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.

 

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


So you are saying peope who molest children are the same as gays? Very intelligent thesis I must say...

No one has stated yet a logical reason why two adult gays cannot marry? Based on a belief system


I want some one here to tell me who is not religious why gays should not marry....and how child molestation is the same as gay people...lol wow....




posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   


No one has stated yet a logical reason why two adult gays cannot marry? Based on a belief system


What about a belief system based on biology?

Marriage is associated with the creation of a family. Traditionally, people get married and then have children. It doesn't always happen that way, but it DOES always take a male and a female to create a child. Always has, always will.

If two men or two women are able to physically reproduce without the aid of the opposite sex then I'll consider the 'need' for the union to be referred to as 'marriage'. Until then it's a non-issue.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


1. Civil Unions are not legal in every state.
2. Why not call gay marriage what it is? Marriage. Because of religion or tradition? Gay marriage has actually been around a long time, so this traditional argument is considerably faltering. (Thanks to another poster for pointing out this information that I am now citing)

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
...
For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained. www.msnbc.msn.com...


One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage.
...
In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention.
...
What follows is from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.), and I have inserted some of the significant original Greek words in transcription.

Office for Same-Sex Union www.enotalone.com...

As for the religious argument, it should not be involved because legally religion is not allowed to be a factor in making laws, if you call gay marriage something else simply because of religious beliefs that is unconstitutional.
3. Two consenting adults marrying is not pedophilia. You are comparing apples and oranges. Two adults committing their lives to each other is not the same as an adult sexually abusing a child. As for incest, incest research shows usually results in psychological harm and if a child is produced from incest it has a higher risk of medical defects. A brother marrying his flesh and blood is not the same as two, unrelated adults committing to one another.


[edit on 9-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 9-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
Gay's are allowed to have 'civil unions' and all of the 'rights' that come with marriage are contained in 'civil unions'. Why are they insisting that their relationship be defined as 'marriage'?




Not All of the rights and privledges granted under "marriage" are granted under 'civil union'. Do some research.

Obviously, those against the provisions of Proposition 8 have done their homework, and they realize that Equal Treatemnt under the Law is predicated, and Only Guaranteed By fair application of the same terminology.



Originally posted by Jemison
What percentage of the population is gay?




What percentage of the population is a minority of some identifiable sort?


"Democracy" is used as a justification for tyrrany at its own peril.


The decisions made by the California electorate do not, and cannot be allowed to infringe upon the basic rights of its citizens. This would be contrary to the over-ridding princple and purpose of the State's Constitution.



If you take away their rights today, What is to stop ME from taking away YOUR rights tomorrow?




As an aside to my earlier post:


If the State ceases to recognize "Marriage" as a legal term, relegating the term to religious significance only (such as the examples given: Baptism and Bar Mitzvah), the various religiously outraged will be able to secure the "Tradition" of the term for thier own application.

The State, thus declaring "Marriage" as a faith-based term, of no legal or statutory status, will be free to overturn Propsition 8 by citing the requirement of separation of Church and State.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Civil unions may not be recognized in every state but they are in California and it is the people of California that have said TWICE that they want marriage to remain between a man and a woman. PERIOD.

If you are living in Cali and you don't like it, move to MA. Stop wasting the CA taxpayers money on this stuff.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 



If two men or two women are able to physically reproduce


If you ban couples from marrying that can’t reproduce then you might as well ban sterile straight couples. If you ban couples that do not raise families from marriage then you ban many straights. That is a ridiculous argument. And holds no sensible legality. Gay couples raise families; I believe the number of them raising children has risen to 44% in the US this last decade.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Again, why not call gay marriage what it is? Marriage. Because of religion or tradition? Gay marriage has actually been around a long time, so this traditional argument is considerably faltering.

As for the religious argument, it should not be involved because legally religion is not allowed to be a factor in making laws, if you call gay marriage something else simply because of religious beliefs that is unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 






Gay couples raise families; I believe the number of them raising children has risen to 44% in the US this last decade.


Weren't there some states that just voted on if gay couples should be allowed to adopt or foster children? And didn't they vote that gay couples should NOT be allowed to do so?

I am opposed to gay marriage and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I used to have a very 'live and let live' attitude in regard to homosexuality but those days are over.

I have four daughters, ages 10, 9, 7 and 7 who were forced to learn about homosexuality last summer. My twins were 6 when gay marriage became 'legal' in California. I resent the fact that my daughters were exposed to homosexuality ... heck, sexuality of ANY kind, at such a young age. What people do in their own homes is their business but when you want to scream from the rooftops that you are practicing an alternative life style and you are exposing MY children to it, you have just earned my disgust and resentment and do not for one minute expect me to have any type of sympathy or understanding for your cause.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 






Gay couples raise families; I believe the number of them raising children has risen to 44% in the US this last decade.


Weren't there some states that just voted on if gay couples should be allowed to adopt or foster children? And didn't they vote that gay couples should NOT be allowed to do so?

I am opposed to gay marriage and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind. I used to have a very 'live and let live' attitude in regard to homosexuality but those days are over.

I have four daughters, ages 10, 9, 7 and 7 who were forced to learn about homosexuality last summer. My twins were 6 when gay marriage became 'legal' in California. I resent the fact that my daughters were exposed to homosexuality ... heck, sexuality of ANY kind, at such a young age. What people do in their own homes is their business but when you want to scream from the rooftops that you are practicing an alternative life style and you are exposing MY children to it, you have just earned my disgust and resentment and do not for one minute expect me to have any type of sympathy or understanding for your cause.

Jemison


Aha , but its okay to tell children how jesus was whipped to within an inch of his life then nailed to a cross so he could die a slow and agonising death ? Its okay to describe gross roman brutality because America is based on the roman empire . yeah thats okay .

Its okay to teach childreen that white settlers made america at the point of a gun and killed millions of native americans to do so ?

yeah ,thats okay , you can teach kids that in school because killing with guns is the american way .

Look , if a kid is gay he's gay , if your daughters gay you can cry all you want about how 'dirty' it is but honey , if thats how they are hard wired there's nothing you or god can do about it .

gay bashing will continue as long as religious hard liners can use guilt and fear to control people . Gods a poof anyway , cant see what all the fuss is about .



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
If you are living in Cali and you don't like it, move to MA. Stop wasting the CA taxpayers money on this stuff.

Jemison


The same argument could apply to the church based organizations that spent Millions of dollars to get the ballot initiatives passed both times. It is the same groups both times, buying the advertising.

Maybe if they don't like how Progressive the state of California is, they should stay in Utah or the Vatican, right?

Either way, the ridiculous fight of the word 'marriage' is going to end badly for all sides. I guarantee that if Homosexuals are not afforded the same 'rights' as Heterosexuals, the only 'legal' thing to do under both the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution will be to 'ban'[ all marriage within the state.

DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
reply to post by Jezus
 





Hmm, I think you should be able to figure out why.


Why should one be more accepted or tolerated than another? Isn't tolerance what people are saying this is all about??

I would like to hear why people should be more tolerant of one behavior over another.

Jemison



Tolerance for things that have no negative externalities and only involve consenting adults.

Some behaviors cause problems for other people...some behaviors don't...



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 





Aha , but its okay to tell children how jesus was whipped to within an inch of his life then nailed to a cross so he could die a slow and agonising death ? Its okay to describe gross roman brutality because America is based on the roman empire . yeah thats okay .


I dont know who you are talking to, but if you think THAT is what I teach my children you are sadly mistaken. As a matter of fact, beyond knowing the basics of the 10 commandments and that (we believe) Jesus is the son of God and God is all-loving, my children are not versed in the bible at all. My husband grew up in a family that were fundamentalists and he was told the devil was in him and all sorts of crazy stuff so he refuses to expose our children to any type of organized religion.

Oh, and another thing - my husband voted against Prop 8. We totally disagree on our beliefs regarding gay marriage. But the one thing we DO agree on is that we wish it wasn't something our chilldren had to learn about at this age.

It isn't 'natural' to have just one mate for life ... so why can't people have multiple spouses? Why is gay marriage any more 'right' than multiple spouses? Especially when all spouses are consenting.

Bottom line is that the issue was on the ballot AGAIN and it passed AGAIN. The people of California have spoken, quite loudly. You don't have to like the result, you just have to deal with it.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 






Tolerance for things that have no negative externalities and only involve consenting adults.


So multiple husbands or mutiple wives should be legal, correct?

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Well if sonme mammals do then who cares...you just havent explained as to whats so wrong and the reasoning behind your statement


I think we should ingnore such ignorance...everyone is feeding off of it and giving this poor soul attention not deserved,,,



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 





Look , if a kid is gay he's gay , if your daughters gay you can cry all you want about how 'dirty' it is but honey , if thats how they are hard wired there's nothing you or god can do about it .


Considering how 'boy crazy' my daughters are I highly doubt that they will come to me and tell me that they are gay but if they do, I will love them and respect them no more or no less. It also would not change my opinion on gay marriage. Civil union? Fantastic, I'll plan it for them and even pay for it!! 'Marriage'? no way. Not a chance. Not in my life time.

And when did I ever say anything about gay being 'dirty'? I see it as a form of sexual deviation and view it much as I view sexual fetishes. What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business and I would appreciate it if they would KEEP it their business!!

Also, while I believe that some people are 'born' gay (a close friend of mine in college was clearly born gay though she denied it until she was in her late 20's), I also believe that there are people that 'choose' the life-style. My best friend is an example of that. She was 'straight' for most of her adult life and then was screwed over so many times by men she became 'close' to a female and ended up involved with her. They are no longer together but she classifies herself as 'bi'. That is clearly a choice, NOT the way she was 'hard wired'.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by qd22vcc
 





Well if sonme mammals do then who cares...you just havent explained as to whats so wrong and the reasoning behind your statement


The line has to be drawn somewhere and the people in the state of California have said that the line will be drawn to be marriage being reserved for one man and one women.

If gays are allowed to get married then people should be allowed to marry their dog, their sister, their brother, have multiple spouses, etc. It's a very simple concept. If one is going to suddenly be OK, the others should as well, and if they aren't, then why not? Why can't their issues be accepted? It could go on and on and on.

Let me ask you this ... do you appreciate or respect ANY tradition or do you think everything is and should be disposable and altered to fit the deviants??

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 




I clearly do not see how you relate human species to dogs?
Please explain the relationship between the two


So if youre ok w/ your kids ending up gay or ppl choosing or born w/ it..then whats not to agree about marriage...way to high strung on something you are scared and homophobic about....get a grip and relax...born or not...you said u would not love your child any less than think about that



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   


So if youre ok w/ your kids ending up gay or ppl choosing or born w/ it..then whats not to agree about marriage...way to high strung on something you are scared and homophobic about....get a grip and relax...born or not...you said u would not love your child any less than think about that


Simple. I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. It takes a man and a woman to create a human life. I also believe that people should be married prior to having children but I understand that life doesn't always work that way.

I believe in the traditional family. I believe that if a woman chooses to have a child she should also choose to RAISE her child and put her career aside. If the female makes more money or has a better career and the male decides to stay home with the children, fine. I believe it's better to have a stay-at-home Mom, but as long as ONE parent is at home, I'm fine with that. But I dont believe in having children and allowing others to raise them.

My 'traditional' values are my values. They go far deeper than the gay marriage issue and they aren't going to change.

And clearly the majority of voters in California agree with me on the issue of gay marriage and while you might like to throw blame at the church, there are many people who agree with me on this issue and the church has no bearing on our belief.

As for the dog issue ... lol ... if you are going to fight for people's rights, I'm pretty sure there are some people out there who are in love with their pets and would like to marry them. Yes, they are a very small minority, but why deprive them of what they 'feel'? Shouldn't they be allowed to show their love just as others do? Why would you want to deprive ANYONE of the 'right' to have a legal 'marriage'?

Jemison



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison
reply to post by Jezus
 






Tolerance for things that have no negative externalities and only involve consenting adults.


So multiple husbands or mutiple wives should be legal, correct?

Jemison


We already do.

Just not at the same time.

THAT would actually be a change because in would be different from applying legality that comes with marriage to two people.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


I'm calling BS about your claims about your daughters. What school district are they in? As for your opinion, I could careless, just don't expect other families to live by your standards, denying gay marriage lawfully affects them, legalizing it does not lawfully affect you.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join