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.
please show where i ever said that they had the same right as i did.
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.
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.
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 .
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 .
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 .
But those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them .
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.
The difference between you and me is simply this .You are not prepared to give gay people the same rights you enjoy . I am .
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 .
Assuming you have never served your country in front line combat ,you dont understand how that changes men and women .
Fox propaganda .
I like to think your a better man than that redneck . I really do .
RELIGION BRUTALISES PEOPLE WITH FEAR OF HELLFIRE AND OFTEN IT GETS PHYSICAL .
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 ' .
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 .
Prop 8 is pure psyops designed to deflect anger away from wall st and go v corruption .
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.
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
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
i have showed you how they could leave property to each other with wills,
Prop 22 did not ban same sex marriage it was already banned.
think it was ok for state courts to remove existing California law and prop 22 after the existing law passed the state legislator.
Thus they committed the act of being activists
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.
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?
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 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.
He becomes gay when he has sex with another man ( or a woman with a woman ).
Since the beginning of time marriage has been a religious bonding between a man and a woman.
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...
It is all about sex and sexual desire.
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
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.
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.
No they are not, they become homosexual when they become sexual. The very word itself explains it HOMO"SEXUAL". It is a choice
So your argument there is 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.
What the judges did was unconstitutional.
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?
Again where is your proof that those things could not happen?