1000 people 1 is gay. There are more criminals than gay people too,, more drug adicts but they are not normal people are they?
They have serios problems don't they but they are fewer than normal people.Gay people are even fewer, I wonder why half of the planet is not gay, it must be a disorder.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Actually, it's not 1 out of 1000.....closer to 1 in 10 to 20.

pepsi....with an attitude like that, you would have fit right in with the Nazis...of course, even they were hypocritical....killing most Jews, but keeping certain attractive women as sex slaves...

I'd recommend some reading on Kinsey...to better understand how antedeluvian your views are....



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



Originally posted by Annee
That is really archaic thinking. Good think some people believe and support moving forward in social reform and thought patterns.


That's the extent of your response? "Archaic thinking"? "Moving forward in social reform and thought patterns"?

Ahh, so we must accept gay marriage merely because it is the "progressive" thing to do, eh?

Tell me, what are some of the other "progressive" measures you have in mind for society?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join