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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I just don't see how this infringes on others rights. You don't have to like it, you don't have to support it, just ignore it. I don't see how this would personally affect anyone other than those in the homosexual community. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you're right, heck I dislike quite a few things but I don't complain about them because it's not my choice how anyone else lives their life. If it was, rap and country music would both be outlawed.




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am so sick of this 'Gay is a choice' claptrap!!

It is not, I repeat, not a choice!!!!


By that logic, 'straight' is a choice as well.....it just DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!


Weedwhacker - ya know what's really pathetically humorous.

"They" want us to accept a "people's" vote of BELIEF - - over the courts saying the Constitution guarantees equality.

Yet "they" - want to deny science. And instead support BELIEF - - again.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by jsobecky
The problem: lack of reciprocity between states. A same sex marriage may not be recognized in other states.


Thanks for bringing that point up


Of course my answer to that is:

The more reason to push the other States to legalize same-sex marriage!

[edit on 063131p://16u35 by Lucid Lunacy]


Well, good luck. Remember 2004? Opponents managed to defeat gay marriage proposals in 11 out of 11 states, and some states have actually passed constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. And, California is still not out of the woods - there will be a state-wide referendum putting the choice in front of the voters. That is something that never happened in Mass., btw - the voters couldn't get it on the ballot.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I find myself debating with myself over this issue a lot. Sound strange? Well here are all of my points below (beware they may not make any sense).

1. I can't understand why the religious community gets their panties in a twist over this issue. Shouldn't they know that God supposedly sent us here and gave us free will to choose what WE want in OUR lives. So, when members of religious groups who think that Gay marriage is wrong really are wasting their time because the God that they believe in gave us all freedom to do what we want with our lives. Right?
a. Also, just because they aren't married doesn't mean they aren't going to 'fornicate' so what does it even matter if they are married or not? What is the big deal if they get married? Because according to the religious groups if they are together they are already committing the sin so is getting married a bigger sin or something?

2. I think that if Han Solo and Chewbacca want to get married they should have to right to choose to do so. Who cares? Does it really effect YOUR life if Adam and Steve tie the knot? What will it DO to you? Nothing. Nobody is forcing you to be gay. What would us straight people think if they declared that marriage is only allowed between man and man or woman and woman, wouldn't we then feel hurt and betrayed? It wouldn't be fair if we couldn't make the ultimate legal committment to the ones we love? I think that nobody can help whom they love.. its something that just happens. I mean if I could have, I would have fallen in love with a millionaire, but alas I found the most joy with my husband, who is far beyond a millionaire.

3. Yesterday I was watching the news and they said that Inter-racial marriage was against the law 60 years ago! I never knew this and I can't believe it. If this hadn't been overturned then I wouldn't be allowed to be married to my husband.

I believe that we all have the right to choose what is best in and for our lives. If someone wants to be a Priest and never marry, that is their right. If Suzy Q and Ragedy Ann want to get married that is their right to do so!

In conclusion, I am happy that this has finally happened. Everyone deserves to be happy and if marrying someone of the same sex makes them happy then leave them be. If it truly is an offense to God, then in the afterlife, if there is one, they will answer to him. After all isn't he supposedly the ultimate judge?

Props to California!



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Thanks Jsobecky! =] For your words of encouragement.

All I need to get this accomplished is people believing in "America Free"



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
The most cogent argument that I have heard against same sex marriage is that it will ultimately destroy the family unit as it exists today. It is considered a threat to social standards.

The other argument that I think has some merit is the slippery slope argument.

Nobody knows the long term effects on children if they are raised by two fathers or mothers. Are we willing to take that risk? Do we really want to perform that social experiment? To what end?

Legally, I have no problem if Bill wants to leave his estate to Bob. Or to name him as a beneficiary on his life insurance policy.

Gay adoption? I don't know if we've thought that one out completely yet.

What other issues are there? Tax benefits? I'm a huge advocate of a flat tax, so I don't care one way or the other.

Someone here mentioned that gay-ness is strictly about sexuality, and desires. Fine. Why does marriage have to enter the picture?

I'm asking because I want to know why it is so important to gays to be married?

[edit on 16-5-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The most cogent argument that I have heard against same sex marriage is that it will ultimately destroy the family unit as it exists today. It is considered a threat to social standards.


Do you not have any comments in regards to what many members have already said about that? It's hard to want to respond to that, when others have, and it goes unnoticed...


Nobody knows the long term effects on children if they are raised by two fathers or mothers. Are we willing to take that risk? Do we really want to perform that social experiment? To what end?


Again Becky, this has been addressed by many posters. If I respond to this... will you read it? Did you not having anything to say in regards to what many members have already said in opposition?

We do know the long term affects. Believe it or not there are "grown ups" that were raised by homosexual parents. Anyways, I will reserve further elaboration until I understand why you haven't addressed the other posters.


Gay adoption? I don't know if we've thought that one out completely yet.


"we"? No offense, but don't you mean you? Seriously, there are entire organizations thinking that one out...

And what is your gripe specifically? Adoption? Or the fact it is homosexuals adopting?

Even though you haven't explicitly stated in this thread per se, I understand from other threads your position on this, so I guess I am being rhetorical



Someone here mentioned that gay-ness is strictly about sexuality, and desires. Fine. Why does marriage have to enter the picture?


It's not strictly about sex. It's the same as heterosexuality.

What do you attribute to heterosexuality? The same is to be attributed to homosexuality.

Sex? Yep. Intimacy? Yep. Partnership? Yep. All those things apply to both generally, and sometimes not individually.

The reason people that support gay-marriage is because they understand it is in accordance with equality and thus in accordance to our constitutional rights. Freedom and personal liberty, no? "America Free of double standards" should be your subhead


Let me turn that question around: Why is it so important that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? I am pretty sure I know your answer. Here is mine, if you haven't gathered by now:

Equality

[edit on 043131p://16u05 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by galatea
. I can't understand why the religious community gets their panties in a twist over this issue.
Props to California!


I know there are reasonable people out there who believe gay marriage is not propeer or should not be sanctioned. I do however find it irrational for people to be rabidly anti-gay marriage and consider the "threat" of gay marriage to be comparable in importance to social problems like the Iraq war, the sagging economy, and terrorism.

My belief is that politicians on the right use the gay mariage issue as a red herring to rally up votes. Those that are rabidlyt anti-gay marriage probably have issues. Some of them might not be smart enough to know that they are being duped by politicians. Some of them might not be comfortable with their own sexuality. They might be deeply closeted, self hating gays. They may also have unusual sexual desires and have guilt or shame that stems from their sexual desires. Bashing gays can make these people feel good about themselves.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Gay adoption? I don't know if we've thought that one out completely yet.


[edit on 16-5-2008 by jsobecky]


I personally find these archaic social issues - well - archaic.

Anyone ever ask a child - if they care - as long as their parents are loving and supportive?

It is weird how some people care more about their own fears - - then a child being loved.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Lucid Lunacy

Sorry, I haven't read all the posts. I should have, before asking. And I definitely will pay attention to any post directed to me.')

Btw, I'm a guy.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I am so sick and tired of the same people having to make the same points about the same topics. Unfortunately, I fear we've reached the point where redundancy has become absolutely futile.

Are hetero relationshiops solely about what happens in the bedroom? No, of course not. So why then must you pretend that homosex relationships are only about what goes on behind closed doors? And more over, why is it something that you're so concerned with? This issue is about the denigration of an entire subculture of the human species. We have been second class citizens since the Christianization of the free world. NO MORE!


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
But when you legalize same sex marriages it opens the door to other gargantuan problems. The majority of our nation views marriage between a man and a woman. So one way or another, you start adding the subject of adoption, and it nto only makes it harder for the child to develop in life without looking around asking where Mom and Dad are, but also being rediculed by the majority of the nation that believe homosexuality is wrong in the first place.



Why are you speaking of Marriage as anything other than a social contract? The difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is purely semantic. What ever belief you have that God sanctifies your "civil union" is purely between you and your deity. Also study after study after study proves beyond a shadow of doubt that children raised by same sex couples not only tend to be far better adjusted but also have a stronger sense of self identity and self respect. Further more, since homosexuals have the largest disposable income of any other group of Americans, children raised by gay or lesbian couples also tend to be the best provided for.
Further, just because the majority of the nation thinks that homosexuality is wrong does not make it wrong. Those opinions are largely formed by gross misinterpretations of scripture. I can comment on that further if you wish. America, for hundreds of years thought Africans where privative, dumb and only suitable for hard labor. Matter of fact, scripture was even used to support the case for slavery. Yet, white America's opinion of Africans never made those Africans any less human did it? Thank God America woke up! I feel that perhaps America is waking up again.

reply to post by TKainZero
 



You, my friend are the one who is blatantly missing the point. Are you telling me that if California voted to install slavery and the judges overruled that you would personally find for the people? Really? How scary! And before you say, "how dare I compare slavery and this situation," please remember that both African Americans and Homosexuals have been, throughout history ,murdered because of the way they are.

"Someone stated that homosexuals can reproduce, and they have the vital organs to do so. What they failed to adress is, HOW CAN A GAY COUPLE REPRODUCE. How can 2 homosexual males reproduce?"

Jesus man! Of course two gay men cannot physically reproduce but it is easy enough to buy a turkey baster and a bottle of wine.

As far as your accusations of the judges being bought off...you're just going to have to prove that aren't you. Also, you've failed to respond to my other post regarding your diatribe. Bring it.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


jso....."family unit as it exists today?"

Are you referring to my 'family unit' that I experienced, growing up?

My parents divorced when I was 4 years old. My Mother had 'custody' during the school year, on weekdays. Then, I was shuttled to my Dad's for the weekend, then back to Mom for the week....over and over.

I thought it was 'normal' until I got older, and found out about other 'families'.

My Dad had 24/7 'custody' during the summer months, between school terms.

So, jso.....tell me----did my heterosexual parents damage me in any way?

Possibly, but I am here to say...."I think not"!

Compare my experience to a single home, with loving parents.....BTW, did I mention? Neither of my parents were warm, usually....supportive, of course....with a roof above my head, and meals, and other amenities.....but a hug? Nah....not from Dad, because men don't do that. Mom...well, she meant well, but was running a business to earn a living....

I was what some call a latch-key kid.....came home from school, say 3PM....and dinner might be at 8PM....sometimes, I'd get a phone call, and I'd start dinner....

Not all families are the ideal 'Ozzie and Harriet' fantasy, sorry.

Did I turn out OK?

Well....although I came from a very, very 'non-traditional family' environment, I did OK. See, not every family is 'perfect'....but I would say that, regardless of the circumstances, if the parents, whether natural, or adoptive, love thier children, then gender doesn't matter. It's about caring, and support.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


First of all, as I stated, I haven't read all the posts. I usually do, but this time I didn't.

And LL, I'll bet you a buck you don't know my views on this. *I* don't know my views on this.



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
We do know the long term affects. Believe it or not there are "grown ups" that were raised by homosexual parents. Anyways, I will reserve further elaboration until I understand why you haven't addressed the other posters.


Have there been long-term, controlled studies? We can all say we know a "normal" person that was raised by gays, but what is "normal"? And how do we know how "normal" they will be tomorrow? And do we know all the effects that his gay parents had on his psyche, or his physiology?




Gay adoption? I don't know if we've thought that one out completely yet.



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
"we"? No offense, but don't you mean you? Seriously, there are entire organizations thinking that one out...

You're right - *I*, not we. I was just thinking out loud, is all.




Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
And what is your gripe specifically? Adoption? Or the fact it is homosexuals adopting?

The effects on the kids. Also, the current divorce laws are geared to grant physical custody (in the case of a divorce) to the "nurturing parent", all thing being equal. And the majority of the time that is the mother. How do we determine it now?




Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Even though you haven't explicitly stated in this thread per se, I understand from other threads your position on this, so I guess I am being rhetorical


Betcha don't.





Someone here mentioned that gay-ness is strictly about sexuality, and desires. Fine. Why does marriage have to enter the picture?



Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
It's not strictly about sex. It's the same as heterosexuality.

What do you attribute to heterosexuality? The same is to be attributed to homosexuality.

Sex? Yep. Intimacy? Yep. Partnership? Yep. All those things apply to both generally, and sometimes not individually.

The reason people that support gay-marriage is because they understand it is in accordance with equality and thus in accordance to our constitutional rights. Freedom and personal liberty, no? "America Free of double standards" should be your subhead


I was with you all the way down to the part about constitutional rights. Is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? I know equality is. What is it about marriage that you cannot have with your partner?





Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Let me turn that question around: Why is it so important that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? I am pretty sure I know your answer. Here is mine, if you haven't gathered by now:

Equality

[edit on 043131p://16u05 by Lucid Lunacy]


What type of equality? I'm not playing word games, I really don't understand. I've already stated that I'm in favor of equal property rights, etc.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I for one see it as if it feels good do it. If you wish to spend the rest of your life with someone of the same sex then so be it. If you love that person enough to spend your life together who am I or anyone else to stop or judge you? Do I find it repulsive? Yes. But I'm sure there are things I do that others might find repulsive. Like smoking. I only think it's fair that if I can't smoke in public then I shouldn't have to see two men kissing in public. You don't want to smell my smoke then I don't want to see Adam and Steve rubbing their beards together.


All joking aside.

The only issue I have with this is that the residents of California voted to ban gay marriage did they not? And if I read it right before, it passed with flying colors. Something like 80 % of Cali residents voted to ban.( If this is wrong please correct me)

So a few judges felt it necessary to overturn a law that the majority of people in the state voted for to appease a handful?
Doesn't really seem fair to the smokers does it?

After proof reading this post it seems to stink of ignorance but hey what do I care Adam and Steve just sent me a wedding invitation!



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm asking because I want to know why it is so important to gays to be married?


Simple answer. You obviously don't understand the thousands of documents gays have to come up with (even if they are "domestic parters") to equal your one piece of paper.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Like smoking. I only think it's fair that if I can't smoke in public then I shouldn't have to see two men kissing in public.r.




So its OK to see a man and woman playing "tonsil hockey" in public?

Again - a majority vote on a mostly religious belief? Got to hand it to them - they are persistent in trying to make this a non-secular government.

However - the Constitution is designed to prevent exactly that. And that is exactly what happened in California.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Annee]



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux
 


Simon, if you are out with your kids, and a man and a woman were showing an excessive PDoA....wouldn't you yell at them 'Get a room!!'???

Well....not of course, in front of your kids....but you'd smile, and nod knowingly.....

Of course, you're biased because it's a man and a woman....you don't know if they were just married, just engaged, 'sinning' in front of the 'Lord' and about to engage in pre-marital sex....

Overt public sexual displays are not appropriate, of course....whether male/female, or same sex.

It is a private matter. That doesn't mean a simple holding of hands, or quick peck on the cheek isn't OK...because it is.

Yeah....it's a gray area, isn't it? What does a society find objectionable, to what extent?? Well, depends on the society, doesn't it?

If a parent hugs and kisses her child, then it's OK. If a teacher....a role model dares to do such a thing today!! OH My God!!! That teacher needs to be sent to prison!!!! No matter how it is just a human moment, a case of a bonding,caring and ENTIRELY non-sexual event, just a gracious moment....people are completely missing the point of children's innocence.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I see this has turned into a mess.Honestly I belive being gay is your choice bilogical or not just like those who remain abstanent but thats not my point this thread if over gay MARRIAGE not the morality of being gay.The facts are MARRIAGES are defined through religion specificly and thos religions do not condone homosexuality thus there is a thing called a union wich is legal and i am all for.The part that stirrs this argument is that why do you feel you must force us to change the laws so you can have a marriage in the eyes of a god when you its obvious thay dont want you all the while having the option to have a union wich is just the same minus the word marriage wich is a sacred word defined by a man and a women vividly.please ecuss my errors.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Like smoking. I only think it's fair that if I can't smoke in public then I shouldn't have to see two men kissing in public.r.




So its OK to see a man and woman playing "tonsil hockey" in public?

Again - a majority vote on a mostly religious belief? Got to hand it to them - they are persistent in trying to make this a non-secular government.

However - the Constitution is designed to prevent exactly that. And that is exactly what happened in California.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Annee]


Tonsil hockey no. Simple passionate kisses or pecks I have no problem with.

You missed the whole point of that sentence. It's not fair that the people of California can let their votes be overturned by 4 judges that from my understanding are appointed and not elected. With that said, I think it's not fair to every other resident of California that has had a vote against them like smokers for instance. People voted for smoking bans the same as they voted for gay marriage bans. If they overturn one just to satisfy the homosexuals then they need to overturn the smoking ban to satisfy the smokers.

You feel that gay marriage shouldn't be banned because it's all religious mumbo jumbo. I feel it's a lot more than that. I believe it has to do with what people see as wrong or gross regardless of religious views. I'm not a religious person at all and I still view it as wrong. Not from a religious stand point but from a visual. I simply don't want to see it. But just because I don't want to see it doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to do it. And I believe you can't overturn a vote on a ban to satisfy one group while leaving the ban on other groups.



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Not from a religious stand point but from a visual. I simply don't want to see it.


Let's hope you use more then that when you come to other moral decisions in your life...


But just because I don't want to see it doesn't mean I don't think you have the right to do it.


Right on thank you.

So if there was a law banning PDA of homosexuals, which way would you vote?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join