It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by drwizardphd
I am not saying you cant love whoever you want. I am just saying let marriage keep the tradition of 1 man 1 woman and you guys make up your own thing. Just call it something else.
If you go down this road, I guarantee in 20 years or less you will have a guy marrying his horse, in 5 years you will have polygamy. Is that really what you want? Do you want marriage to be a total abomination where just the mear sound of it makes you want to vomit?
Originally posted by kyred
Meanwhile, once gay people do get their proper recognition, I hope you will support me in my desire to be able to have two or more wives.
Originally posted by The_Seeker
Did you know the term Bride actually means "cook".
Originally posted by Bunch
Kudos to the California judges!
Respecting the will of the people is always a welcome sign. This vote is so telling because it doesn't get more liberal than California, its a message to the gay movement a message that they should readdress the way that they are trying to get their message accross.
Not everyone is ready for gay marriages and that just the truth, they should not give up their cause of course but they should rethink how they get their message accross instead of trying to push through their will on people.
Originally posted by hadriana
My friend explains it as upsetting because unless the word marriage can be used, then since not all states recognize civil unions, they can have problems if they leave Ca.and something should happen, whereas, if they could call it marriage, they'd be protected.
The whole thing is silly hurtful bs IMO. I don't care if someone marries a dog myself, if the dog can consent. I've been teaching mine to nod.