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.

 

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 12
4
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


You have yet to present to me any legal argument for denying gay marriage and now you want me to present one for allowing it? You really have nerve don’t you. I’ve already expressed that I am not going to read through this thread, I’ve made several legal arguments for gay marriage; all you need to do is look at my post history or search my username and “gay marriage”. I haven’t answered your questions? Oh, please. Most of my post you just reply to with “read the thread”. Now I’m putting you on ignore, but I’ll enjoy discussing this with anyone who has a level head and wishes to reply to me. Hopefully they’ll have the smarts to not start a conversation with me unless they actually intend on presenting the argument they claim to have.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Sometimes you just got to ignore the people that ignore you *shrugs* I have read quite a few of your posts and actually agree with you. *star'd*



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Aermacchi
 

I agree with AverySmallFox; it's pretty much what I've said but it's probably said
better here.

Leave religion to the religious. Anyone can have a marriage ceremony if they find a clergy-person or other meaningful individual to administer it, and anyone can use the term "married" to apply to their union. For both hetero and gay couples, the legal term for their union would be "domestic partnership" or some such other civil term, and it would apply to both equally.

I understand Annee's position and the one taken above, though. There should be no distinction at all between those of different sexual orientation. However, I believe the proposal in the OP would satisfy that requirement.


If all they wanted is the "word" "married" who is to stop them from calling themselves that? It's just a word. I think that is the part of this that is disingenuous however becauise I am certain the rebuttal would bring us back to square one and that it isn't really just the word REGARDLESS of what religion says, they don't have any trademark ownership on the word anymore than the state does. What they really want is the same thing the voters already said NO to. This then makes this just an end run to backdoor the same access to marriage the voters already said no to.

This is why I crack up when Rapinthebats whatever her name is keeps saying I have no legal ground for my argument. LOL Tell that to the Courts chick, IT'S AGAINST THE LAW! So yeah! I got legal grounds for my argument and all you got is your unfinsihed business reading the thread as I told you in my prior posts what the conditions would be to debate her over the same arguments.

Now, regarding marriage anyone of any sexual orientation can get married. This is where the "Class distinction for what covers race, gender but GAY is NOT. Gays are either female or male white black or whatever. having said that, anyone of any sexual orientation can already get married. They wil argue, yeah but I want a special classification made for me because I'm gay. SO WHAT? We are NOT defined by our sexual practices and Rapinsbat already suggested what goes on her her bedroom is none of our business but as soon as Gays make sexual orientation a class distinction, then we will see our height weight eye color and Gay or Straight or Mixed couples you name it on our drivers licenses.

Some people want to get marred when they are under age but Marriage is not about equal rights if it was you'd see a provision for it in the Constitution and no where in it does it say people have a RIGHT to get married much less anyone and anyway they want.

The moment something like this would happen, we would see many straights getting married just to take advantage of tax breaks etc.

Marriage is marriage and that means one man and one woman because in our culture that is what it is defined as. If gays want to argue that is fine, argue but they have just as much right to want to keep it that way for WHAT EVER the reason without having to justify it with how it doesn't hurt anyone else and all the situational politics I have seen as the assumed reasons they think people voted against.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

You have yet to present to me any legal argument for denying gay marriage and now you want me to present one for allowing it? You really have nerve don’t you. I’ve already expressed that I am not going to read through this thread,You have yet to present to me any legal argument for denying gay marriage and now you want me to present one for allowing it? You really have nerve don’t you. I’ve already expressed that I am not going to read through this thread, I’ve made several legal arguments for gay marriage; all you need to do is look at my post history or search my username and “gay marriage”. I haven’t answered your questions? Oh, please. Most of my post you just reply to with “read the thread”. Now I’m putting you on ignore, but I’ll enjoy discussing this with anyone who has a level head and wishes to reply to me. Hopefully they’ll have the smarts to not start a conversation with me unless they actually intend on presenting the argument they claim to have.


Yet you expect me to go perusing through your posts trying to find the ones that give what YOU think are legal arguments for gay marriage when the current law is that gays can't be married in CA so it is YOU who has to bring the argument. The law is as it stands so why would I need to argue it again?

Then you have the unmitigated audacity to say I have some nerve?

I had told you at the start of this I would not argue it with you until you read the thread. You had told me you are not going to so what makes you think I was only kidding an would play your silly games?

Ignore me ??

Suit yourself, I encourage it for anyone as confused

as you seem to be



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 


Thanks Averysmallfoxx, he/she is actually the first person I've put on ignore. I didn't know their post just up and disappear (not sure what I thought would happen) when you do so, it's pretty cool, this way it's like they don't even exist in your own little internet world. That was very smart of ATS, helps to keep you from getting pulled back into a conversation with them. By the way I u2u'd you.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Yeah yeah, like we're supposed to listen to someone who advocates raping bats


I think society needs to take a stronger stand against bat rape, as well as monkey molesting, ferret fondling, and gopher groping


(I kid, I kid
)



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


I know, you caught me. I only want gay marriage to be legal so I can convince people to allow me to marry my beloved bats next.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I suspected as much, all along.

First gay marriage, then bat marriage... it's a slippery slope.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Yeah yeah, like we're supposed to listen to someone who advocates raping bats


I think society needs to take a stronger stand against bat rape, as well as monkey molesting, ferret fondling, and gopher groping


(I kid, I kid
)


Hey seriously thats funny that you joke about that. In my thread, this one poster....I'll see if I can actually find the post, but he compares homosexuality to bestiality....I kid you not. Just when you think you've seen it all....I mean seriously just when you think you have seen the worst post you could possibly imagine....you know what...I'm got an idea...just now I swear that gave me an idea.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   


Soon the beastiality group will want to be recognized and accepted.


Annnd therrr it is.... That guy was serious too. No sarcasm, just seething hate for gays demanding equal rights...who'd figure



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I vote Iran nukes California off the map, and that way we wont have to keep reading about these ridiculous testbed laws like, not being able to smoke in your own home, and abolishing the word marriage.

Utterly ridiculous, what is it that goes in the water in California which makes it such an oddball state? It wouldn't be so bad if the retardedness did not spread outwards to the rest of America, and eventually, the world. But it does.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Feel free to post any comments you've seen made here or anywhere else for that matter in a thread I just thought up...Worst Comments Ever. Any quotes you want to submit should be entirely anonymous ofcourse



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join