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.

 

Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

page: 22
29
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


What so many do not see is that marriage transcends religion. It's not a religious institution, it's a human institution.


Because in OUR country, marriage has deep religious roots Jaxon Roberts and it may transcend religion but it doesn't transcend God's explicit instruction. So many here such as anne using the separation powers, doesnt get it. That can NOT be used to silence religious expression just because the religious based opinions are contrary. It is every bit a violation of free speech as any other.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 


WOW, did you come up with that long list of BS by yourself, or did your 'think tank' help you??? And you proved in that post that you pay little attention or just like to twist facts. I was hit in the head with a bottle while coming out of a gay owned restaurant during lunch hours, and (pardon me mods) the ignorant coward that threw it screamed 'Die faggot' as he and his ignorant buddy drove away. As to what I was wearing, a black 'Blair Witch Project' tee shirt and jeans. By the way, it may have been gay owned, and in a gay section of town, but plenty of straight people eat there all the time. See, that's the difference. We have no problem if you come into our businesses, and into our communities. Maybe you could learn a little about tolerance from that. Way to ass-u- me, dude!


How'd he know you are gay Jaxon? Does the restaraunt have a sign saying Proprietor is gay? I don't recall the "die faggot part but the added embellishment still doesn't prove Gays are a suspect class. You need more than hearsay my friend and the other guy isn't here to defend himself so none of it matters to me as it wouldn't in court and YOU know it




See, that's the difference. We have no problem if you come into our businesses, and into our communities. Maybe you could learn a little about tolerance from that. Way to ass-u-


How many threads would it take to convince you THAT AIN'T TRUE AT ALL!

Ill post em up if you like or withdraw the claim because gays have proven their pretty damn violent bunch my friend

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


And you are proposing a violation of the First Amendment. This is nothing short of establishing a 'State Religion'. And what about the atheists? Agnostics? Again, weak Kung Fu!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 


And you are proposing a violation of the First Amendment. This is nothing short of establishing a 'State Religion'. And what about the atheists? Agnostics? Again, weak Kung Fu!


No it isn't and IN EVERY case an argument of that nature has to be decided by the US supreme court on a case by case basis and last I checked YOU ain't on the bench pal



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


The police report, the witnesses and the nasty little scar are more than hearsay and I could care less if it matters to your bigoted #ss. Now why don't you go back to your 'think tank'. I have better things to do than deal with another homophobe. Oh, and spell check is your friend!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 


The police report, the witnesses and the nasty little scar are more than hearsay and I could care less if it matters to your bigoted #ss. Now why don't you go back to your 'think tank'. I have better things to do than deal with another homophobe. Oh, and spell check is your friend!


Now their is a police report and witnesses! Ha ha this hate crime gets more interesting all the time! But it still doesn't prove you're a suspect class and it is STILL hearsay Jaxon Roberts.

How about the Judgement? Was he convicted? I assume not because THAT is more compelling than a lousy police report so I'd assume you'd have mentioned it.

Like the spelling advice, where'd ya get that tactic , the forum warriors "if all else fails "Attack Spelling" lesson 101?

lol Umm you think you don't have any mis-spelled words in any of your posts Jaxon Roberts?

Ill show ya if you like?


[edit on 8-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


I didn't tell you the color of the car either, so what does that prove. The jackhole was never caught, so no court case. You lack any sense of logic, and your debating skills are weak at best. Since I have no desire to engage in a flame war with an idiot, I'm done with you. I come here for intelligent debate, which you lack. Good day, sir!



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I could care less if it matters to your bigoted #ss. Now why don't you go back to your 'think tank'. I have better things to do than deal with another homophobe. Oh, and spell check is your friend!


Jaxon Jaxon what is with all the hostility my friend?

Well since you are feeling defeatist ill retire this thread.

Warm Regards Jaxon Roberts

- Sty



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 


I didn't tell you the color of the car either, so what does that prove. The jackhole was never caught, so no court case. You lack any sense of logic, and your debating skills are weak at best. Since I have no desire to engage in a flame war with an idiot, I'm done with you. I come here for intelligent debate, which you lack. Good day, sir!


Oh I know I could NEVER match your clever wit and repartee Jackson Roberts. Were you finished there or do you wanna tell me my mother wears army boots too?





[edit on 8-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Stylez
 


I didn't tell you the color of the car either, so what does that prove. The jackhole was never caught, so no court case. You lack any sense of logic, and your debating skills are weak at best. Since I have no desire to engage in a flame war with an idiot, I'm done with you. I come here for intelligent debate, which you lack. Good day, sir!



Mmmm No court case eh,, mmm well I have to lean on the side of due process then Jaxon and hehe you know what that means.

Yep he is innocent till you prove he is guilty and we already know how well you proved things expecting us to fawn over your hearsay calling people bigots and idiots.

hows that workin for ya ?

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Stylez]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


They could call it anything they want, as long as the State calls all such unions, gay and straight, the same thing. Won't really matter what term the State uses, people will always call it marriage. Homosexual couples have been having commitment ceremonies for decades, and even though they did not have the State issued peice of paper legitimizing it, they still refered to themselves as married. It's not about the name, but the protections that come with it.


So othen why don't you agree to the idea of a civil union and just say you're married if it doesn't make any difference and you are getting the same protections? You called this seprate but equal, unacceptable because it wasn't really equal unless it was "marriage" I have proven this isn't an equal rights issue and gays are not a special class nor are we defined by the same or opposite gender types we choose to have sex with so you can't use that as a basis for your argument jaxon roberts.

Marriage assumes your intent to raise a family, the motivation for which the Government has an interest in the survival of the community and assists this effort by making it more desirable to get married using incentives which both gain a benefit from. This act REQUIRES the opposite sex and why it has always meant one man and one woman in matrimony. Whats the point of getting married if al you are going to do is TAKE the incentives from marriage while the Government and Community get ZIP from gay sex couples.

It is selfish to trample on the meaning of marriage, it is cheap to assume this is a civil rights issue like blacks when Gays can't prove this is the same as I argued in my post regarding suspect class minority protections. They want to take take take I keep hearing about what gays are having taken from them all the time playing the victim dictum but it occurs to me, what the hell do any of us get for allowing such fruitless, childless, self centerd relation ships founded purely on sexual indulgeance that is being shoved in everyones face these days . The incentives given for marriage is in the form of benefits tailored around the nuclear family.

Gays don't need marriage, what this is about is to aid in their political clout as a protected minority class so they can outlaw the Bible using any derogatory terminology, gag pastors and ministers, force public schools to continue promoting the experimentation of homosexual sex while they force parents who oppose it to just stay home and shut up. In fact, are under no obligation to even inform parents in many areas.

The moment Jaxon Roberts tells me that isn't going to happen, is when I show him it is even worse than that in every state gay marriage is allowed. What is to stop a couple straight guys that need some tax breaks from just saying they are gay to get them and living separate lives with their girlfriend or? The entire REASON those incentives are in their were intended for family and their favorite loved ones, thier children.

Not gays and their favorite loved one. Themselves.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


The following limitations should be understood from the go. period.

All parties involved were over the age of 21.
All parties are of the species Homosapiens.
All parties are sane, with the understanding of the risks and how to be safe.
i.e. safe, sane, and consensual.


As far as my circumstances at the time:

The females were not married to each other.
The males were not married to each other.
Only one pair of male/female was married.
We had a pre-nub agreement between my wife and I that specifically self-govern any additional relationships that we may have and/or share.

my former male partner wasn't interested in marrying all of us.
However, if something were to happen to my wife(again, I hope not), then he and I would have no problem tying the knot at that point. (provided that it was allowable by law)

Let's go with the accidental assumption that you have made, what harm would it do(none at all, hitchhikers guide.. lol)? The (hypothetical) law in place would simply grant a *universal* right to sane consensual adults to do as they please/see fit. It would not force anyone to do anything they wouldn't want to do.

Even if marriage would be limited to two consenting adults, that would be acceptable imho. However having a 'generic' union for individuals who want to be united as a trio or a quad with bare-bone rights should be the final step forward. (i.e. hospital visitation, estate, insurance, etc..)

This should be trivial as corporations already have these concepts in place in the law to begin with as a social contract, why not allow a basic small household of individuals the same right as well? Even if it's understood as merely optional.

Obviously I also concur that DOMA is very unconstitutional as well..



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Stylez
 


Did it even occur to you that:

Not every non-heterosexual is gay?
That they may have already had a hetero styled relationship in the past.
In the event that is so, wouldn't it be logical that they would already have children.

That adoption would even allow this contribution to our community in ways that very few heterosexuals even consider to begin with!

Furthermore, what would stop a male-male couple from agreeing to fertilize a lesbian couple and that the resulting children would simply be gifted two loving families?

After all, with the given divorce rate between heterosexuals, this two (or household) families per child is increasingly becoming the norm.




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Oh, you are a FIESTY one!



Let's go with the accidental assumption that you have made, what harm would it do(none at all, hitchhikers guide.. lol)? The (hypothetical) law in place would simply grant a *universal* right to sane consensual adults to do as they please/see fit. It would not force anyone to do anything they wouldn't want to do.


What accidental assumption?

Again, as I've stated repeatedly. If Marriage itself were killed, struck down, whatever, THEN you could have exactly what you want. Equality, freedom to whatever the hell, etc... Are you prepared to take responsiblity for the distruction of marriage? If the answer is yes, then you've already won the cause. It means that you're willing to do what it takes and live with the consequences.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arrowmancer
 


You know, if they did remove all benefits for married couples and everyone was forced to think about their end and get the appropriate documentation that says: we own this together, this person can make decisions for me, etc., no tax breaks, nada...I'd be fine with it.

I like the romantic notion of two people falling in love and starting a family together (even if that is adoption). No offense to the above poster with the team relationship, but to me... I would rather have marriage be "two people" and you get your civil union between six people. If to do that means relinquishing privileges and the couple hundred bucks at the end of the year in taxes, so be it if the name "marriage" is kept "special".

Call me antiquated, but Mr Darcy didn't marry Lizzy, Jane, and Mr Bingley. He married Lizzy. And on the converse, how "special" would Sappho's poems had been if she'd written them to more than one person? That unique passion would have been dulled, somehow. What we know is that she loved one person so passionately with the all of her being that her poems resonated across time. Or Achilles and Patrocles? We know he loved Patrocles, not Patrocles and Ajax. Their bond was wholly special and unique.

I mean, would Brokeback Mountain have resonated if Emmit had kept more than one shirt in the closet?

I love monogamy. I love the idea of discipline that marriage requires. I love the idea of knowing as well as anyone can know someone...just one person. I love the idea of desperate passion like Darcy had with Lizzy, focused and unsullied.

In staying the course, in learning to be selfless enough to give up outside desires I feel you may also grow as a human. I love the idea of the old couple on their front porch together, looking back at their lives and saying: you and I...we did this. You and me against the world.

Honestly, I can see that the above poster is very happy, and more power to him. The world needs more happiness. I would just rather give up all the benefits of marriage to keep the institution a union of two souls. That's me, though.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Romanticizing marriage is probably its biggest downfall - - and a fairly new concept.

In truth animals seem to be a lot smarter in selecting a qualified mate then humans.

Lust and pheromones - are not good qualifiers of joining two people together - supposedly for life. Which seems to be the trend in why people with no common goal or station in life think they Love each other.

Marriage is a "business" - and has ALWAYS been a legal arrangement for protection of rights and property.

There is NO GOD in marriage. At one time Religion was the basis of everything - - It was the law and politics.

We have progressed beyond religion being our law. A marriage license is a government document - there is no god in government.

Can you get married in a church without the government document license? NO you can not.

Religion being the #1 reason to deny two consenting adults to join as one household with government protection is down right ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well, but isn't that a contradiction? If marriage is antiquated and it is not about "love" or "romance" and it is about business why not call it "civil unions", have the government put its stamp on it and leave "marriage" with that antiquated, dusty old religion?

Jaxon has already said he doesn't care what you call it as long as the benefits are there. That is fair to everyone in a democratic republic.

I've said before that marriage was originally for the purpose of uniting families or kingdoms and without offspring the marriage would be terminated (annulment or divorce), therefore it began as an institution for children, and a ceremony performed by a religious person because of the seriousness of the union and merging of two family lines and all of their ancestors.

So marriage at the beginning was a business arrangement.

Then with the "Art of Courtly Love" and the romance movement, marriage became intertwined with "love" and the platonic twin flame/soulmate notions. That is the definition of marriage we've kept for the last few hundred years in the west.

Basically, marriage got a cosmetic upgrade, but it was still about the union of two souls, so at its essence, the word is attached to a level of spirituality and monogamy.

I hear you and everyone else that wants to do away with religion, but there are billions of people that would disagree and so I would hope that you would allow all of us our free choice to practice our desires as I would not remove from you your ability to not practice it, nor would I ever tell you that you must or that if you don't some bad thing will happen to you. I never have and I never will.

I say: live and let live.

As "marriage" is defined the world over by the culture in which it is conducted my vote is that it is a union of TWO souls, or monogamy. Your vote may be different.

Why is it that there cannot be a new word for pluralistic or poly-amorous unions? Why must "marriage" bend when it is an established definition? It's like when the lead singer of a band wants to change the sound they usually start a side project or their own solo album...why can't all of you who feel that marriage should be between more than two people go make up your own word for it?


EDIT: You can get married in a church without a license. The license is a legal notice for tax purposes. I know because I've gone to several gay weddings at the UU and they are "marriages" to that church. The same could conversely be true of heterosexual couples who wanted to be married without having to combine assets. I have a friend who got married because she loved her boyfriend but didn't want to lose a chunk of the child support payment from her ex boyfriend. They had a ceremony but it wasn't filed at the county.



[edit on 8-9-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Well, but isn't that a contradiction? If marriage is antiquated and it is not about "love" or "romance" and it is about business why not call it "civil unions", have the government put its stamp on it and leave "marriage" with that antiquated, dusty old religion?


Because it already has an established government license document called "marriage".

An established term recognized world wide by insurance companies - hospitals - etc.

Because religion nor god is a requirement to fulfill the issuing of this license.

Because religion is not required in any shape or form to be legally married.

Religion is antiquated when it comes to a government license in this country.

----------------------------------------------

If you want to romanticize it - go right ahead. No one is infringing on your right.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori


EDIT: You can get married in a church without a license. The license is a legal notice for tax purposes. I know because I've gone to several gay weddings at the UU and they are "marriages" to that church. The same could conversely be true of heterosexual couples who wanted to be married without having to combine assets. I have a friend who got married because she loved her boyfriend but didn't want to lose a chunk of the child support payment from her ex boyfriend. They had a ceremony but it wasn't filed at the county.



You know that is not what we are talking about.

And the president and vice-president at my church are a lesbian couple.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by A Fortiori


EDIT: You can get married in a church without a license. The license is a legal notice for tax purposes. I know because I've gone to several gay weddings at the UU and they are "marriages" to that church. The same could conversely be true of heterosexual couples who wanted to be married without having to combine assets. I have a friend who got married because she loved her boyfriend but didn't want to lose a chunk of the child support payment from her ex boyfriend. They had a ceremony but it wasn't filed at the county.



You know that is not what we are talking about.

And the president and vice-president at my church are a lesbian couple.


But it was what I was talking about.

I was trying to make the point that if, as Jaxon said earlier that he doesn't care what you call it as long as the benefits stay the same, why not "civil union" so that the people like the poster who is in a polyamorous relationship can designate who can sign for what, when, where, and how, and other "business" related dealings between individuals, and "benefits".

My point is that I don't care about the benefits, I want the word "marriage" to mean a union of two people; that to me and a greater part of the western world it is a romantic notion.

If you read my post I made the point that I would give up benefits to keep the word "marriage" as a monogamous union. I was expressing a "feeling". I wasn't speaking of the legal benefits of marriage at all, so yes, that is at least what I was talking about.

You may feel differently, that marriage should be a union of three, four, or five, but I don't. I wouldn't, however, deny polygamists the ability to have benefits that would benefit their children and their lives.




top topics



 
29
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join