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.

 

Prop 8 Passed. We take a step back.

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by PoliticalRevolutionUND
 


So....

They are almost as good as us, but not quite?? They should have equal rights except for those that some in society don't agree with??

That is lunacy.


I never said they were "almost" as good as us. I am saying is that leave traditional marriage alone. It was never meant for a man/man or a woman/woman. Again, another touchy subject that I am sure will piss off some people who read my posts.

But the fact is, Prop 8 won. Leave it be and quit running to the judicial system for help every time something does not go your way.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's called "legislating from the bench". Wrong then, and wrong now.


I'm glad you can parot.

Judges are supposed to interpret the law. Not the pitch-fork weilding, torch carrying, slack-jaw masses.


[edit on 11/5/2008 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Quick, look over there....it is....it's another distraction.

There are two ridiculous, expensive, and unnecessary wars going on, and we spend all our energy on whether Jim can marry Jim, or Jill marry Jill.
Priorities?

How much did getting this particular measure into the ballot cost us?
Can't we move with the times? We just elected the first African American president. That's all a bit new and controversial isn't it?

You can carry a gun by law. And I fully support your RIGHT to bear arms in the form of a muzzle loading, single shot, flintlock musket. No? You need a Magnum .357? No, no, no, they were not available at the time the amendment was written in...
Oh, I see....

No I don't.

Times do change. It seems we don't..

How exactly does two gay people getting married affect you? What does it do to your personal lifestyle? Does it force you to look outside what is the establishment? Good. Does it take away from what you have? Nope.
Why do you care?
If you do care, is it based on something religious?
If you do care, is it based on a personal belief?
Does it really matter to you, in the long run and in the big picture?

Oh, that's right....I see...all gays are pedophiles, and bestiality is the next thing people will want legalized...Nice. Keep that mind focussed...Real narrow...

This was about taking away rights.

As for the mention above about medical marijuana. It is legal in California by State law. The federal laws over-rule it. What's the point of any local rules?

By the way, just to clarify....
Barack Obama is an Arab Muslim Terrorist
Socialism is the same thing as Communism
President Obama will redistribute all wealth
All gay people want you carnally, you sexy beast, you
Church and State are completely separate
(you do realize I'm being facetious, don't you?)
Bridge for sale, real cheap....

Prop 8 was a Right Wing Religious campaign.

Sorry, that was just a bit of a rant.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
God im like a broken record.

LISTEN

Seperate but equal IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Link to supreme court ruling



Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.[


Read up. visit the link.



[edit on 5-11-2008 by caballero]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


I agree. I said so too. I don't know why you posted that reply to me?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 


I was not trying to be insulting, sorry if you took my post that way. I was just trying to point out that our system was not set up to enforce religious morality. I was just trying to point out that sometimes we need to step away from our personal beliefs and look at it from a secular point of view. I have strong religious beliefs myself, but I try not to put those beliefs on others. They are my beliefs and I do not expect others to conform to them. It's sort of like your position here on ATS. You may not agree with posts from others on boards you moderate, but you have to defend their right to post them, as long as they are within the ATS guidelines. The founding principles of our nation are akin to the guidelines here. Equality and freedom are paramount to these principles, and this amendment is in direct conflict to these principles.

Again, I apologize if I came across as insulting, it was certainly not my intention.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND
A really long time. As in since the creation of the earth. So yes, marriage should always be between a man and a woman. And changing from that course is really not the direction we need to "advance" in.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]


I don’t care how long it has been that way; the US has allotted only certain rights to married couples, involving itself in marriage, making it a civil rights issue. Why not advance? The advancement has not hurt other countries and does not affect those who already enjoy the privilege.


Well, because its a "morale" thing. A lot of Christians are fighting this and they obviously won. I supported it because I thought it was right.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
And for the record, no - I can't wrap my head around any of your logic just yet. Please explain to me how all of your ridiculous straw-men arguments are supposed to clarify your logic. It seems you are just retreating to sarcasm and hyperbole, in lieu of a rational stance.


Retreating to sarcasm? I thought I've been crystal clear. I think gay men and women should be allowed to get married, be afforded the same rights the rest of us have. I have no problem with it at all, but I think the main difference between you and I may be the fact that... I live with this crap every single day as the ex and I have a 7 year old son and after 7 years of wedded bliss, she left me for another woman. That's right, this issue hit me squarely where I live! I have to balance what is happening around me with what I believe personally, and what I have believed for so long being a Roman Catholic.

Unless you have lived it, you simply cannot appreciate the complexity the arrangement brings to raising a child. A child who has no frame of reference, a child who was ripped out of the only home he has ever known and looks to his father for answers and coping skills. (Both of which the father admits to struggling with)

So you see, what may be a thread on ATS to you, is something I live with every day, it's what the ballot initiative doesn't show you. I am the youngest of a large east coast family and I was raised to believe marriage was between a man and a woman. As I have matured I have become more accepting of alternative realtionships, I have a gay brother and niece, both in committed relationships and neither one of them think they have to be married to be equal. And trust me, this has been the subject of a few knock down drag out brawls. Because of my brother and niece I thought the issue hit as home as it ever would for me, but a week before Christmas 2007 my world was rocked. Balancing my life with my faith, I am willing to accept the gay marriage issue, as long as we can all agree on a line that will NEVER be crossed. If you think I'm joking about the farm animals... I am and I'm not, I want a line!

BTW sorry it took so long, but it got zapped when I hit reply and lost the wireless link, had to write it again.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PoliticalRevolutionUND
 



Well, because its a "morale" thing.


The point is PoliticalRevolutionUND in a secular nation that states it is unconstitutional to make laws that favor one religion, and that gives only certain rights to married people it is no longer a “moral” issue. It is a serious civil right issue.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


sorry clicked the wrong person

Youre exactly right this has NOTHING to do with morals it is a civil rights issue. I dont understand why people cant see that.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by caballero]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 





But I cannot understand why, if you have all the legal rights I do, why you demand to be called "married", unless you have an agenda that wants to destroy the traditional definition of marriage. And I cannot fathom a reason other than malice that would drive you to destroy that definition.


Like I have said before, heterosexuals have done more than enough to destroy the "spirit" of traditional marriage....just look at adultry and divorce rates. It isn't like we cornered the market on being able to keep vows and promises.

And, traditional marriage did not start off as a religious union; it started off as a property exchange, with the woman being the property. Aren't you glad that traditional marriage has evolved??

And, why, if they have all the legal rights is it so wrong for them to want the "label", as well?? Not giving it to them is basically saying that "We will give you the rights we have, but you will never be good enough to receive the label we get along with those rights".

Once again, that is wrong.

[edit on 11/5/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 



Originally posted by Griff
Think of it this way. You go to rent a car. The cashier asks if you are married or a DP. Knowing that gay people are the ones who have DPs, then now this cashier knows your business. It's just not equal. Although I said I would settle for the rights, it's still seperation I'm afraid.


That is a silly premise. Auto rentals do not even ask you if you are married.

I just called AVIS and asked them, btw.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is a silly premise. Auto rentals do not even ask you if you are married.

I just called AVIS and asked them, btw.


If you cant extrapolate that example to other scenarios, then it's a problem with your comprehension skills, not the premise.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by PoliticalRevolutionUND
 



Well, because its a "morale" thing.


The point is PoliticalRevolutionUND in a secular nation that states it is unconstitutional to make laws that favor one religion, and that gives only certain rights to married people it is no longer a “moral” issue. It is a serious civil right issue.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


You know what? I think this countries founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they read that. Not that they already are....

Whether people like it or not, this country was built on Christianity. We have strayed so far from our past its not even funny.

And I sure as hell wouldn't call it "advancement".

[edit on 5-11-2008 by PoliticalRevolutionUND]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's called "legislating from the bench". Wrong then, and wrong now.


I'm glad you can parot.

Judges are supposed to interpret the law. Not the pitch-fork weilding, torch carrying, slack-jaw masses.


[edit on 11/5/2008 by Griff]


And I'm glad you can spout the baseless rhetoric about taking away "rights" which were never guaranteed to you.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoliticalRevolutionUND

You know what? I think this countries founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they read that. Not that they already are....

Whether people like it or not, this country was built on Christianity. We have strayed so far from our past its not even funny.


I would never be so arrogant to assume what the founding fathers would think of this issue. While acknowledging some things are based on morals of Christianity one can not ignore the constitution states it is unconstitutional to make laws that favor one religion or religion.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
To me licensed marriage is a case of state sanctioned religion, and that is clearly unconstitutional. There are very obvious advantages being afforded to those who are married, and marriage is a religious concept. That not only gays but singles in general are discriminated against in this so called secular country is obvious.

Big step backward.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Totally irrelevant. Want me to show you the stats for the failed "gay marriages" in Mass.?

====
Mod Edit: Large quote removed
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11/6/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PoliticalRevolutionUND
 



And slavery
And women having few rights

What does religious freedom mean to you?
Freedom to practice your own particular faith without persecution - which goes back to Plymouth rock....
or freedom from having to follow a particular religion?
"This country was based on Christianity" is the same as saying "Conform or perish." You can't have it both ways. You want revolution? Really? And yet you're saying that the status quo should prevail.

I don't follow you.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by jsobecky
That is a silly premise. Auto rentals do not even ask you if you are married.

I just called AVIS and asked them, btw.


If you cant extrapolate that example to other scenarios, then it's a problem with your comprehension skills, not the premise.


If you can't supply a relevant example, don't blame me.

The problem is that I comprehend the BS that's being slung here. If you can't do a better job with your arguments, your bad, not mine.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join