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.

 

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   




The fact that you are defining the terms of government for me is rather authoritative.

If everyone had the same notion of government we would not need elections would we?

SO,,, under what conditions could GAY people get married???

What process would have to take place for that possibility to take on a reality?

And institutionalized slavery?

BTW you don't have get personal



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Janky Red
 


LMAO, nice try. What I am saying is that kids below a certain age don't know any better and they experiment. Me and my babysitters daughters did all kind of fun things together when I was 7 and they were 10-12, but luckily we weren't educated in the matter.

I don't kow about you but I don't want my son getting lessons on how to be real good at blowing off the kid down the street. Kds get bored and are curious. I don't want them getting tired of playing hot wheels one afternoon and try out their gay education on one another. Stuff happens wth kids but I dont want them doing it beaue they learned how to swallow at school.


I mean come on though -

Did you ever feel inclined to be intimate with a dude? NO right...

In fact it probably repulses you right -

So why do you think it does not repulse a kid in the same way?

I know I wouldn't have blown off anything at any time in my life.

However I had a friend from when I was 5 who seemed to be keen to and he grew up to be gayer than Richard Simmons. He never convinced me to do squat, I would have knocked the sense right back into him, naturally, not knowing crap about gayness.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



BTW you don't have get personal


Twas not my intention, but if that is how you see it, then I apologize.


The fact that you are defining the terms of government for me is rather authoritative.


So I am an authority figure then, am I?


SO,,, under what conditions could GAY people get married???


You.... uhm.... pledge to love each other, eternal loyalty, flowers, ritual, all that jazz.

*POOF* Married.

Having the word "Married" or "Marriage" carry legal connotations is dangerous and should be abolished.


What process would have to take place for that possibility to take on a reality?


We the people growing a backbone and deciding that WE don't need the Government, but it is the Government that needs us.


And institutionalized slavery?


you are giving the government power to act upon your "Relationship" with judicial and executive powers, at its discretion.

This is not slavery?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Good Debate guys!!!

All of you -

Best one in a while

This what America needs

thanks all

will be back to battle

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Janky Red]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I am not against sex education. I am against sex education for k-3 rd graders and I am against people teaching my kids how to perform gay sex acts. Savvy?

Yes and no. Yes I do believe that sex education is age appropirate and children should be taught about such, but at the same time, they need to know the TRUTH about all of sex, not just between a man and a woman, but also that of the same sex. Children are going to explore and experiment with such, no matter what you or anyone says, that is a part of growing up.
CDC: Nineteen (19) million new STD infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.
ASHA: One in two sexually active youth will contract an STD by age 25.
ASHA: Forty percent (40%) of older adolescents surveyed by the Kaiser Family Foundation incorrectly believe that the contraceptive “pill” and “shot” protect against STDs and HIV.
ASHA: Some young people, including those who had abstinence education, consider oral and anal sex to be abstinent behaviors and do not realize these behaviors present risks of STD transmission
Education Department: Researchers and social scientists suggest that 1 to 3 of every 10 students is either gay or lesbian, or has an immediate family member who is. Thus, between 3 and 9 kids in every class of 30 has had some direct experience with the issues of homosexuality and homophobia.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 





Education Department: Researchers and social scientists suggest that 1 to 3 of every 10 students is either gay or lesbian, or has an immediate family member who is. Thus, between 3 and 9 kids in every class of 30 has had some direct experience with the issues of homosexuality and homophobia.



Liberal horse crap meant to justify it. If I don't want my kid learning about gay sex acts then that is my damn business. Not all of us think our kids should be taught that choosing the gay lifestyle is an equal choice to choosing a straight one.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The thing about this that bothers me is that it is intrinsic that gay people should have the ability to take advantage of the legal benefits of being "married'. The government is obligated to do no less in the service of its citizens.

There is absolutely no real reason for anyone to oppose this legal arrangement or status. People want to get all sanctimonious about it, but the fact is all they are really looking to do is deprive someone else of their rights. The fact that they show an alarming interest in depriving others of a legal status and benefits while at the same time allowing and ignoring the ease of divorce bears this out.

They use the same tired old argument on this "Marriage is sacred its an affront to God". Yet turn around and treat it as nothing when they get tired of their spouse for whatever reason they choose to, which in itself is in direct contrast to Jesus' own teachings, go figure.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
Good Debate guys!!!


Seems you missed my reply, an honest mistake no doubt. I feel all left out and sad
...

so I'll link you to it.

My Reply for the Straight Guy



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 



The thing about this that bothers me is that it is intrinsic that gay people should have the ability to take advantage of the legal benefits of being "married'. The government is obligated to do no less in the service of its citizens.

There is absolutely no real reason for anyone to oppose this legal arrangement or status.


And why exactly should they get to pay less taxes than a single person?

Is that not discrimination?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


they dont being "married" puts them in the same tax category of a normal married couple who typically pay more tax in the form of the marriage penalty.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 





Education Department: Researchers and social scientists suggest that 1 to 3 of every 10 students is either gay or lesbian, or has an immediate family member who is. Thus, between 3 and 9 kids in every class of 30 has had some direct experience with the issues of homosexuality and homophobia.



Liberal horse crap meant to justify it. If I don't want my kid learning about gay sex acts then that is my damn business. Not all of us think our kids should be taught that choosing the gay lifestyle is an equal choice to choosing a straight one.

I feel sorry for your children, as the numbers do not lie. Your children, at some point in their life, is going to come in contact with those who are gay, or who meets another with a family member who is gay.
Being gay is not about choice, it is how you are born, some people just do not get excited by being with members of the opposite sex. And if your attitude towards homosexuals is that of homophobia, then I would love to be the fly on the wall when one of them proclaims themself as such, or has to go to the hospital cause they had unprotected sex, or got hurt while experimenting and it was from having sex with another of the same sex?
But if that does not sway you, then consider this statistic from the US Department of Health and Human Services: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that "as many as 30% of completed youth suicides each year" are performed by gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, many information sources have quoted the 30% as if it is an absolute figure. The Department indicates that it is 30% or fewer. If we assume that the 30% figure is valid and that it is constant across the age range of 15 to 24 years, then approximately 1,488 suicides per year are committed by homosexual youth. If we assume that gays comprise 5% of the total number of youth, then the 1,488 suicides represent an excess of 1240 suicides related to their sexual orientation.
(Side note, don't have more than 5 kids, cause based off of those numbers, one is bound to be gay.)
But we digress from the original topic. If you do not agree with 2 people of the same sex from being married, what is to stop us from enacting laws that separate or even prevent people who are not of the same skin color from marring or having children? Or even though who are of different religions from marrying and having children?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 



People want to get all sanctimonious about it, but the fact is all they are really looking to do is deprive someone else of their rights.


We already had that discussion... they are not rights.


The fact that they show an alarming interest in depriving others of a legal status and benefits


Legal status is not an intrinsic human right.


while at the same time allowing and ignoring the ease of divorce bears this out.


Their divorces should not be wasting taxpayer dollars either.


They use the same tired old argument on this "Marriage is sacred its an affront to God". Yet turn around and treat it as nothing when they get tired of their spouse for whatever reason they choose to, which in itself is in direct contrast to Jesus' own teachings, go figure.


Separation of church and state...

Government has no position on faith.

It is easy to attempt to hold an argument, or voice an opinion when you say nothing more than emotionally laden words that do not discuss the logistics of marriage at all.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 



they dont being "married" puts them in the same tax category of a normal married couple who typically pay more tax in the form of the marriage penalty.


Ok, I'll bite...


What "Inalienable" rights are we denying to people who seek same sex marriage?

Be specific.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

No one is being threatened with incarceration, death, reduction of freedom or having their property taken away because of this vote.



Actually people are being deprived of property and life. If someone has a significant other for 25, 30 or 40 years, and they do. That person should receive all the same benefits as if married. That person should be able to make medical decisions for their partner. No one should have to be someone's partner for life and still treated like a wayward roommate when it comes to making decisions. It is just wrong.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



That person should be able to make medical decisions for their partner.


Make a Living will...

You see?

its not that hard to change things, without involving the government.

Oh, and by the way... it is not a right to make medical decisions for another.

-Edrick

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



Actually people are being deprived of property and life. If someone has a significant other for 25, 30 or 40 years, and they do. That person should receive all the same benefits as if married. That person should be able to make medical decisions for their partner. No one should have to be someone's partner for life and still treated like a wayward roommate when it comes to making decisions. It is just wrong.


Just a curious question.

Couldn't a person just draw up something like a living will and name who has the say so on their medical conditions?

And can't a person put down anybody as their beneficiary on their benefits?

Not stirring the pot, just curious questions when I read your post.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


So the people who have adopted are not parents? They are not carrying on hu an race?
they way I see it, they are going out of their way to make sure that the human race is being carried on by caring and raising those who others couldn't.

And gays are going to adopt.

Now what about those people who decide NOT to have children? Does that mean their marriages are not legitimate?

What about married people conceiving another child out of marriage? What about people who had children before getting married by someone else?

Guess what, the whol pro creation thing isn't such a neat little package between two married people.

This bunk about procreation is just that..bunk.

Marriage is about a legal union between two people. The government has to intervene when it comes to inheritance, divorce, and division of property when one person has moved on. It has nothign to do with ensuring procreation. The way I see it, gays can divorce and die just like any heterosexual. So why should the legal contract be withheld solely based on gender of the partners?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_noxThe government has to intervene when it comes to inheritance, divorce, and division of property when one person has moved on. It has nothign to do with ensuring procreation. The way I see it, gays can divorce and die just like any heterosexual. So why should the legal contract be withheld solely based on gender of the partners?


If the government is intervening you didnt take care of your own house and have royally screwed up. Wills exist for a reason.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



So the people who have adopted are not parents? They are not carrying on hu an race?
they way I see it, they are going out of their way to make sure that the human race is being carried on by caring and raising those who others couldn't.

And gays are going to adopt.


Adoption is *NOT* a right.


The government has to intervene...


This is where you are mistaken.

This is not the governments jurisdiction, AT ALL.

The government is not your parent... deal with it.

-Edrick



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join