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.

 

California high court upholds gay marriage ban

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Heatburger
 


It degrades it because it opens up marriage to be interpreted to any form of marriage that can be conceived. Next we will have polygamy, and marriages with two guys and a woman, and on and on until people are marrying their pets or their ink pens for that matter.




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That is the problem.. it is not equal rights. You are comparing apples and oranges. A man and a woman marrying is different than a woman and a woman or a man and a man. Its not even natural. Its anti evolution and antri propogation of the species.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Who's to take the right to do that away from someone though? Honestly? If that's what they want as consenting adults...

I may not agree with it, but I think that I have no place to take the right to happiness away from consenting adults.

The dog is one thing though, because beastiality is essentially rape of an animal, as far as I'm concerned, because the animal does not have the ability to consent



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Random, but it could happen. If homosexuality became such an impact on the way we reproduce, I'm positive that life would find a way to go on, through the evolution you referenced yourself.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Heatburger]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Annee
 


That is the problem.. it is not equal rights. You are comparing apples and oranges. A man and a woman marrying is different than a woman and a woman or a man and a man. Its not even natural. Its anti evolution and antri propogation of the species.


WRONG - it is equal rights.

Marriage is a legal union - Period!

Its to protect the rights of those joining together as one household.

Gender has nothing to do with it.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I am so over this whole debate.
Whom are we to tell someone what they can and can not do in their PERSONAL lives.
Whom are we to say, yes you can marry this person or no you can not.
We are supposed to be living in a society where we now have "LAWS" set in place to stop discrimination. Yet we are still so hypocritical that we abuse these laws to "discriminate" still.......
Sorry fo the rant but this really pings me off.
So what if you have a problem with someone being gay and/or wanting to get married. Its not going to affect your life, so why bother worrying about it. Let those that wish to do this worry about it themselves (am I am sure they are going to ponder their decission day and night
). Your not in the bedroom with them, you dont have to associate with them if you dont want to (if your that close minded).
This is NOTHING to anyone other than those involved. Ping of this piddly little nothing law and allow people to start being PEOPLE!!!

[edit on 26-5-2009 by The_Seeker]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Seeker
 


I wish everyone could think about it this way.

Live and let live, for crying out loud.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
As a gay man in the area I disagree with the decision but the "majority" (see right wings) have ruined the very thought of marriage for me and my partner.
I think those that seek to stop marriage and love between two consenting adults should take a long look at themselves.

"The weaker are always anxious for justice and equality. The strong pay no heed to either."
Aristotle



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Heatburger
 


Because marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

It was already put to vote, and the people decided that it should remain that way.

I do not agree in my tax dollars supporting anchor families, but it does, and until it is put to a vote, it will stay that way.

So, yes, my point is valid.

We pay our taxes and the defined people get it. If we do not like it, we can move to change it, but the change will not always come, and not always be permanent.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
ANY 2 people can come together to form a single household.

If they want legal protection for their own rights and property that they are bringing into the union and/or property acquired over time - - they file for legal protection by law. That legal protection is a government document entitled "Marriage".

NOTHING in this legal document has anything to do with gender - love - or anything other then protection of rights and property.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


Sorry but I think you nicely made my point! Though I don't know if it is millions or thousands of gay Americans are treated as second class citizens daily. By denying them something as basic as the right to have a spouse, we are surely mistreating them. I have seen gay couples have their lives ruined by ignorant family. When a partner dies or is hospitalized the partner, who in this case had been with her lover for over 20 years, is forced out and her wishes were not only ignored but specifically violated. Had they had the right to be a married couple this tragedy could never have happened. This is no isolated thing, it happens all the time!

Shame on you for living in another century!



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


Exactly. Why cant you just have a civil union and get your rights that way and quit trying to push the issue. Look where it got you in California. If it happened that way in one of the most Liberal states in the country then how do you think the rest of the country will vote.

I think we should end this whole discussion and make an amendment that says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Seeker
I am so over this whole debate.
Whom are we to tell someone what they can and can not do in their PERSONAL lives.


Who is to tell me that I can't screw a horse in my backyard?


Whom are we to say, yes you can marry this person or no you can not.


Who are we to say that I can't marry said horse?


We are supposed to be living in a society where we now have "LAWS" set in place to stop discrimination. Yet we are still so hypocritical that we abuse these laws to "discriminate" still.......


Yep . . . I am discriminated against because I do not qualify for financial aid for college, Medicaid (aka Medi-Cal), etc.


Sorry fo the rant but this really pings me off.
So what if you have a problem with someone being gay and/or wanting to get married.


What is the problem with me wanting to marry my horse and go to college, and pay for my kids hospital bills?


This is NOTHING to anyone other than those involved. Ping of this piddly little nothing law and allow people to start being PEOPLE!!!

[edit on 26-5-2009 by The_Seeker]


Once again, everyone is involved because of how the tax dollars are spent



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


Exactly. Why cant you just have a civil union and get your rights that way and quit trying to push the issue. Look where it got you in California. If it happened that way in one of the most Liberal states in the country then how do you think the rest of the country will vote.

I think we should end this whole discussion and make an amendment that says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


because, as it has been said several times in this thread, not all the rights in a marriage are guaranteed in a civil union....or guaranteed to be honored across state lines.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Heatburger]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Look where it got you in California. If it happened that way in one of the most Liberal states in the country then how do you think the rest of the country will vote.


Again - California is NOT a Liberal state.

It has areas that are very Liberal - - but the majority of the state is agricultural.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude


That is the problem.. it is not equal rights. You are comparing apples and oranges. A man and a woman marrying is different than a woman and a woman or a man and a man. Its not even natural. Its anti evolution and antri propogation of the species.


So men who marry women but don't have children shouldn't have the right to, because they don't propagate the species?

Listen, all love is natural. We can't explain it, or deny it, or fight it, because it is natural. There have been homosexual couples for as long as history has been recorded. It is as natural as the setting sun.

That's the reason homosexual couples are fighting for their rights. Because their love is just as natural as my love for a woman, or your love for a woman. They have just as much a right to sanctify that love as you or I do. If you feel that they should not be able to, because it 'threatens' your ability to sanctify your love for a woman, then you truly cannot see the forest for the trees. We are all human, and we are all subject to the laws of nature. If a man feels compelled to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, how is that not natural?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
We have to be real.

You can Love without a document. It goes way beyond that.

It is about legal protection.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heatburger
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


because, as it has been said several times in this thread, not all the rights in a marriage are guaranteed in a civil union....or guaranteed to be honored across state lines.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Heatburger]


Well lets say it gets honored across state lines. What other issues do you have with Civil Unions.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude


That is the problem.. it is not equal rights. You are comparing apples and oranges. A man and a woman marrying is different than a woman and a woman or a man and a man. Its not even natural. Its anti evolution and antri propogation of the species.


So men who marry women but don't have children shouldn't have the right to, because they don't propagate the species?

Listen, all love is natural. We can't explain it, or deny it, or fight it, because it is natural. There have been homosexual couples for as long as history has been recorded. It is as natural as the setting sun.

That's the reason homosexual couples are fighting for their rights. Because their love is just as natural as my love for a woman, or your love for a woman. They have just as much a right to sanctify that love as you or I do. If you feel that they should not be able to, because it 'threatens' your ability to sanctify your love for a woman, then you truly cannot see the forest for the trees. We are all human, and we are all subject to the laws of nature. If a man feels compelled to love another man, or a woman to love another woman, how is that not natural?



Very well said.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join