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.

 

Massachutsetts spits on Defense of Marriage Act...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The thing IS, WaSt...your morals aren't necessarily the same morals of the guy standing (or living next door) to you. You can't shove your morals down another persons throat and expect everybody else to live and breathe and think as you do. That's a cloned, awfully boring society as far as I'm concerned and one I want no part of. People have different likes and dislikes, and yes, different sexualities and it's all a part of what makes this world a tolerable place to live in, IMO.

As far as the subject of your DNA loaves goes, everybody else is not responsible for watching what they do for the betterment and concern of your children. They are your children and you chose to have them in the current age/world we live in. Don't expect the world to revolve around your children, please. There are a lot of people out there who happily live without children who don't feel the world should revolve around families, and I happen to agree.




posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I didn't exactly mean it in the sense that marriage is a definite act of two people coming together to have children, but what I mean is, (in the Bible), the only way two people can have children without commiting a sin is by being married. This is why I stated that marrying is the coming of two people to have children, because it would happen sinfully otherwise.

I'm not saying two gay people can't love each other, it's completely possible. But it's not logical for them to marry because other than letting two people live togher, it allows for them to have children without sin, which is not possible between two gay people.

And then again, I'm not the one shoving my morales down people's throats. I'm not running around with pickets and signs in both my hands rushing the white house to "Ban Gay Marriage". I would rather solve this in a much more democratic way and let the people vote on it. You are also correct in not letting the world be dull and boring. Just read Colonial Literature and find out for yourself how boring a life with single morales are. But the differences in morale are now becoming so extreme that's it's beginning to cause conflict between people.

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by WaStEdDeAtH777]

[Edited on 5-23-2004 by WaStEdDeAtH777]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
#1Do States have the Right to write their own laws, or not? (Assuming they don't collide with the U.S. Constitution) Obviously, they DON'T WHEN IT'S A CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.

#2That doesn't seem to be the case when Massachuesetts decides to clash with Federal Law. (Citing Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act of 1998)

#3By the way, There is NO CLASH Constitutionally, in outlawing Gay Marriage. Equal Protection under the Law (which is what the Gays continually fall back on.) only means that Contitutional Rights can't be abridged because of who you are. Keep in Mind that NOBODY has a Constitutional Right to Marry. This is a STATE ISSUE!



Sorry I didn't see your post earlier.

#1 States do have the right to write their own laws, but Federal law always supercedes States rights. This is something that Jefferson worried about at the time.

#2Clinton's defense of marriage act should be declared unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th amendment. I believe, but not sure, that there are currently challenges to this underway.

#3Using this same logic, the State shouldn't be involved in issuing any marriage licences at all then. Which I agree with. All arguments I hear against gay marriage involve religion or tradition. If that's the case then government must be eliminated from the equation and forgo being involved in the issuance of licences. We are then left with the real meat of this issue, for most it's about protecting property rights, insurance, medical decisions, etc. If the State must be involved at all then all unions should be considered civil unions. Marry in church, legalize your union at city hall.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The entire concept of marriage has taken a beating. From the creation of the Anglican Church, to the dilution of the word to include other meanings, ie; The marriage of food and wine. The effects of "Church Sanctioned" Divorce really have only become apparant in the last few decades.

That the "fallback" of divorce exists in our culture, in of itself, has been the psychological wedge that is prying appart the whole concept of Family. Pandora's box having been long since opened...it is a bit late to start blaming homosexuals for the decline of Western Civilization.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I have as well noticed I placed homosexuals as the decline of Western Civilization. But with this movement it's just yet another plague that has been released from the box (referring to your Pandora's Box analogy). Every little step leads us closer and closer to the fatal fall.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarix

If I want to marry a goat or even a 12 year old girl then if i scream loud enough, get enough ACLU lawyers behind me (yeah, i know there's a joke there somewhere) - then I too can gain the right to marry my 4 hooved sweetheart or the little girl down the street... if it's what turns me on and it is apparent that equates to the same civil rights structure as racial barriers then I shopuld be able to do this.


Not that I want to get embroiled in this particular silly argument, but your line of reason is fallacious. Animals and 12-year-old children are both considered legally incapable of giving reasonable consent to marriage and sexual acts. That is why it is illegal to have sex with animals and 12-year olds. Adults above the age of majority in your country (which I believe is 21) are capable of giving reasonable consent to marry, which is why they can marry each other, regardless of sex or race. Simple.

It's for this very same reason that telephone lines that charge for hints in video games, for example, require adult permission before calling if you are below a given age. People below a certain age are considered incapable of entering into a legally binding contract, which is why their parents have to do it for them.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I fail to see how love, in whatever form it comes in, could ever...even with the furthest stretch of the imagination...EVER be considered a "plague".

Maybe it's subjective what's considered as plague conditions.

I see wars and killing and homelessness and greed as the true plagues. Certainly not two people honestly loving each other.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottsquared
ie; The marriage of food and wine.


Sorry... I'm a little dim. Are you seriously suggesting that using the phrase "Marry the catsups" has degraded Western society?



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaStEdDeAtH777
Do I want my child to grow up knowing that two men are married and are having sex next door? No, I do not.


Why would your child seeing two loving, consentual adults in a committed, legally-sanctioned marriage be a bad thing? Would you prefer that he grow up alongside a tumultous, heterosexual family that ends up in divorce? Or two heterosexual adults living together, but not married, having sex? Would that be better? Would that make him into a 'better person?'

The very existence of gay people (heaven forbid they live next door!) should have no effect on the person your kid grows up to be. If anything, from how you are speaking, you are sound like you prefer that he grow up to be an intolerant person rather than a compassionate, understanding one. Maybe in that case it is bad to have a homosexual couple next door, because your kid might realize, 'hey, they aren't all that bad, they are just like everyone else,' and not persecute them like you seem to want to do.

This is a political discussion, a legal discussion even. "Sinful" has no part here, because that implies religion, which is supposed to be separate from our governmental affairs. I doubt you will find many gay people that care whether or not some church will marry them. But they do want the government to recognize their relationships the same way they would a counterpart heterosexual relationship, and I see no reason why that should be such a problem. Fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what YOU think marriage signifies in a religious sense. Bleys makes a good point, let that be the solution. Let EVERY marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, be defined as a civil union, and call it a marriage if you take that a step further and have your traditional wedding celebration in a church. Either way, whichever you choose, it's all afforded the same benefits and protections under the law. I think that would be a perfectly fine and appropriate solution.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I'll go even farther than the above. In my country, the guarantees of religion being separate from the state are not there (our Constitution mentions God directly). Nonetheless, we allow gay marriage (in places, not everywhere yet). So it's not religion's fault that people are intolerant of gay marriage. There is some other reason.

Also, a little note... I'm a very dedicated Christian, but I believe that gay marriage is just fine. Just to let that be known.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons (other than religion) for people disliking gay people, but it seems easiest for people to fall back on the religious argument because it's as if that makes them justified or something.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons (other than religion) for people disliking gay people, but it seems easiest for people to fall back on the religious argument because it's as if that makes them justified or something.


But, I'm curious about what this is (seriously). I've met quite a few gay people, some whom I have liked, some whom I have mildy disliked. What exactly is it about gay people qua gay people that would make people dislike them? I mean, it's not even like xenophobia, since gay people do not look any different than non-gay people. I find that I can say as many ribald things about women to my gay friends as I can to my straight friends. There's no functional difference between a friendship to a gay man and to a straight man, except that a gay man is much less likely to "steal away" the woman you dig.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy

Sorry... I'm a little dim. Are you seriously suggesting that using the phrase "Marry the catsups" has degraded Western society?


Y'er Dang Tootin' I Am!

Consider: The defenition of "marriage" has changed over the centuries www.onelook.com...
Once, there was but one defenition. Language and thought are inexorably tied



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaStEdDeAtH777
I have as well noticed I placed homosexuals as the decline of Western Civilization. But with this movement it's just yet another plague that has been released from the box (referring to your Pandora's Box analogy). Every little step leads us closer and closer to the fatal fall.



Gezzz, dont you think thats a little dramatic. Are you worried that being exposed to 2 loving people that are gay would do something to you or your children, Thats a little Phobic isnt it?

Your Gay because your Born Gay , you dont turn gay. Or not turned gay, its not a disease you catch. Worry about yourself. and think of this.


You live all your life with your girlfriend. but never marry. Then she gets cancer and shes is begging for you to be by her side. But you cant because you are not family. Thats what Gay couples go through all the time.

Shame on you. Thats heartless



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KayEm
The thing IS, WaSt...your morals aren't necessarily the same morals of the guy standing (or living next door) to you. You can't shove your morals down another persons throat and expect everybody else to live and breathe and think as you do. That's a cloned, awfully boring society as far as I'm concerned and one I want no part of. People have different likes and dislikes, and yes, different sexualities and it's all a part of what makes this world a tolerable place to live in, IMO.

As far as the subject of your DNA loaves goes, everybody else is not responsible for watching what they do for the betterment and concern of your children. They are your children and you chose to have them in the current age/world we live in. Don't expect the world to revolve around your children, please. There are a lot of people out there who happily live without children who don't feel the world should revolve around families, and I happen to agree.


Uh, no, Kay'em, you are absolutely wrong. See, that is what makes a society; a group of people who do share such things as moral standards and ethics, so that the group of people can live harmoniously in good times, and can draw upon common strngths and goals to survive as a nation during the bad times. This concept is not new at all, as a matter of fact, moral relativity is the new kid on the block, untested and unproven.
There is no clone in that, you are being a bit over-dramatic with your broad brush.

As far as my offspring are concerned, you are correct in that it is my obligation and duty to rear them. I don't know where you got your little spew from, but I never said that the world is to revoilve around them. However, sentient beings are aware that there is upbringing to be done with offspring, and reinforcement of societal values is important. As it stands, those who are against the traditional values of this nation take my tax dollars and use them to fill childrens' minds with foulness that, according to all accounts that I've seen, goes against erh desires of the parents. As far as you not wanting children, and others, such as myself, that have stepped up to the plate, accepted responsibility and procreated in order to continue the human race, the fact that you do not want them at this time does not absolve you from societal responsibilities that exist regardless of your parental status.

Hitler said it best when he was told that the German population would not go for all of his plans. He said that didn't matter, as he had their children.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Hitler said it best when he was told that the German population would not go for all of his plans. He said that didn't matter, as he had their children.


Ah-ha! I see that Godwin's Law is now in effect, and we can all go home to our wives or husbands and families, since there is no need for further discussion.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
What exactly is it about gay people qua gay people that would make people dislike them?


Shrug, there's probably alot of stuff. Seems like alot of people still seem to believe that all gay people are immoral, and live frivilous lifestyles where their days are full of drugs, drinks, and sex. I'm sure there are some gay people that are like that, but surprise surprise, there are straight people like that just as well. Seeing as how gay people (granted the %'s are an estimate) are about as frequent in the US population as blacks or hispanics (~10% to 12%/12% based on the 2000 census), you would think most people by now would have met someone gay and realized that most are just normal people lifestyle-wise, and that they would abandon some of these stereotypes from the 80's that still hold over.

I'm sure some people just see homosexuality as 'disgusting,' and not natural, so they dislike them just for that. Some people see the more flamboyant, throw-it-in-your-face type gay people and dislike all gay people because they feel it's gay people forcing their 'lifestyles' onto them. Some people hear stories about a priest molesting a boy, or something like that, and consequently assume ALL gay people must be that way, and that's wrong, so ALL gay people are wrong because they ALL have those perverted desires.

I could probably go on and on. Probably also in alot of cases, people just simply haven't gotten to normal the everyday gay guy or girl. They believe the stories they read, the stereotypes they hear, etc. You made mention that you have gay friends, so you've probably already seen that they are normal like just about everyone else, so there's really no reason to hate them simply for being gay. Alot of people might not have had that same opportunity yet.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Don't forget the homophobes who sub-conciously have "tendancies" but openly express VEHEMENT distaste for homosexuals in reaction to their own feelings which they have refused to deal with.
Sorry for the endless sentence.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by scottsquared]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
Would someone explain to me how the U.S. Supreme Court can defer to International Law, to strike down Texas's Sodomy Laws...yet sit back, while the Massachutsetts Supreme Court spits on the Defense of Marriage Act?

What's wrong here? (BTW, the Defense of Marriage Act was pushed through by Clinton and IS a standing Federal Law.)


Excuse me?

I will not even comment on the parallel you attempt to do draw between legal issues and court you mention.

But your characterization of the US Supreme Court as sitting back while the (sic) Massachutsetts Supreme Court spits on the Defense of Marriage Act is out of line and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the USSC, legal process and venue.

Carefully listen: The USSC hears cases it selects on issues of federal law. As they say, the issue has yet to mature and therefore no one has yet petitioned the USSC to hear the federal issues of the case( If there is any).

I suggest you bone up on the US Court system. It is a wondrous system of law and justice and something we Americans have right to feel proud of



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne fill childrens' minds with foulness


???

What 'foulness' are you talking about? You've made broad reference to it, but you have narrowed it down. Foulness like teaching children not to hate?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne such as myself, that have stepped up to the plate, accepted responsibility and procreated in order to continue the human race


Good for you. Let's also thank those skanks I see on Maury Povich paying their dues to civilization itself on shows entitled, "Maury I have 18 kids and I wanna know who's the daddy!" In case you haven't realized, it's not as if the human race is about to become extinct. In fact I think we are faced with a doubling of the world's population sometime this century if things keep going the way we are. Considering we have limited resources for the world's population TODAY, much less considering a few decades down the road when we add another couple billion people to the world, I think that pretty much debunks that whole 'procreation so we can continue the human race' idea. Matter of fact, increased procreation will probably cause more problems for mankind in the near future rather than a decrease.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by W_HAMILTON]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join