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: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 



Originally posted by scientist
and for the record, empathy is a personal asset, not something to be forced down your throat. Again, illustrating your complete ignorance to the concept. That is not a snide comment or an insult, that is a 100% authentic and genuine observation. Take it in offense if you have to, just make sure you contemplate the value of empathy sometime. It will greatly improve your debating skills in the future to perceive a topic from more than just one jaded angle. For example, I like to take a minimum of 3 jaded angles per argument.


Absolutely. You have no automatic claim on my empathy, or my respect.

As for my debating skills, come back when you can attack the arguments and not the man. Your ad hominem attacks are transparent and childish. I have not seen you present one logical argument yet. You want love? Get a puppy.




posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

All of a sudden everyone is a constitutional lawyer.


I think in this thread those who oppose the ban are stating their understanding of the constitution. I have not seen yet how anyone argues this is not unconstitutional. Just because it was allowed doesn’t make it right. Less than what, fifty years ago, we were dealing with these same issues. There were many who, even in the congress, ignored the injustice. However those involved in the previous fight prevailed, because the constitution was on their side. I have no doubts the same thing will happen with Prop 8, if not immediately then sometime in the future.

[edit on 5-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


To compare this issue to the Civil Rights movement is stretching an EXTREMELY thin connection. It has to do with the Morals upon which this Nation was founded, and ones which we have strayed ever farther from.

The Civil Rights Movement's greatest ally was in fact the Constitution, which declared Liberty to be a God Given Right. The way in which Black Americans were treated violated this Right on multiple levels, as they were physically restricted from Liberation for Many Generations; then when they were Freed, their Constitutionally Guaranteed Liberties were oppressed through Enforced Segregation.

Non-Straight individuals are already guaranteed these basic Civil Liberties, such as the right to not be Segregated, Beaten, Lynched, Enslaved, Harassed, Intimidated Away from Voting, etc.

Marriage on the other hand is a Morally bound issue, which is defined in the Bible. The Bible is the founding guide for the laws and values of this Society, and as such there is a legitimate basis for wishing to keep a bound definition of this particular Union.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 



Marriage on the other hand is a Morally bound issue, which is defined in the Bible. The Bible is the founding guide for the laws and values of this Society, and as such there is a legitimate basis for wishing to keep a bound definition of this particular Union.


Again:

The point is 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.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
As for my debating skills, come back when you can attack the arguments and not the man. Your ad hominem attacks are transparent and childish. I have not seen you present one logical argument yet. You want love? Get a puppy.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

perhaps you missed it. Linked here for your convenience, friend.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I gotta say I am sick and tired of legislating by proposition. Traditionally legislation is conceived and brought into law by the legislative branch of government.

Also WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!! BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. THAT MEANS THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ARE PROTECTED!

Read your constitution people!

[edit on 5-11-2008 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


Yes, Proposition 8 passed. Hurray !!! I am so glad. I am so tired of gays and lesbians flaunting their sexuality in public. Its utterly disgusting. Besides, from a biblical point of view, they are an ABOMINATION .... according to the Holy Bible.

So, why should we celebrate an ABOMINATION ? We should not. In doing so, we only invite and bring on the Wrath of the Almighty against us for being to self righteous. Those that don't believe in the might and power of Almighty Yahweh GOD, should take heed. He will punish you for your lack of vision and lack of yielding to His word.

It is not my judgment. It is for Yahweh to judge. I am just a messenger delivering a message and I am sure that I'm going to get flamed from those who don't believe in the Almighty. So be it.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Also WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!! BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. THAT MEANS THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES ARE PROTECTED!

Read your constitution people!



Read your Roberts' Rules of Order (based on, and the basis of the US congress).

"The minority shall have its say, but the majority shall have its way."

I absolutely do not understand how this prop is supposed to violate the constitution. Every californian has the same right, if they are an adult: to be married to one person of the opposite sex. It isn't open to "some people" but not others, it's universal.

Likewise, the prohibition against marrying ones own sex is applied across the board, to all californians. IF it is universal, then how does it contradict the 9th and 14th amendments?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Which religion is being favored by current marriage laws?

Which gay rights are being denied by Domestic Partnerships?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


It took me a long time to get to the point where I no longer care about what other consenting adults do with their lives.
I had no problem using words like "faggot" "queer" "sissy" whatever.
Right to their faces. I feel pretty bad about it now.
Some of it was peer pressure, some of it was parental training, LOL.

But over time, some famous people, some friends, a few relatives, they started coming out. Should I stop respecting them now? Just because they prefer members of the same sex? They were gay, and I didn't know it.
Now I know they are gay, does that make them different, just because I know about their homosexuality? Nope..same people.

Now, about your member name.....
Are you one of those Batophiles?
Is that what that old Golden Earring song was about? Radar Love?



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Which religion is being favored by current marriage laws?

Which gay rights are being denied by Domestic Partnerships?


Marriage in itself I agree is a religious institution. The government should not be involved in it at all, and it should not impose religion’s standard of what marriage is.

DP rights are discussed in the link I gave on page 8. You can view them there. The testifying in court one concerns me and is one you don’t often hear of.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 



Are you one of those Batophiles?
Is that what that old Golden Earring song was about? Radar Love?


Of course, why do you think I support gay marriage? I am clearly paving the way for legal marriage between bats and humans, damn it.


I thought that song was about driving? I don’t really remember it.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kinglizard
 


Hey, passion is a good thing! I guess I'm just really tired of subjects that divide us, especially after this very divisive election cycle. I just wish that instead of finding issues that divide us, we could all come together on the issues that bind us. This whole debate is just another example of the power of those who try to keep us apart as a society, and I find it distructive in th end. This in no way was an assault on you in particular, it just somehow became a back and forth debate between us. I am just seeking the 'United' part of the USA. Given recent history, we have become more akin to the Divided States of America, and our politicians and those behind ballot proposals are not helping any. I fervently defend the right of religions to believe whatever they wish to believe, but not to the point where it becomes "us against them", for that only weakens us as a society. I believe that one's faith is between the individual and their Creator and should not be used as a prybar to keep us apart. I hope that makes sense, and I fully realize that you are just speaking from the heart, as I have endevoured to do as well.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I agree with the banning of gay marriage, every "tradition" in the world has now been broken by anti-discrimination etc.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been and always should be.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WishForWings
 


So, traditions should be kept. And, discrimination is the way to keep them.

I am beginning to believe that the whole deal with opposing gay marriage is based almost all on fear. I just can't figure out what there is to be afraid of.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I'm just curious - do gay folks want "marriage" because of the benefits that usually go along with it (e.g. cheaper joint health insurance, no inheritance tax when one spouse dies, power of attorney, tax breaks, etc.) - or do they want to be able to be recognized as spouse-spouse in the eyes of their state? Or a little of both? I support "unions" between anyone and all the benefits of traditional "marriages" - however, I don't understand why folks who are not a male-female couple would want to call their union "a marriage" (wouldn't you want to differentiate yourselves?) Do those who oppose "gay marriages" just have a semantic/word/language issue that would be appeased if it was called a "union"? Or do they just oppose any kind of union between gay folk? I have tons of gay friends and always pose this question to them and am curious what people here have to say.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Every time someone disagrees with something doesn't mean they scared of it.
To be honest, it wouldn't make a difference in my life.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WishForWings
 


That's what I don't get, too. If something wouldn't affect your life or you personally, then why be so rigidly against it?

That's what leads me to believe that fear is the base of this. Layer what ever you want on top of it, but I believe fear is the base of the complete opposition to gay marriage.

And, like I said, I don't know know what there is to be afraid of.



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
There are just too many cans of worms that get opened with legalized gay marriages, and no one wants to touch it. It touches healthcare issues, taxes, and many $$$ matters.. and that's why they don't want to touch it.

I personally am still unsure if it should ever be passed. I've had gay friends, lived with lesbian roomies, when I served on Predisio in San Francisco, I had many civilian friends who were gay. Just because someone is against gay marraige doesn't mean they are hateful, homophobics who hate gay citizens.

But as far as it goes: I doubt we'll have a President who will endorse gay marraige, for a very, very long time. It's tantamount to political suicide to support it, it seems. There are just too many issues that would get *serious* contention from non-gays, if gay marraige was legalized. I support people's rights to choose their sexual preference, even if I don't enjoy them flaunting it in public. But each to their own. But the legal can O worms it would open would be fairly sizable. I'm not sure anyone wants to fight that fight right now.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join