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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Jim....the 'standards of society'?????


Yeah weed, you got a problem with that?



Whose standards??? WHEN!?!


Society's standards weed, just like he said, just like you repeated back to him and just like I am agreeing he said. Is that too hard to understand?

and the "when" would mean NOW, weed.


Do you mean, when it was 'standard' to own a slave?


Is that the standard now weed? Didn't think so, so why do you try to invoke some ridiculous and additional argument when gay marriage and owning a slave is all part of the same immorality the same perversion of the human condition.



Do you mean, when it was 'standard' to deny women the right to vote???


Nope, weed it wouldn't be that either because woman have the right to vote and had a legitimate legal argument with real civil rights violations unlike gays, their is a distinction that can be made but more than that is when they vote, we didn't have some degenerate attempt to have the word "woman" stricken from our language just because men didn't get their way. It is something I would expect gays to do however.


Do you mean,when it was a Patriarchal Society, where no matter the woman's opinion, the Man's always prevailed?!?!!?

Is THIS what you are propounding?


No, I don't think he was, but YOU certainly have tried to skew his comments to reflect that sentiment. Why do you stoop to such cheap manipulative tactics weed? Can't your opinions stand on their own merit without bastardizing someones post where anyone with common sense can see he wasn't talking about slavery, or a womans right to vote. Try getting up to speed weed and stop mis representing posts.



When it was 'standard' to be mysogonystic, and the woman had no rights to complain, much less, to recompense???


You keep using the word "when" weed, so I know you know what time it is and I am certain you know how the clock works around here. Let me ask you, is THAT what you really thought he meant? Do you really think he was talking about womans suffrage and mysogynistic treatment of woman as second class citizens? Coreect kme if i am wrong but his post was suggeting honoring woman as something to lay down our lives for. So where do YOU get off mis representing that post again?

Why can't you talk about his post rather than assume all kinds of things he never said and obviously didn't intend save for you own intent to malign the poor guy.



Seems to me, 'sir'.....you advocate more towards the Muslim religious ideals, than the American Ideals.


Seems to you?? ha ha ha weed you superimpose your own draconian interpretation of his post not being anywhere close to what he said or meant to say, you then assume those were his answers and meanings and if that wasn't enough to disparage his post in a most specious manner, you go right on to the next part of this tactic you use and RIDICULE the guy with erroneously arrived conclusions predicated on statements he never made and questions he never answered.

Just who the hell are you trying to fool weed?



[edit on 12-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

In the future, kindly address the issue and refrain from personal attacks against fellow members. Adherence to this simple request is expected.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by maria_stardust]




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - domestic partners can buy an insurance policy in California - under California law.

But - insurance policies are often sold to other agencies. If the insurance policy is sold to an agency outside California - - they are not required to honor the domestic partnership legal in California.

This happens all the time.


Well if it's a good enough argument for gays it is a good enough argument for marrieds. I just think it's pretty pathetic that gays didn't want that kind of arraingement before but they are willing to accept it if this idiotic proposal see's the light of day.

Then gays wonder why.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well if it's a good enough argument for gays it is a good enough argument for marrieds. I just think it's pretty pathetic that gays didn't want that kind of arraingement before but they are willing to accept it if this idiotic proposal see's the light of day.

Then gays wonder why.


What? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about Equal Rights for ALL.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by johnsky
 

I starred your post, Johnsky. I couldn't agree more.


what are you agreeing to? their isn't one thing he said that he was even close to being correct on legally, ethically or academically.

Not one



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well if it's a good enough argument for gays it is a good enough argument for marrieds. I just think it's pretty pathetic that gays didn't want that kind of arraingement before but they are willing to accept it if this idiotic proposal see's the light of day.

Then gays wonder why.


What? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about Equal Rights for ALL.


No you're not, you are talking about sour grapes and a vindictive consolation prize called civil unions that gays again want to attack marriage about. The last time the people voted they said LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE THE WAY IT IS!

If gays can't understand that, too bad, it isn't OUR obligation to explain to them what they refuse to understand. No one but no one in government or private citizenry has suggested they have their equal rights taken away. Gays have just as much a right to get married as anyone else the same way everyone else does and until they can establish themselves as either a third gender or some other class distinction, attaching them to some kind of civil rights issue is a logical fallacy.

This proposal was designed to get everyone who ISN'T GAY and married to get angry! You people don't know how dis-information works do you.

The idea is to pose as gays and whine and cry until the majority of straights say "That's IT! I am sick of gays! and their in your face inability to tolerate us while expecting everyone to tolerate THEM!

The best thing for gays to do is remove GENDER distinctions like the words male and female from being asked since that already has civil rights protections and is none of anyones business to ask.

The next thing they ough tto do is defend marriage to garner the very support of those who will now have more reason and more votes to crush them if they ever see the kind of discussion going on here to take their marriages and redefine them. That is just poking the bear awakwening a sleeping giant and for what? To kick a dead horse?.

and finally, because on it's face, it is a stupid idea and will never get anywhere.

gays have more to lose supporting this and more enemies to gain doing it while they lose nothing not supporting and seeing gays defending straights marriage would have a better chance of changing attitudes about them when they certainly could use the added votes

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Annee....check your U2U!!!!

Best, kisses....



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No your not, you are talking about sour grapes and a vindictive consolation prize called civil unions that gays again want to attack marriage about. The last time the people voted they said LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE THE WAY IT IS!

If gays can't understand that, too bad. No one but no one in government or private citizenry has suggested they have their equal rights taken away. Gays have just as much a right to get married as anyone else! '
so this is NOT an equal rights issue.


* snip *

Someone else want to take this? Not worth my time.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/12/2009 by maria_stardust]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No your not, you are talking about sour grapes and a vindictive consolation prize called civil unions that gays again want to attack marriage about. The last time the people voted they said LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE THE WAY IT IS!

If gays can't understand that, too bad. No one but no one in government or private citizenry has suggested they have their equal rights taken away. Gays have just as much a right to get married as anyone else! '
so this is NOT an equal rights issue.


Clueless - - - and probably bible clouded brain.

Someone else want to take this? Not worth my time.


So that's it? you insult me? ha ha

I assume weed suggested you not get into this one? That would be the most intelligent thing because this is one argument you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Bible or no Bible, clueless or not, if you see someone clueless you impeach their testimony and exploit them as such, otherwise, you're just calling people names .

Ouch hehe



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi

So that's it? you insult me? ha ha

I assume weed suggested you not get into this one? That would be the most intelligent thing because this is one argument you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Bible or no Bible



I think for myself dude.

Oh yeah! Definitely Bible.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Now that THAT little drama is (hopefully) over, I refer thee to....

Page 2, about the middle, where I pontificated so eloquently.

Enjoy!

WW



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sc2099
 


The term "domestic partnership" is a term of art in California marriage law. The term "marriage" is a legally recognized union between a man and a woman who are of legal age and who fulfill other requirments. A "domestic partnership" is a legally recognized union between two people of the same sex or a man and a woman over the age of 65. A "marriage" under California law is not much different from a "domestic partnership" other than "marraiges" always involve people of the opposite sex and can involve people of any age.

I am all for gay people getting married or doing whatever they please, but I feel this law is poorly drafted. As I stated before, "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" are terms of art under California law with precise meanings. Deleting "marriage" and substituting it with "domestic partnership" may muddy the waters and lead to unintended results in the courts.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


hotpink.....

You are correct!!

This is an ill-concieved idea, except, of course, if it was intended to generate attention....which it did.

I think it was meant to focus attention on the lack of mainstream to realize that people will love, regardless of any 'sanctioned' parameters.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Exactly how I feel!! The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogther, and let people, gay and straight, love and unite with whom they choose. It really angers me that our governemt takes taxes from gays but then jumps in to deny them the same rights other tax payers have. Totally wrong, good for California.

And to the poster who made the comment about of gays cant get what they want, was that thought out at all before you posted? Because it isn't the gays ruining it for all, it was the gays denied a right ALL others have. Maybe you didnt understand the topic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


watch it, aermacchi. you have now been reported to the mods. ATSs' hate speech standards are more strict than ever and you are walking a very fine line.

i will not be baited into arguing with you, but to be sure: i have some bile i would like to spit in your general direction.

lets cool it, huh?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by daeoeste
 


On that note, we heterosexuals are pretty presumptuous to think that homosexuals will somehow degrade the institution of marriage if the law starts recognizing their marriages. Say what you want about gay people, but I don't think you are going to see too many of them getting married by an Elvis impersonator while drunk.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Marriage is a word - Period. Like many words today comes from ancient times.

Our government adopted this word and applied it to a government license.

A license made to protect the rights and property of those who join together as one.

ALL who join in a union of one - - need to be entitled to the same Equal Rights under government law.

A marriage license has nothing to do with Anything - - other then protection of rights and property of those who join as one.

Period! No Other Word will mean the same thing by law.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think there are two battles gay people are trying to win by having their marriages legally recognized. One battle is the battle for public acceptance. I do not feel that those who refuse to accept or tolerate gay people will be moved by a change in the law, if anything, a change in the law can harden them.

The second battle, and perhaps more important battle, is for equal treatment under the law. Gay people do not have the same rights as straight people because they cannot get legally married. For example, they cannot file joint federal income tax returns or receive certain federal benefits like spousal support under social security. Legally recognized marriages will give gay people equal treatment under the law.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Oh - and by the way - - I am a 62 year old heterosexual grandmother.

Who has experienced life - - and knows those who choose to bond together as One - - is in no way differentiated by sexual attraction birth right.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


watch it, aermacchi. you have now been reported to the mods. ATSs' hate speech standards are more strict than ever and you are walking a very fine line.

i will not be baited into arguing with you, but to be sure: i have some bile i would like to spit in your general direction.

lets cool it, huh?


Baited? what the hell are you talking about guy? I wasn't even talking to you was I? NOPE and if you are gay, how the hell would I know?

That's right, I wouldn'T! and I resent the accusation so swallow your bile you are jumping to wrong conclusions that are unsubstantiated.

Care to show me the hate speech? I probably know more gay people that are friends of mine than all of you combined. If you are going to accuse me of hating anyone, you might want to read those hate speech rules yourself unless you want to insist I hate someone just because they are gay. I have opinions about gay marriage that i have researched from every legal angle and their arguments are flawed. It's that simple.

I have opinions that I believe would better serve their (gays) desires to be part of the marriage institution but I wouldn't want to dissappoint your need to believe I hate them.

By the way, I expect you to be just as serious when someone says their brain is clouded by the bible and because of it are "clueless" like I was told. Fortunately I considered the source and it bounced off me like water off a ducks back. Something I believe if everyone practiced such politically correct ideas like hate speech wouldn't be used to falsely accuse someone you just don't happen to agree with .

As for you saying I hate you?

I don't even know you








[edit on 12-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


As far as the law is concerned, people are free to do as they choose with whomever they choose. Marriage becomes important under the law during certain critical times in life like death, retirement, and the dissolution of certain relationships i.e. divorce. It seeks to resolve thorny issues that may arise at these times. Not all relationships an individual have similar issues.

For example, when one divorces a spouse, many issues arrise on how to divide the couple's property and where the children should go. The law tries to resolve these issues. These issues do not arise during the dissolution of other inter-personal relationships. For example, if you decide change dentists, you do not have to worry about where your children will live or who gets to keep the family business.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join