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: 19
5
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


How on earth would YOU know that homosexuality is a choice ?
Is that because you choose not to follow your inclinations towards it ?

aha ! thats why you get so antsy about this whole gay thing , you are repressing a homosexual inclination .That explains your anger and contradictory stance on so many issues .

And your arguments about choice dont stack up from a purely medical point of view . You have vestigal nipples just like a woman , a woman has a vestigal you know what , its called a c!#%&s .

And why should gay men be punished for choosing to be gay ?

Oh thats right ,you dont believe in choice for minorities . Does being a minority scare you so much that you repress your gay needs ?

Dude , I dont care if your honest with me , but you should get a little more honest with yourself .

And dont give me that rubbish about the law being the law . There is cannon law (church law ) mercantile law ,marine / military law , corporate , common ,state,county and civil . And how about international law ?

No , you need to get real if you say your fighting for the constitution .

far to many people sign documents without reading the fine print , wether it be a mortgage contract ,marriage or whatever .

for you to say there is only one law in the US is palpably absurd !

trying walking on to a secured military reserve and claiming immunity because of your constitutional rights ! dude , you tresspass and you are under their jurisdiction to do as they see fit . Its the same if you ever visit a foriegn country . Your US passport will not protect you if you break that countries laws .

When you voluntarily sign for a social security number you are partially abrogating your rights in return for certain 'privilages' . Social security is merely a collection agency for the federal reserve , The fed is a PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION registered if ,memory serves me correctly in delaware . The fed lends money to the gov at a rate of interest of course . banking , the biggest racket of all .

The CIA is a private corp ,again masquerading as a governement entity .

Its just like jefferson ,lincoln , jackson and all the other HONEST PRESIDENTS warned you . beware of the corporations gaining undue influence . Eisenhowers farewell speech was very specific about their unwarranted influence .

And now these same corps have bankrupted your gov and expect YOU to bail them out while the gays get bashed to deflect attention away from the REAL criminals . Thats what prop 8 is designed to do .

Your just flinging as much confusion as possible in to this thread with your contradictory flannel to confuse the issue which gives me pause to wonder who and what you are REALLY fighting for .

And to top it off ,you project on to me ,your own bigotry and hate !

hitler did that all the time .Called churchill a warmongering tyrant bent on dominating europe !!!!!! Usually just before he invaded yet another country .




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 

what exactly is your point in this thread? seems like you can't make a post in this thread without resorting to personal attacks and going off topic.


How on earth would YOU know that homosexuality is a choice ?
Is that because you choose not to follow your inclinations towards it ?

aha ! thats why you get so antsy about this whole gay thing , you are repressing a homosexual inclination .That explains your anger and contradictory stance on so many issues .

And your arguments about choice dont stack up from a purely medical point of view . You have vestigal nipples just like a woman , a woman has a vestigal you know what , its called a c!#%&s .


i don't have any homosexual inclinations. i am very much heterosexual. Sorry i don't like guys i prefer someone of the opposite sex! (You know Females) perfurably brunettes with a nice rack and back side.

homosexuality is a choice! a person isn't born hard wired to be gay. it is a choice they make when they are older!

show me proof that i'm wrong on a medical stand point about being born gay. oh that's right you don't have any. thats why you have to resort to derailing a thread and personal attacks that clearly show your underlying bigotry.

So again what exactly is your point in this thread other than being a troll and wanting to get banned?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



homosexuality is a choice! a person isn't born hard wired to be gay. it is a choice they make when they are older!

show me proof that i'm wrong on a medical stand point about being born gay. oh that's right you don't have any.

Well mentally speaking research appears to prove you wrong; I gave you a link that discusses this. As for medically, no, there is no proof that homosexuality is a choice, and there is no proof that it is not a choice. That is not what this thread is about, however ATS has many threads that have tackled this issue:
Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That thread tackles some very interesting, newer research.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


There's a lot of information here that indicates it's of a biological nature, not a choice.

But whatever gets you through the night.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Hello again Folks...

We are not going to discuss any members sexual orientation in this thread.

The topic of this thread is
"Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure"

Any further comments outside of the topic will be removed.

Any further comments about any members sexual preferences will be removed and the member possibly warned.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Semper



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


That brings up the issue of whether or not such a quality of biological origin has any place in a society cultivated by law and preserved by the interests of the many. Why does one believe one has some inherit right to a particular social or sexual mode if they are genetically instructed for it? Are you merely a product of your biology? Is it because reorientation toward civil normalcy appears difficult, that it would not be worth pursuing?

I don't think the biology angle is the best one when approaching this subject. It creates a model of a man that is subject to the whims of his body's biological tendencies, and not the code of law. I would rather focus on its lawfulness, its civility and its place in society as a framework for pushing this issue forward.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
It does not matter if Homosexuality is a choice or not. This CA law, and DOMA, are clearly in violation of the US Constitution:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Emphasis mine.

Source - US Constitution, AM 14

It does not matter if anyone approves of homosexual marriage or not; the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under law for all citizens. To deny this equal protection to a particular class of citizens on religous grounds (which is the basis for objections to gay marriage) in a country based on secular law such as the US, is a flagrant violation of this ammendment.

If hetero-sexual marriages are legally recognized, then the US Constitution requires that homosexual marriages be recognized.

Period. Fine. Done. All this other jibber-jabber is just MAAN, money for lawyers, and busy-bodiness.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Thank you for a clear headed perspective and analysis.

I have thought that it was against the US Constitution, but don't know enough of the law as to why.

Thanks again,
DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Exactly . Thanks for putting everyone 'straight ' on the fundamentals of the constitution . Like the preamble says ...all men are born equal.

I persoanlly dont care what a persons orientation is as long as they dont try to take another persons rights away from them .

But in order to understand the subtext in people's prejudice against gay people you have to confront them .

I mean how long can you say 'im for prop 8 ' and 'im not ' before you reach a dead end and ask the next logical question ,why ?

The fact that moderators refuse to see the human dimension in this debate when the issue is the deeply personal one of marriage rights defies all logic.

There's a lot of reppresed men out there .



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
if gays want to get married move to Maine or Massachusetts's (one of them?)

this is a state's rights issue...

so, Cali just said no thanks. Ironically, blacks voted in a product of one civil rights movement (Obama) and voted down another civil rights movement (gay rights)........by 80%....that's gotta burn Rachael Maddow...


but, what's so great about getting married? A ring?

i think they just want attention

gays are by in large emotionally super charged queens. doesn't mean they don't have a lot of calm collected types I'm sure they exist...but why should we give in to these people?

Once you let two men marry, like in Japan now....If my daughter grew up to marry a monkey I'd be just about heart broken.

You can marry a video game (Anybody see the tragedy?). Japanese kids marry animals. Again, heart broken.

I think liberals always fail to think about the consequences of their liberal programs on society and culture.

My best professor says, look at the courses we offer at PSU, that's an indication of the breakdown in culture or society. He has a lot of his own books published. He says culture is at an all time low. He says the way the media is behaving is offensive. He is about 80. Knows his *Snip*, especially Cold War CIA, stuff.

I think you liberals need to stop trying to change everything.

It's becoming comical.


[edit on 13-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

[edit on 13-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

[edit on 13-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

MOD Note: Please review this link: Please Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors.

[edit on 11/13/2008 by semperfortis]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ConservativeJack
 


Actually, they don't have to move anywhere. Just go on a 'vacation'.

Then they come home, and under the U.S. Constitution, you can't deny them rights.

If you try, then you lose marriage for everyone. At least that is what is going to be happening in the foreseeable future.

Please keep your bigoted comments to a minimum, thanks....
DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by reconpilot
There's a lot of reppresed men out there .


Man you have no idea...sometimes I think the hate comes out of jealousy.

People who are "against" gays commonly convey these feelings.

1. That homosexuality is a choice (maybe for them it could be a choice)
2. That homosexuality can spread (maybe for them it could spread)
3. That homosexuality is negative

Number three is the most important because when people think to themselves...

"Why do people care about homosexuality? Who is it hurting?"

The answer is repressed homosexuals.

Because what is worse than living in a world where people hate you?

Hating yourself.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
this is a state's rights issue...


This is a common misconception. This is no more a state's rights issue than is voting for black people or women.

Each state runs its own vote system, but the federal gov't says that a state cannot bar black people or women from voting.

This is the same thing. This is one of the few areas where the federal government can and should intrude on issues at the state level.



Once you let two men marry, like in Japan now....If my daughter grew up to marry a monkey I'd be just about heart broken.

You can marry a video game (Anybody see the tragedy?). Japanese kids marry animals. Again, heart broken.


More mis-conception. At the secular law level, which is what matters here, a marriage is a contract. One of the chief attributes of a contract is that each party is entering into that contract of free-will, and is competent to make an informed choice.

A video game cannot, by definition, enter into a marriage contract because a video game cannot, by definition make an informed choice or use free-will (at least at the current state of the technology
).

Same goes with children. The law states that someone below a certain age is by definition not able to make an informed choice. True for some and not true for others, but it is the law. So a child cannot enter into a marriage contract because below a certain age the child is determined to not be able to make an informed choice.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


Actually the biological debate is important. Homosexuals spring up in several societies through out our history from the beginning; most of the societies are different. This makes it increasingly difficult for people to say homosexuality is nurture, not nature. The more we discover it is nature the less opposition homosexuals will face, if we have proof they do not choose to be homosexual and that they will repeatedly appear naturally in our history there is a stronger case to give them equal rights. I think sometimes it is nature and sometimes it is nurture, research shows overwhelmingly most can not change their sexuality, I think that is actually far more important than asking why they are this way, but that helps to defuse intolerance.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
By any chance did anyone see the clip of what Elton John said last night at some award ceremony? They showed it on the news this morning. He said that he was very happy with the civil union that he had with his partner which afforded him all of the rights that 'marriage' provides a couple and the civil union was much more palatable to the average person so, in his opinion, it was a better thing to push for.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong - just thought it was interesting that he didn't see a need to push for the term 'marriage'.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Elton John had his civil union in the UK, not the US. Their laws are different, obviously.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


yea because everyone else has been doing such a bangup job of that.


Almost all of the corrupt people are straight so I don't know how gay people got that label.
There are straight people I wouldn't let take care of a house plant much less a child.\
When straight people actually get marriage correct then maybe we can start pointing fingers.

I believe the loss of morality is a back lash to centuries of oppression and dictatorship of both church and government, forcing people to forgo all that makes them human. From what we eat to how we worship God to who we love, how we have sex.Just like the elephant at the circus who has been restrained to long and turns on its owner, people are backlashing and going the other extreme and turning on all of its societies standards. By taking away all responsiblity we no longer take responsibility.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 




Elton John had his civil union in the UK, not the US. Their laws are different, obviously.


I realize that - but he was asked his opinion on what is happening here in the U.S. and he said that civil unions work well and he thought that was the route to go. I think he said something about civil unions being an easier package to sell to the American public. I'll see if I can find the link.

Jemison



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jemison
 


Unfortunately, certain groups have worked very hard to deny rights to others, and even Civil Unions for Same Sex couples are not legal, nor performed in all 50 states.

Here is a link to a map that shows several states that ban Same Sex Marriage and Civil Unions.
Image:Samesex marriage in USA

Personally, I wish California would make up their mind. My fiance and I decided when we got engaged 5 years ago to wait until Everyone had the same rights as us. WIth all the FLip Flopping back and forth, she is getting frustrated with trying to plan a wedding. For a while I thought we were working towards a Common Law Marriage, but I guess California doesn't do those.... Otherwise, I guess (Common Law) Gay Marriage would have been 'legalized' years ago... I think tonight I will talk with her about just getting a Civil Union...

We will see how that flies.
DocMoreau



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Here is a link that has Elton John's quote. Some of you might be interested in what he has to say about the situation here in California.

sayanythingblog.com...

Jemison



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join