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.

 

More than $83 million spent on Prop 8

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
It worked, so apparently it was money well-spent.


So was the money on Obama's campaign


Not a one liner, lol ...




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Marriage is a religious ritual, when you get married, the words used in the marriage are straight from the bible. The bible is against it. So why would gays want to be a part of something that goes against everything that they do in the first place?
Nobody is saying you cant be gay, or you cant show love to the same sex.
Nobody is banging down doorsof gay peoples homes trying to put them in the dirt.
But you have to ask yourself this question, 'Why do Ihave to marry in order to love?'. You dont.
The only reason gays want to get that certifercate is for tax reasons. That is it. They want that pieceof paper that gives them extra cash, end of story. But the bible doesnt recongnize gay marriage, so therefor you cant get married.
You can still love...isnt that enough? Why do gays HAVE to get married? Why is it so important to them to be part of something that goes against everything they want anyways?
Im on neither side of this issue, truth of the matter is, I do not care.
I just dont see why they would want to be involved with the whole marriage gig in the first place besides money reasons.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
It's very amusing when people speak of gay marriage as though it's the literal end of the world. The title of this thread is enough to make me shake my head. These so called religious organizations, be it christians, mormans, whatever talk about charity, talk about excepting people, let's all be friends, but the mention of gays and astrology suddenly becomes "the devil". The anti gay crowd complain about gays constantly trying to push their agenda on us, well duh. The actual truth is, that gays should have had to start pushing their agenda. Why is this? It is because The anti gay crowd as been speaking out against them since the beginning.

To make up for making themselves sound like hypocrites they claim that it's a disease that needs to be cured so that they can sleep better at night. The other excuse the aniti's like to argue is that being homosexual is a choice. I find this funnier than anything. I'm straight and know that I could never be gay. Yes I could sleep with a man, but it would be against my nature, it would be wrong not because It's against "god" or "nature" it's because I'm straight! Same thing for a homosexual. They could try to be straight, but it's just as impossible for them to become straight just as it is for me to become gay.

What is so hard to understand about this? Another thing that people can't seem to get is that gay relationships are not a form of BDSM! Yes for some who live that kind of lifestyle a lot of homo/bisexual activities can go on depending on the particular persons taste or what gets them off. Those are the ones that the anti gays get confused with. That's more of a lifestyle, but it's not the same as a gay relationship. Being gay is not a type of freaky sex, it's beyond that, it's the same kind of relationship a straight person has, same feelings, but instead of man and woman it's man and man or woman and woman. All that money just to stop a marriage. How pathetic.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Where does it end? This is by far the DUMBEST question asked about this, usually followed by obnoxious comparisons to beastiality and pedophilia, which is about the most weak-minded, stamp-idiot-on-my-forehead, argument I've ever heard against anything in my life.

Simply put: There is NO comparison between two consenting adults, and anything else!!!

A kid is not a consenting adult, a dog is not a consenting adult, get it? We are talking about two consenting adults entering into a legal contract with each other, and whether or not their ability to enter into said legal contract should be influenced by penis and vagina.

That's what this really comes down to. Congrats bigots, you've reduced marriage to holes and poles.

So, there is your answer, hope you can wrap your head around it. It ends with two consenting adults. Party A and Party B. Not Pole A and Hole B.

So glad I could clear that up ^_^



[edit on 2-2-2009 by maus80]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Um, yes, why not for the money reason? They want the same rights as everyone else. But did you know that because even in a domestic partnership, if someones partner was in the hospital,particularly an icu, they are not allowed to see them? Love is all you need, but it doesn't grant you everything. Most gays i've talked say that a domestic partnership is fine, but they at least want the benefits like eveyrone else.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Well, once this gay marriage thing gets through, there's nothing to stop a bestiality thing.

Let's see.

Oh.

Then pedophilia is something these cranks can work on.

After all, no judgments!

Tolerance!

And for the record? I think it's an aberration. I think it's abominable. And my opinion is just as good as anyone's.

Right?

Respect and tolerance, and all that?



YOu and Jam321 think alike. You two post the most ridiculous non-sequiturs. Remember your comment about reducing the military budget is akin to dismantling the forces and have Cuba invade you?
So according to you:

reduction in military budget = invasion by Cuba
gay marriage = inevitable acceptance of bestiality

Typical Republican (non)-thinking. No wonder you guys keep losing.


[edit on 2/2/2009 by eldard]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


This is complete unadulterated ignorance! You think non-religious people, or people belonging to a religion that doesn't address marriage, do not get married in the USA? Think again! The CEREMONY can be religious, or it can be disco-pimp themed, or anything in between. The legal contract has ZERO to do with religion, and everything to do with the rights of the two parties entering into said contract.

How many times have you heard "Will you marry me? Uuuh...I can't, I don't have Jesus in my heart..."

Aaargh!! I've over-dosed on ignorance for the day, I need to read something happy and smart and fun now...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 


You know whats funny, when someone doesnt get their way, they are the first to scream "IGNORANCE!"

Bible or no bible, marriage is a religious ceremony, it has been since the dawn of time. Only till the last 50 years or so have some people left that out of their ceremonies, but the fact still remains, they arent doing anything that the bible states as evil, they are still man and woman, marriage has ALWAYS been that way. To try n change the ceremonies of marriage to fit those people who dont like the way it is, is pure selfish and IGNORANT. theres that word you like so much =).
Would you change Christmas just because a few people dont like it?
Would you get rid of the constitution because it doesnt work with someone elses way of life?

On a side note...You shouldnt start a thread and act out the way you do towards people who have opposing views and opinions. It makes you look really pathetic and also, it makes your cause lose all credibility. Just like when gays start bashing bible thumpers on the streets, and old women holding crosses....How does that help your cause any? You think thats going to sway people to your side? And you wonder why people are against it, you dont even know how to act civil.

And like I said in my previous post, Im not for it, Im not against it, I JUST DONT CARE.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


I didn't start this thread, and I'm not worried if you see me as credible. I say your argument is ignorant because you seem to have no clear concept of marriage ceremony VS marriage contract.

It's perfectly legal for gay or lesbian couples to have a marriage ceremony, religious or non, in any state.

Your examples don't work, nobody is asking anyone to "get rid of marriage", and no I would not get rid of the consitution, but I do appreciate all instances of it being changed to be more inclusive; a possibility obviously thought out and appreciated by the people who wrote it.

What exactly does Christmas have to do with legal contracts again? Not that your example makes any good sense, but yeah I'd be offended if anyone was trying to exclude an entire segment of the population from celebrating Christmas based on what is between their legs.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by maus80]

[edit on 2-2-2009 by maus80]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

And for the record? I think it's an aberration. I think it's abominable. And my opinion is just as good as anyone's.

Right?

Respect and tolerance, and all that?


You have a right to have an opinion, but you don't have the right to force that opinion on others. If you hate homosexuality then don't sleep with any men. You can't expect the world to revolve around you, other people are going to live their lives they way they choose to. That's the American way.

To try to explain it simpler, your reasoning is like saying "I don't like anchovies, and most people don't either, but a small minority of people do like them. Even though I'm not forced to order them or touch them or taste them or even see them, just the fact that other people are able to enjoy them sickens me. We should outlaw anchovies because most people have a distaste for them."



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 



so tell me then, why should gays have a marriage contract? Im so ignorant, why dont you tell me? What do they want it for besides getting money? ? ? Thats all they want, is money, they obviously dont care about anything else besides that. "Hospital rights" give me a break.
Nobody is saying they cant have a "marriage ceremony". Its just not legal.

A marriage= man and a woman. it has and will always be that way.
You are fighting a losing battle, and by acting out like teenage children stomping their feets, getting back at their parents, it just makes your cause that much more unattainable.

Why is it that the rest of the world has to just accept what the majority of the people dont want? This is a democracy last time I checked?
Did you not have the chance to vote? Did you spread the word as much as you could? Or did you just hold rallies attacking innocent people who are just minding their own buisness? You did NOTHING to help your cause out, and to tell you the truth, the way yall have been acting, Im glad you didnt get what you want.

You are SOL on this, the people have voted, they put in their two cents, and you lost. GET OVER IT.

And I will say it for the 3rd time, since you dont understand.
Im NOT for gay Marriage, and Im NOT against it, I JUST DONT CARE.
Dont attack people because they dont believe the same things as you do.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


Polygamy and slavery were permitted in the Bible. So why are they illegal now?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good

"Hospital rights" give me a break.

acting out like teenage children stomping their feets, getting back at their parents, it just makes your cause that much more unattainable.

the way yall have been acting, Im glad you didnt get what you want.

Dont attack people because they dont believe the same things as you do.



Ok, I see where you are coming from now. You are one of these fun people who associates the actions of a few with entire groups of people. That's always fun. I'm not even sure what you are talking about, "stomping their feet", "the way ya'll have been acting", I haven't been doing anything except speaking out, and I don't live in California.

I haven't attacked anyone.

As far as the minority imposing on the majority, I am talking about wanting rights to be granted here, not taken away from anyone, so that has no relevance.

Since you like goofy examples, here is one for you. If you work at McDonalds, and you don't believe Chinese people should be allowed to work there, management hiring a Chinese person does NOT infringe on your rights. Even if all your coworkers agree with you. On the other hand, not hiring a Chinese person because you and your coworkers do not believe they should be allowed to work with you, is infringing on their rights quite a bit.

If Asians became the majority in the USA, and decided to pass a law saying that people with blonde hair cannot hold management positions, telling blondes "What, you could always just dye your hair", you wouldn't have a problem with that? I would, I guess that is what seperates us.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by maus80]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I'm asked who am I to judge aberrant behavior? I'm me. And there's a lot out there just like me, and we have our opinions too.

Who exactly are you, to force your aberrant behavior on me by legalizing that behavior with marriage? I don't want to see that crap in public! I don't want my kids to see that crap!

You suggest that there's nothing sacred about marriage anymore? Speak for yourself! And if it's not that big of a deal, then why are you making a big deal out of it?

If you don't hold marriage sacred, fine. But don't force your arbitrary determinations to break down marriage even further to the gutter level.

I don't think I'm a better judge of right or wrong, but if it's aberrant behavior, then I usually consider it wrong. As most folks do. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, take it up with your parents - not my fault!

You had to bring up God. As far as what God says, you can see exactly what he says about it. That's not from me, that's not opinion, that's not subject to interpretation, and it's not anything ambiguous. It's plain spoken. Plainly worded.

I didn't say a word about gay hate. You did, and don't suggest I did. And if you'll bother to take the literal terminology for the word homo(man)phobia(fear), you'll realize that homophobia, or a fear of man, is an extremely rare psychological condition. Kind of like the term, 'gay.' You guys sure are fast and loose with your terminology.

And it's not the DUMBEST thing to connect homosexual behavior with other sexual deviations or aberrations. You're seeking legal tolerance for one form of deviant or aberrant behavior, which if secured, logically would crack the door for other forms of deviant, aberrant, sexual behavior. It's a logical progression, right down the toilet.

The consenting adult and consenting adult thing is laughable. I don't consent to the consenting adult to consenting adult thing in making homosexual marriage legal. In case you don't know, farm animals and kids have poles and holes, and even a dog will willingly engage in aberrant sexual behavior.

What a justification!

It's a slippery road. Not long ago, this form of deviant sexual behavior was concealed for the simple reason of shame.

It has never cease to amaze me what deviant behavior humans can become accustomed to. You name it, and someone lives it somewhere. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it proper. And it doesn't take a superior moral judgment.

What's changed?

Not tolerance.

No shame.

That's a hell of a reason to do something.

You want a contract that gives you the legal rights to act on behalf of your "partner" then I have no problem whatsoever.

You want to do whatever behind closed doors, no problem.

But the marriage thing is too far.

Just another method of legitimizing, and thus easing the guilt of an aberrant, deviant sexual behavior.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Totally ridiculous. What a waste of money that could have been used for something that would actually benefit humanity. Instead, it was used as a vehicle for "justified discrimination".

What amazes me the most is how such a large percentage of African Americans voted for this prop. By far, they have the toughest history in terms of discrimination, prejudice and struggle. With that kind of background, you would think they would try to help or at least relate to minorities who are being suppressed of equal rights.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I donno, I still don't understand this crap. Just the fact that there imposing their beliefs on other people, especially religious belief is WRONG. If two people love each other and want to be joined in union and have the title of being "married" then what the hell? who cares honestly?! Look how much time, effort, money is wasted on something that shouldn't even be an issue. People campagning for no war/poverty/hunger goodluck, we can't even keep Church and State seprate, never mind something that actually MATTERS.

-29.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by maus80

Originally posted by Common Good

"Hospital rights" give me a break.

acting out like teenage children stomping their feets, getting back at their parents, it just makes your cause that much more unattainable.

the way yall have been acting, Im glad you didnt get what you want.

Dont attack people because they dont believe the same things as you do.



Ok, I see where you are coming from now. You are one of these fun people who associates the actions of a few with entire groups of people. That's always fun. I'm not even sure what you are talking about, "stomping their feet", "the way ya'll have been acting", I haven't been doing anything except speaking out, and I don't live in California.

I haven't attacked anyone.

As far as the minority imposing on the majority, I am talking about wanting rights to be granted here, not taken away from anyone, so that has no relevance.

Since you like goofy examples, here is one for you. If you work at McDonalds, and you don't believe Chinese people should be allowed to work there, management hiring a Chinese person does NOT infringe on your rights. Even if all your coworkers agree with you. On the other hand, not hiring a Chinese person because you and your coworkers do not believe they should be allowed to work with you, is infringing on their rights quite a bit.

If Asians became the majority in the USA, and decided to pass a law saying that people with blonde hair cannot hold management positions, telling blondes "What, you could always just dye your hair", you wouldn't have a problem with that? I would, I guess that is what seperates us.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by maus80]


First of all, before I play your little game, Does Mcdonalds haev rules stating that Chinese people cant work there in the first place? Its not what I believe, because what I believe doesnt matter if i am the only one who believes it. That would be kind of arrogant and nieve dont you think?

Now if I hated chinese, and Mcdonalds loved them...same thing...I would be SOL. I would have to live with the decision in order to survive.

You cant force your views on people, and you cant force people to accept what you believe, esp if it is something that has ritually been performed since the dawn of time. You cant just get up one day and say "Lets change the constitution in order to please others"...you just cant. And if you dont like the rules here, then there is always Europe.

Now lets play my game.
Lets say since the dawn of time, marriage was only between man and man, or women and women. Men and women were not allowed to get married. You were in love with someone of the opposite sex, and you two had a great relationship. Although, the rest of the world was looking at you like there was something wrong with you. Would that stop you from loving? Probably not. Would you try n force them to give you the same rituals they have always done for thousands of years? Probably not. Would you EXPECT them to give you everything you ask for? I certainly hope not, if you did, that would make you a fool, wouldnt it?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
ROFLMAO, I feel like I walked into a gay bar with a "stop prop8" shirt on. hah.

Look you guys, chill out. it is over with no need to get all pissed off again?

You arent doing the cause any good right now, really.

And to reply to that weird lookin star trek chic(sorry I forgot your name at he moment) I just want to say first off, you have shown more class in here than some of the others, thanks for that.

And the bible was written in religious terms, not lawful ones.
Marriage is a "agreement" between the man, the woman, and god.
A marriage contract is about lawful agreements in order to get money.
If our laws were based off of the bible, we would be a mess right now.
slavery has nothing to do with this if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper

The consenting adult and consenting adult thing is laughable. I don't consent to the consenting adult to consenting adult thing in making homosexual marriage legal. In case you don't know, farm animals and kids have poles and holes, and even a dog will willingly engage in aberrant sexual behavior.

What a justification!


We are talking about legal contracts here, not sex. Not one part of the rights granted to a married couple has anything to do with sex.

A dog or farm animal CAN NOT enter into a legal contract, neither can a kid. Nothing laughable about my reponse to it, but the comparison is disgusting and just plain hateful. We are talking about decisions and rights between two adult citizens, virtually NOTHING ELSE is comparible, nothing! Until the day another sentient race lands on the planet and demands inter-species marriage rights, nothing will be.



Originally posted by dooper
You want a contract that gives you the legal rights to act on behalf of your "partner" then I have no problem whatsoever.

You want to do whatever behind closed doors, no problem.


I don't need your permission to do anything, in the open or behind a closed door, but I absolutely appreciate you saying that you have no problem with granting of equal legal rights, it shows me that you aren't interested in oppression, which is what this feels like. It feels like a group of people being oppressed legally over religious issues, something I'm against on every level and will always stand up against.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
I never want people oppressed, and I've actually shed blood in combat against those who engaged in physically oppressing others, and caused them to shed all theirs.

A legal status as in a civil partnership is perfectly fine with me. Go for it.

Call it what you want, but not marriage. Leave marriage just like it is.

You get what you want.

Others get what they want.

Everyone gets what they want.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join