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: 24
5
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



please show where i ever said that they had the same right as i did.


I wasn’t just replying to you actually, again I said forgive me please for any misinterpretations, just wanted to make sure you aren’t arguing that marriage is a right. I asked you if you thought gay couples deserve the same rights as straights, the rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships leave out, I guess maybe you don’t think they should be given them because I haven’t received an answer, to my knowledge.

Okay, if marriage is not a right and the majority should be able to vote on this issue and the majority’s vote should be put to practice then you would consider it constitutional if the wealthy poured millions into a campaign against the poor marrying? The poor are not a protected class (gays actually are in some states) and one could make a case if they wish that most poor people have a choice or did, that they are poor due to their own actions, and unlike with race there is no clause that I know of that makes it illegal to discriminate against them. By your logic taking marriage away from anyone who is not a “protected class” is constitutional. Marriage is not a right; therefore it is in no way protected by the constitution. Voting on this privilege is entirely constitutional by your logic. Agree or disagree with the prop being put up to vote, but if the majority has it passed then if we are to follow your logic it will be completely legal and non-discriminatory. You see why I find your point of view dangerous? It ignores the very definition of discrimination and supports a majority rule above all logical sense.




posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Welcome back! I hope you had a good time. I believe I actually saw your face in the crowd on one glance at CNN over the weekend.



Do they tax non-religious organizations? Serious questions, I thought that was why some say their church’s money being used in politics is illegal, something to do with their tax status, but that could all be a farce; haven’t educated myself on that issue, yet.

I wouldn't exactly call myself an expert on the subject either, but here is what I understand of the issue:

Churches have traditionally been exempt from income tax since it was instituted, due to the belief that since their donations are for charitable purposes, and since churches are non-profit according to their charters. A few years back, this exemption was challenged, and the IRS decreed that churches which promote political views should lose their tax-exempt status since they are not acting as a charitable non-profit group, but as a political lobbying group.

That sounds good at first thought (at least to me), but it has been used to try and silence preachers who spoke out on political issues with religious overtones from their pulpit. To my thinking, when this happens, it is a limitation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. After all, despite the fact we do live in a legally secular society, we do not live in a society where religious views are prohibited or restricted. Nor would I want to.

My personal feelings on this matter is that it is a matter of intensity. I see nothing wrong with a church promoting its values with the donations freely given to it by the parishioners, but there is a line wherein a church may become more political than religious. So if you ask me whether or not the Mormon Church overstepped that line in this voting cycle and should therefore lose their tax exemption, I would respond 'perhaps'. Perhaps you should contact the IRS and ask for an investigation, and perhaps the IRS should investigate and take whatever action is appropriate.

But I would fight vehemently against any attempts to silence them by law, just as I would fight vehemently against any attempts to silence your protests this weekend past. Equality must be applied to all, regardless of what side they come down on in a particular issue, or it is no longer equality.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Welcome back! I hope you had a good time. I believe I actually saw your face in the crowd on one glance at CNN over the weekend.

Thanks for the welcome. That’s cool; I heard that from a friend who said they saw me in a sort of maroon colored shirt, so I think I may have been on for like a second.

I think I have a better understanding of this issue now, thank you.

Well if they wanted to donate to the Prop 8 advertisements I think they should have set up a separate way of collecting money for the cause if this was not technically legal. However I imagine anyone who gives money to a church knows that church’s values, and didn’t have their money used in ways they wouldn’t have approved of by the church supporting Prop 8 advertising, I could be wrong- this is just an assumption.

I personally don’t think charitable, non-taxed money should be involved in politics; I think the church should be required to set up separate ways to collect funds if they are going to take part in politics, but I don’t think they should be legally punished for this instance. That might not be an opinion that correlates with the law, however I think the important thing is that people’s money, given to the church, was used as they intended it to be.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot

But my argument is very simple when you boil it right down .

I dont care if your black ,pink , cherokee , gay or straight , christian or atheist . As long as you respect other peoples right to choice .

Normally I would agree with you, but after listening to your tirades this past weekend, I'm sorry, I do not believe you. Your posts up to now have been completely ignorant of and hatefully biased against everything I am: white, Christian, Southern. Of those, the only one I had any choice in was Christian, and that one I chose based on truth and evidence, both of which you have repeatedly dismissed and disrespected.


See , the problem is this .YOU live in a multicultural society where the constitution is SUPPOSED to respect cultural ,religious and racial differences and allow everyone to seek happiness HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT . And as you point out ,the constituion is a SECULAR DOCUMENT .RESPECT IT AS SUCH IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT SO MUCH .

And I support the Constitution as written. I do not discriminate against anyone based on religion, on color of skin, on lifestyle, or on anything else save character. I reserve the right to discriminate based on character, because it is indeed a choice and one that determines whether or not someone is dangerous to me.

It is your character, and the character of others on this issue, that has changed my mind. Not sexual orientation, not religious affiliation, but character.


IF You want to go to church every sunday , there's not one gay person who is trying to deny you that right . All they want is the SAME RIGHTS YOU CLAIM .

Would that I could believe that. I do believe it for certain people, and my heart goes out to them. They are the true victims here. But unfortunately, I no longer believe equality is the real underlying issue for the majority on this issue.


But those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them .

That is true, and it is a terrible thing we are about to see to emphasize your point.


Now I dont know or care who you sleep with or what your sexual history is . As long as your not hurting or abusing anyone thats just fine by me.

You seemed pretty interested in my father's sex life a few posts back. It really must make you feel like a big man to be able to attack the character of those who you not only do not know, but who are dead and unable to respond back.


The difference between you and me is simply this .You are not prepared to give gay people the same rights you enjoy . I am .

I am totally prepared to give anyone equal rights. I am not prepared to give a legal precedent that could be used to interfere with my rights.


So you can dance around the 'legal facts' as long and hard as you like but dont give me all that high minded crap about 'liberty and justice for all ' when you dont practice what you preach . Either you believe in the constitution as the supreme law of your country or you dont .

Would you like me to look up a psychiatrist for you? You're contradicting yourself in a single paragraph again.

How can you dismiss 'legal facts' so readily (I am assuming referring to the different legal arguments made until now) and then claim by making legal arguments based on exact wording and legal precedent that I am going against the basis for those legal arguments?


Assuming you have never served your country in front line combat ,you dont understand how that changes men and women .

No, I have not served my country myself. My family has. My father (whom you like to disrespect so much) served honorably during Korea on the front lines. My uncle, who died just recently, served as a medic during WWII. Another uncle served during that same war, although I am not sure in what capacity.

A very large percentage of my friends are Vietnam Vets, more than a few ex-POWs. Many people have been amazed that I would befriend those who are considered anti-social, unbalanced, or just downright crazy. The reason I do is that they are people too, and not only am I attempting to make up for the shortcomings of society, I get more out of those friendships than I do from others. I get unconditional loyalty that cannot be matched by any other group, I get wisdom, and I get the privilege of saying I know the bravest people on earth.

Do not try questioning my admiration for the men (and women) of our military. I know all too well what they have endured. If you served actively, then you know more than I; if you did not serve actively, I do not believe you do.


Fox propaganda .

Assumptions yet again. I haven;t listened to Fox News (other than quick checks when other coverage of a story was lacking) in a couple of years now. Their agenda became apparent, and I do not like political agendas, especially when hidden.

From any side.


I like to think your a better man than that redneck . I really do .

I'd like to believe that statement too. But I rarely get everything I like in life.

I am not going to quote the next portion, for decorum. Stories like that make my stomach turn. Suffice it to say, that man is a criminal and there is unfortunately no punishment on this planet severe enough for him. May your friend's wife find peace, somehow. May her father either find a lot of forgiveness, or justice. He deserves the latter.


RELIGION BRUTALISES PEOPLE WITH FEAR OF HELLFIRE AND OFTEN IT GETS PHYSICAL .

Well, at least I can see where you get your hatred of Christianity. Yes, things such as you mention do happen, and far too often happen within churches. I do not consider church as an excuse for such behavior, just as I do not consider owning a gun as an excuse for shooting an innocent person.

Apparently you do consider a church group as an excuse for such behavior, or else you would be angry with those who committed the crimes you mention instead of those who happen to have something in common with them. Spreading the blame does no good; it only makes you just as bad as the criminals. Allowing a crime to go unpunished is a terrible thing, but so is punishing those who did not commit the crime.

I think you need to think on that a little while.


So when I see you three ranting on about gay marriage being a sin and a threat to the sanctity of hetro world Im thinking compared with the crap your president pulled in gods name I dont give a damn about a gay couple doing something as harmless as saying 'I do ' .

I am in no way worried about losing marriage 'rights' over this issue. I am concerned about losing religious freedom rights, based on your posts and those of others.


Bring it on if you think the three of you colluding will give an advantage . Lets see if the your 'surge' brings you any luck , because I dont see jesus intervening any time soon . Three against one ? hell, Ive taken on much larger odds .

As a true anti-social, I need no one to collaborate or condone my beliefs. Check my history on ATS; I argue my position, regardless of whether it is popular or unpopular. I also listen to what others say, and I take the opinions of others very seriously. More information about true intentions can be found in the statements of average people across the span of one day than can be gleaned from a year of watching CNN (or any other MSM outlet). That is why I occasionally alter my position after a debate: because I can see the issue more clearly. And that is why I have changed my position on this debate.


Prop 8 is pure psyops designed to deflect anger away from wall st and go v corruption .

I got to watch "Shrek" the other night. As I turned it on, Shrek and Donkey were walking along talking about ogres, and Shrek was trying to make a point about them not being just big mean dumb animals. He used the line, "Ogres are like onions."

We are all like onions. We all have layers. That also goes for political plots and ploys; they have layers as well. You may well be correct about one of the layers, but I see more. And I see them working, to a large extent, through people like you. One of those layers is the removal of freedom from the American people, and one of the sublayers to accomplish this is the removal of religion from society. Religion is a funny thing; it is responsible for many arguments and injustices, despite it's message of love and acceptance. It is also very hard to control, thanks to those who read the book and try to understand it.

Yes, you found one layer, but in your haste to expose it, you collaborate with the other layers.

Life is like an onion. It's good for you, but it smells. And it often makes you cry.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

I don't remember the shirt you were wearing, I simply remember seeing your face and it looking like your avatars here (which are apparently web-cam shots). It was a quick shot, but I remember you were jumping around like you were definitely enjoying yourself.


I feel honored to know I was able to see you if it were only for a quick moment that you were on camera. I actually tried not to watch the protests as much as possible.

I'm glad I was able to help, but please don't rely solely on what I told you. You mentioned earlier that you have a pastor friend you ask for advice occasionally; I suggest you mention it to him, and to someone you no doubt know who is adamantly opposed to tax exemption for churches. get both sides from the extremists; The truth is usually somewhere between those.

If the Mormon Church members (who are supposedly the real power in any church) were aware of the intended use of their donations (and this is entirely plausible), then I really see no problem either, except that there are regulations on political activity from a church that must be followed. From what reports I have read, this seems to be coming from a political fund (which is probably not tax-exempt) that the church uses to finance political activism. Still, I would see no problem with an audit. Fair is fair.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



I wasn’t just replying to you actually, again I said forgive me please for any misinterpretations, just wanted to make sure you aren’t arguing that marriage is a right.


Hey no problem I knew you weren't just talking to me. But this thread is getting a little long and just wanted to know if you thought I ever said they have a right to marry. and if you did i wanted you to post it so i could see it and could clarify so there was no misunderstanding.


I asked you if you thought gay couples deserve the same rights as straights, the rights that civil unions and domestic partnerships leave out, I guess maybe you don’t think they should be given them because I haven’t received an answer, to my knowledge.


I have already answered this in the past. Since Marriage is not a right then no they shouldn't have the same "rights." i have showed you how they could leave property to each other with wills, I have showed you how you or anyone can appoint someone to make medical decisions for you if you become unable to, with a durable power of attorney. I have shown you how its actually cheaper to get insurance for a single person then it is for a family. As for the marriage tax breaks. it really depends on the situation of the couples income wise and other deductions. for most its better to file separately for some its better to file together.

As for survivors benefits from Social Security they really aren't that great. and if you do remarry you loss them.

Here i thought you might like to see something about them

Social Security survivors benefits can be paid to:

* A widow or widower -- full benefits at full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60
* A disabled widow or widower -- as early as age 50
* A widow or widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased's child who is under age 16 or disabled, and receiving Social Security benefits
* Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending high school full time. Under certain circumstances, benefits can be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.
* Children at any age who were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.
* Dependent parents age 62 or older


SSA.gov

not every one that is married is eligible to receive benefits.

now as for the rest of your post. would i think it was fair no i would not.

But since being poor is not a protected class, marriage is not a protected class. and one does not have a constitutional right to marry then no i would not consider it unconstitutional to deny me to be married.

I don't know about you or anyone else But i don't need a piece of paper issued by a state to say i love someone. I don't love the person i'm with anymore with that piece of paper and i wouldn't love them any less without it. And i don't need a piece of paper to tell me that if i love someone i can live with them for the rest of my life as long as they want the same with me.

now as for this part of your post:

Agree or disagree with the prop being put up to vote, but if the majority has it passed then if we are to follow your logic it will be completely legal and non-discriminatory. You see why I find your point of view dangerous? It ignores the very definition of discrimination and supports a majority rule above all logical


here's what you don't understand. its actually people like yourself that have the dangerous point of view.

before prop 22 was even thought of California law banned Same sex marriages. All prop 22 did was close a perceived "loophole" and that was California law was ambiguous on recognizing marriages performed out of state. So the supporters of prop 22 wrote the bill to change the law that says California will not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state. even if that marriage was legal in that state.

That's it. Prop 22 did not ban same sex marriage it was already banned. Now getting back to your dangerous point of view. you actually think it was ok for state courts to remove existing California law and prop 22 after the existing law passed the state legislator. and prop 22 after it was passed by the legislator and a majority of the voters. Which by doing so made the judges legislators and not judges. Thus they committed the act of being activists. So the majority of the voters in California agreed that the judges overstepped their bounds. and they choose to undo the perceived damage the courts did and they choose to pass a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage and recognizing those marriages performed in other states. your logic and your point of view is its ok for judges to become legislators and legislate from the bench with no input from the public that has to live within that new legislation.

So let me ask you a question. Women have the right to vote. even though once they did not. Would you be ok with a judge deciding that woman no longer had that right and overturned the laws and the section of the constitution that gives you that right?

no i didn't think you would and before you say the 2 issues have nothing in common they do. see it was a judge that legislated from the bench removing your right to vote. thus he/she was being an activist and overstepped the bounds of a judge. which is exactly what happened with the overturning of prop 22. and what you want to happen now with prop 8.

and your point of view is the far more dangerous one. when you take the power out of the hands of the people and the elected officials that represent them and hand it over to a judge, there is no longer any checks and balances and you give all the power to one branch of the government.

And by your logic if its discrimination to not allow gays to marry then it is discrimination to not allow anyone no matter their age to marry. and it is discrimination to not allow someone to marry children. and its discrimination to not allow someone to marry as many spouses they want.

See your the hypocrite here. since you say its ok for just gays and heteros to marry and its not ok for those other groups to marry. and the sad thing is you won't even admit that it is a possibility that if gays are allowed to marry then those in the other groups will seek out laws to allow them to marry also.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Okay , you have made some fair and reasoned complaints and I will try to address them.

Firstly , If I have caused offence in suggesting I was reffering to your father specifically , I apologise unreservedly . Such was not my intent at all . I was talking in general terms because I Know from the testimony of individuals I have met that that kind of abuse goes on a lot . I had a good friend who's specialised practice was treating children who had suffered continual abuse ,usually from immediate family . She told me some truly harrowing stories I can tell you .

The victims came from ALL WALKS OF LIFE . But the common denominator to the majority was a strict religious upbringing .

Most victims never share their experiences with anybody because the shame is to great and their fear so overwhelming that they are emotionally crippled .

Now would you say that child sex abuse shows character ? I know I would not and I hope you dont either . Anger and hate makes people do very dangerous things though . Invariably sexual abuse is generational and if the cycle is not broken its just goes on and on. Thats why I say America as a nation needs to forgive itself and deal with its demons of the past . Electing a black president was a huge leap for white america and a credit to its desire to come to terms . Personally , I dont trust Obama overly much but its progress nonetheless .

Now if your suggesting that gays should not be allowed to marry because they lack 'character' then I can see there is no point reasoning with you . I dont care if you think I lack character because I am secure in my manhood and I dont come hear to build up a buddy base ,kiss ass or get lucky . Except for rapinbats cos she is just so damn hot . maybe in another life ....


Now I have never said I think you personally are a bad man red . I personaly have some very good friends who are southerners , my wife and i love the accent .I judge people ,like you , on character ,honesty and decency .

But the fact remains that while I can tolerate anyones faith , I cannot tolerate those who use it is a cover for abuse , money laundering , social engineering ,and like the mormons ,as a civilian spy network . The mormon church where I live is notorious for sending kids in to secure military areas and claiming they got lost ! Puhleaze ... You think its an accident that all mormon churches have unusually long metal spires /flag poles that double as a transmission antenna ? Come on man ,lets get real here about the way the world works . Churches and church buildings have always made excellent covers for spy networks .

You cannot deny that the sexual abuse scandals in the catholic church are a welcome exposure of unnaceptable behaviour . It goes on man , you cannot deny that .

Its one thing to say adults have a choice about sexual orientation but children do not choose to be abused . EVER . but it happens . And it affects the way they feel ,interact and react to sexual stimuli .They may become prostitutes ,anorexic , or violent homophobes . But they share one thing in common .The violation of a sacred duty by their parents and family . Hetro parents and family .

Men fall in love on the battlefield , Shared adversity creates deep bonds that can never be broken . They may never express that love sexually but who are you to judge them if they do ?. These men are no fools ,they keep it dark to avoid slander and bitchy comments from homophobes but the love is there . respect it .

Now if you really believe gay marriage will affect your rights ,who are you to dictate to them who can enjoy those rights and who cant ?

Is it a benevolent dictatorship you want ? What am I saying ? the way things are going in the US ,you are nearly there already .

So relax , god is on your side right ? Enjoy your fascist states of america while it lasts . But they usually dont . Why ? Because freedom aint freedom unless its applied equally . You'll think very differently about rights when its yours that have been tossed to the four winds .
Or should I say 'gone with the wind' ?

Frankly my dear ,I dont give a damn about your sexual orientation .

If your country is declared bankrupt , the debt will be collected from whatever collateral the people have left to settle with . Are you sure you still own that block your old man gave you ,or do the chinese have a lean on it now ? Thats how war works you know . Asset stripping by means subversive ,fraudulent or violent . What comes around goes around.


Remember that if they start rounding up the rednecks so upstate new yorkers can carpet bag you a second time around . This time they will be called the debt collectors . Now there's a breed without character...



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
This is disgusting!! How unfair, at the very least could they let the couples who were already married, stay that way?!



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
wow, I am exasperated!
between repinbatsisalltherage, the Redneck, reconpilot, Mercenary2007, Jezus, and so many others, its been quite something else, indeed!

So many very intelligent people, people learned in the laws and procedures of the land -- people with passion, and of caring.

If you didn't disagree with each other so vehemently, you would probably all love each other (don't misinterpret that!). lol

I suspect you all respect each other behind the scene - of that I am sure. I can read it "between the lines" and I certainly respect you all for it.

I am not American, and so should probably leave you to your vices. I would have if not for the fact that this issue is not one of politics, or state vs federal rights, but of universal human rights. Its like apartheid in South Africa. The whole of humanity took an interest in that. I do in this issue.

All the talk of political procedure, votes and laws is actually quite nauseating.
I don't give a rats ass about any of that. The facts are:
- Some couples who are gay want to have their relationship sanctioned thru marriage for reasons that are various and their own.
- people who are not gay want to stop them from doing so for reasons that have to do with
- religious beliefs
- homophobia
- nothing else except that they are in the majority and so are sure they can impose their will.
Thank God I don't live there. That is all I have to say. Although I am gay, I am not religious and not the slightest inclined to get married myself, but I do not want to live in a society where a simple majority can impose their will on a minority for religious, paranoid or any other nefarious reason.
Good luck neighbours. Hope you all can learn someday to celebrate your differences and get along.
Trust me, its much better - I can attest to it.
think I will bow out for awhile and let u guys fight it out
good luck. 1 Canadian.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lorova34
 

there is nothing in prop 8 that says marriages before Nov. 4 would be retroactively annulled by the constitutional change.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



i have showed you how they could leave property to each other with wills,

And I showed you a problem gays face with this, if they were not married to their partner families of the partner can easily protest such wills in court. It happens a lot more than some people think, and it doesn’t help if they are in a bigoted region, ruling judges can be as biased as you have claimed. You did not address all of the problems these couples face, nor did you find me one link that mentioned civil unions or domestic partnership. Glad to see you come clean about not wanting gays to have the same privileges as straights; it is cold and prejudice, even more so because you try to justify it, but at least you are being honest.

Prop 22 did not ban same sex marriage it was already banned.

Again, that is also my point. It is dangerous to ban any group of non-related, consenting adults from marriage and to make it clear that marriage is not a right.

think it was ok for state courts to remove existing California law and prop 22 after the existing law passed the state legislator.

Yep, I also support the rulings done back when courts were ruling on education segregation and general segregation. I don’t agree with separate but equal, and I think it goes against not only human decency, but the fight for equality, especially when the only strong case against gay marriage in a secular nation is religion, and gay marriage does not lawfully affect the opposition.
A judge is allowed to interpret that as discriminatory and unconstitutional, I’m proud of any judge who does so.

Thus they committed the act of being activists

They had a perfectly legal case for what they did; there was no need for activism.

your logic and your point of view is its ok for judges to become legislators and legislate from the bench with no input from the public that has to live within that new legislation.

No, my logic is that it is okay for judges to overturn discriminatory bans on marriage.

Would you be ok with a judge deciding that woman no longer had that right and overturned the laws and the section of the constitution that gives you that right?

Please explain to me how that compares? When I made comparisons with you I did so with the exact thing we are discussing, marriage. You are deflecting now; please remain on an issue you believe is not a right.

And by your logic if its discrimination to not allow gays to marry then it is discrimination to not allow anyone no matter their age to marry.

Nope, that is not my “logic” at all. Gays fall under the same consenting adult category that straight couples do. This is your own perverse view that your mind wonders to, that has nothing to do with legality.

and the sad thing is you won't even admit that it is a possibility that if gays are allowed to marry then those in the other groups will seek out laws to allow them to marry also.

Because that would be an extreme and uneducated guess. No such thing has happened in any of the other places gay marriage is legal in or in any of the states it is legal in in the US. These groups also are not accepted though society has increasingly accepted homosexuals more. You consider these things and your argument crumbles.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   


Because that would be an extreme and uneducated guess. No such thing has happened in any of the other places gay marriage is legal in or in any of the states it is legal in in the US. These groups also are not accepted though society has increasingly accepted homosexuals more. You consider these things and your argument crumbles.


Well then consider my points for a moment,

If a man loves another man does that make him gay? No, absolutely not. He becomes gay when he has sex with another man ( or a woman with a woman ). Given that, homosexuality is purely sexual.

Since the beginning of time marriage has been a religious bonding between a man and a woman. Nearly Every recognized religion has some form of marrital ceremony.
Given these two points, homosexuals wish to change a tradition that had been around for thousands of years, remove the religious aspects from it so that they can unite legally for their sexual exploits simply for the purpose of monetary benefits ! How absurd is that?
If they CHOOSE to be gay, that's their business but don't trample on the sanctity of marriage to do so. Once you have the government dictate a religious ideology then it has overstepped that whole religion government line.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



He becomes gay when he has sex with another man ( or a woman with a woman ).

I’ll stop you right there. No this is not the case; you obviously have no understanding of the definitions of sexuality and orientation. An orientation is something someone has before they even hit puberty, whether they are gay or straight due to nurture or nature. You do not become gay when you have sex with another male; you are gay way before that. Just like you are not not-straight until you have sex with the opposite sex; that is a very ignorant argument that I am frankly surprised in; I’m not sure if I can even discuss this matter with you if you do not understand the basic definition of an orientation.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


The very terms homo"sexual", and hetero"sexual" are sexual terms. I am not heterosexual until I have sex with a woman. Yes I'm a man. A man is not homosexual until he has sex with another man. If two men live together but do not have sex they are not homosexual. Once they have sex they are.
Websters definition of homosexual :

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

It is all about sex and sexual desire.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



Since the beginning of time marriage has been a religious bonding between a man and a woman.

Already debunked this perception.
From my previous post:
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.


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.

Marriage is no longer reserved for religious people, it is now more of a contract, one does not have to be of any faith or to be joined in a sacred union to obtain this contract. I’m all for giving marriage back to religion, have it, then the rest of us can all have civil unions that have the same rights. I keep hoping this will one day be an option.


[edit on 17-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



It is all about sex and sexual desire.


No, it is about attraction, not acting on that attraction, there is a big difference you are missing, which puzzles me frankly. Gay men are gay long before they act on their attraction.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


No they are not, they become homosexual when they become sexual. The very word itself explains it HOMO"SEXUAL". It is a choice not a gene, not a genetic defect, not mother nature thinning the herd, not a normal feeling, but a choice. A perverse choice. I use the term perverse because the choice is outside the norm. Outside of normal decency.
Answer me this,
If homosexuality is normal and right and not perverse, then why are there only a small percentage of the whole population homosexual? If it is so normal and right, then why isn't like half or more of the population gay, or even like a third or fourth? The vast majority of mankind is heterosexual. It is in our nature to procreate. It is not in our nature to have homosexual sex.
When a man has an orgasm what happens? Sperm is ejected. What is sperms purpose? To fertilize an egg that is produced by a female. Sex feels good yes, if it didn't then we would not do it. But given the actual design and mechanics of it it is for a man and a woman to share with one another.
Again, when two men have sex with each other what do they do? They emulate heterosexual sex. When two women have sex with each other they emulate heterosexual sex. Homosexuality is sexual plain and simple, but given these facts it is clear that it is a perversion of sex's intended purpose and is not right. Now, you wish to give legal rights to these people so that they can legally live out their perversions and trample all across the sanctity of marriage. What an atrocity.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



And I showed you a problem gays face with this, if they were not married to their partner families of the partner can easily protest such wills in court. It happens a lot more than some people think, and it doesn’t help if they are in a bigoted region, ruling judges can be as biased as you have claimed. You did not address all of the problems these couples face, nor did you find me one link that mentioned civil unions or domestic partnership. Glad to see you come clean about not wanting gays to have the same privileges as straights; it is cold and prejudice, even more so because you try to justify it, but at least you are being honest


And it just goes to show how little you really know. Even if the marriage was between man and a woman wills can and are protested in court. So your argument there is mute. And in the case of a married couple that do not have wills the property does not automatically transfer to the surviving spouse. ever hear of probate courts? Yeah when you die your estate goes to a probate court judge to decide what happens with your property whether you have a will or not. the only difference is if you have a will the judge more likely than not will follow your wishes outlined in your will so again your argument is once again mute.

Your the one that stated for a fact that it was cheaper to get insurance as a family the burden of proof is on you. you have never showed one ounce of proof to back up your claim. i showed you that it was cheaper to get insurance as a single person. it doesn't matter if the person is gay or straight! You can try and spin it any way you like but the simple fact of the matter is it is cheaper as a single person to get insurance.

your logic to justify activists judges scares the hell out of me. What the judges did was unconstitutional. they violated the separation of powers. they removed any form of checks and balances and imposed their will on the people.


Please explain to me how that compares? When I made comparisons with you I did so with the exact thing we are discussing, marriage. You are deflecting now; please remain on an issue you believe is not a right.


Sure I'll explain i used an issue that would directly affect you assuming by using your avatar your female.

You claim that gays have a right to marry, so i equated your right that they can marry to your right to vote. Now would you still back and be proud of an activist judge that decided that women did not have a right to vote without the people input? or if they went against the majority and ruled you did not have a right to vote? See this example works perfectly.

It gives you an example that you could relate to and shows you what could happen if a judge decided women should not be able to vote. See unlike the issue of prop 8 that was put before the people you losing your right to vote was not.


Because that would be an extreme and uneducated guess. No such thing has happened in any of the other places gay marriage is legal in or in any of the states it is legal in in the US. These groups also are not accepted though society has increasingly accepted homosexuals more. You consider these things and your argument crumbles.


Again where is your proof that those things could not happen? Oh yeah that's right you don't have any. Polygamist have already tried to marry and they have been denied marriage. And based on the fact that everyday polygamist try just as gays do to get married I'm calling BS on your entire claim that these things do not happen.

I know your not stupid but you really are buying your own ignorance if you believe that these people would not seek to have their form of marriage legalized.

and oh yeah when you try to prove your claim that these groups have not tried to do the same thing as gays or you try to prove that family insurance for heteros is cheaper than for gays try using neutral sources not sources from gay activist websites! actually why don't you try to use neutral source for any of your claims citing differences between gays and straights. See unlike you i use neutral sources.

oh yeah also remember that thread you pointed out HERE

Based on the findings in the article contained in the thread Science could argue that Homosexuals are a genetic glitch. I'm not saying it is but i'm sure some scientists somewhere will be making that argument.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



No they are not, they become homosexual when they become sexual. The very word itself explains it HOMO"SEXUAL". It is a choice


Nah, sorry. I know from a first hand experience you are wrong. Go along with that opinion if you like, have fun with that. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are what they are, if they stay celibate until they die they are still defined by attraction, not actions.

As for the choice argument find another thread to beat that dead horse with or counter the APA’s research I’ve already listed numerous times, perhaps in a U2U? This is not the thread for that discussion.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 



So your argument there is mute

Um, I have yet to see you post a shred of evidence to make this statement even remotely true. Still waiting here. And waiting, and waiting.

Your the one that stated for a fact that it was cheaper to get insurance as a family the burden of proof is on you.

Where? I showed you something that explains how managing family medical issues and insurance can be difficult for gays and you post me a bunch of links that do not mention civil unions or domestic partnerships. Let us not forget even those are not legal in some states.

What the judges did was unconstitutional.

You keep saying that, repeat this opinion all you want, it doesn’t magically poof into a reality.

Now would you still back and be proud of an activist judge that decided that women did not have a right to vote without the people input?

Not the same, in your example a judge is taking away a right protected by the constitution. How was this the case with the judge you refer to? It was not. They were giving rights and overruling a discriminatory ban.

Again where is your proof that those things could not happen?

You brought up the slippery slope argument with no evidence. Produce evidence and I will have no trouble countering it, so far you have none.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join