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: 21
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by northof8
I have no problem controlling the gays through the ballot box. They are the ones who initiate the measures and then act surprised when they are defeated. It's almost like that is their plan. Perpetual victimization seems to be the goal here.. I am more than happy to accommodate the gays in their goal. You are now controlled in Maine. Care to try another state?

And don't think for one minute like I said in a previous post that your straight friends are not voting against you because they are. What is funny is you believe the lip service they give you.


The real laughter is gonna be history laughing at you, you don't get it...
These kids are gonna get this world, you seem to have NO clue as to the popular
attitudes, they don't care what color you are or what type of tail you are after.
Not even mentioning that being gay is considered "cool" these days. The stigma has been broken and its a matter of time.

I have two younger sisters who live in the most conservative area of this state, I often take them and their friends out to do fun things.
These kids comes from the most conservative families and they would PONCE on you
for your views provided mother and father were not around. They go to church and text their gay friends while doing so... past the point of arguing my thoughts on the issue,
I am just informing you, you are thinking like the old school, whos ideas get taken to the trash while they are rocking in a chair waiting to go...




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Transhumanist
 


I can't believe that you actually want to go down this road...



I did quote you and my entire post was an argument to your notion that legalizing gay marriage will lead to federal tyranny and that gay marriage should not be a legal institution.


THE QUOTE YOU WERE REFERRING TO:

The POINT of government is clearly written in the constitution... and if we start granting the Federal government more and more powers... then... well, lets see... The size of government will bloat. The overall cost of maintaining government will increase. The hubris of our elected officials will rise. The economy will be siphoned of all of its resources by the increased size of the governemnt...


THE CONTEXT OF THAT QUOTE THAT YOU CONVIENIENTLY NEGLECTED TO INCLUDE:


...and must say that indeed the removal of any special legal status for marriage is the most effective and complete way to ensure that all people have "equal rights" in regards to marriage.



That is the entire point.

The POINT of government is clearly written in the constitution... and if we start granting the Federal government more and more powers... then... well, lets see...

The size of government will bloat.
The overall cost of maintaining government will increase.
The hubris of our elected officials will rise.
The economy will be siphoned of all of its resources by the increased size of the governemnt...


As you can see, I was clearly referring to the ENTIRE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.

So, Your point is trite.


You didn't respond to anything in my post besides my justified accusations of prejudice. Try responding to the rest of my post.


...


For the sake of my point, I think it's clear from these videos that same sex marriage has had no real effect on the lives of straight couples or individuals in Canada. Why do you expect it will be any different here?


I don't...

I'm arguing against the institution of marriage, INCLUDING GAY MARRIAGE.


You will still have the same right to your bigotry and to indoctrinate your children with the belief that homosexuality and same sex marriage is wrong as you have always had.


This is your accusation of prejudice that I was referring to.

IT is not justified because I am against the institution of marriage, and not just a specific FORM of it.

That is your presumption alone.


This will not effect any of your freedoms or your personal moral and ethical choices.


I am arguing this from a constitutional sense, that the government has no place in our relationships.

it has nothing to do with morals or ethics...


Your children will still have a right to think critically for themselves and make the personal choice as to whether homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong.


Once again... I am against the Legal institution of marriage as a whole, not just a certain persuasion of marriage.


That is what we really need to focus on here. You will always have your choice. You would no longer be able to make that choice for other people and that is the way it should be. I have many gay friends and hanging out with them has neither morally corrupted me or made me gay. I am proud to be a straight individual. I am also proud that my friends freely represent the human beings they were born to be.


This entire emotional appeal has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.


I personally don't think it is right for Christians to pursue their anti gay agenda but I wouldn't in my dreams attempt to force them to keep it to their selves. It's their right to be prejudiced.


Neither does this.


So tell me specifically just how would a gay couple down the street from you that decided to marry effect your life in any way?


I would be obliged to provide tax dollars for their government enforced marriage benefits, as with straight marriages.

I would feel sorry for them that their relationship is subject to government approval.

I would feel obligated to inform them that should they decide to separate, the government has the authority to do with their possessions as it chooses... as per their "Marriage Contract"


Tell your kids it's wrong. Tell the couple you think it's wrong. But don't think for a second that you can control their lives.


I know I can't... I'm just trying to make sure that the Government doesn't either.



THAT is why I did not respond to your post...


YOU were responding to what you THOUGHT I said, as opposed to WHAT I SAID.


Pay closer attention next time, would you?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
So you actually having nothing against gay marriage you just have a gripe with the institution of marriage? I would agree that the government shouldn't have a say in marriage but what are you suggesting exactly? Doing away with marriage?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I still think that people are opposing this only because it makes them feel scared and uncomfortable. they can choose to hide that little fact with any piece of "evidence" or argument that they can find. but at the end of the day times are changing and the world is moving forward and these people are phobic of change and progress. gay marriage has absolutely ZERO effect on the people who are opposed to it. I cant understand why people would be so opposed to something that has no affect at all on their daily life...aside from maybe seeing a gay couple out in public. ALL gay people want is the right to be legally married in their country. and it has been denied time and time again. why? why is it so important to make sure that gays arent granted the right to marry? why does it matter TO YOU if they are married or not? and i dont want to hear any long winded posts on how its immoral or unethical or deviant...none of that has to do with why it matters to YOU. why cant people just leave them be and let them live the way they want to live? they're happy...is that the problem? are people jealous of their obvious happiness in their choices? are people jealous of their confidence and their courage to be who they are? why does it matter to YOU personally...if gay people can marry?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
So you actually having nothing against gay marriage you just have a gripe with the institution of marriage? I would agree that the government shouldn't have a say in marriage but what are you suggesting exactly? Doing away with marriage?


I am suggesting doing away with all LEGAL connotations of marriage.

I don't care if people hook up, pledge themselves to each other, have ceremonies, etc...

But they should not involve the Government in their personal relationships.

That sets a dangerous precedent in Government-Citizen relationships.

The Government is supposed to see us all as individuals, despite our personal relationships.


-Edrick



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   



I am suggesting doing away with all LEGAL connotations of marriage.

I don't care if people hook up, pledge themselves to each other, have ceremonies, etc...

But they should not involve the Government in their personal relationships.

That sets a dangerous precedent in Government-Citizen relationships.

The Government is supposed to see us all as individuals, despite our personal relationships.


-Edrick


Doing away with all legal connotations of marriage actually sounds to me like an idea that could work. Let people just be together and be happy together without the politics behind it all. not a bad idea at all



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
There would be a few benefits you would lose in that process




Marriage Rights and Benefits Learn some of the legal and practical ways that getting married changes your life. Whether or not you favor marriage as a social institution, there's no denying that it confers many rights, protections, and benefits -- both legal and practical. Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities. * Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members. Estate Planning Benefits * Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. * Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts. * Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf. Government Benefits * Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses. * Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans. * Receiving public assistance benefits. Employment Benefits * Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer. * Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness. * Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. * Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies. Medical Benefits * Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. * Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment. Death Benefits * Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures. * Making burial or other final arrangements. Family Benefits * Filing for stepparent or joint adoption. * Applying for joint foster care rights. * Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce. * Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce. Housing Benefits * Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only." * Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse. Consumer Benefits * Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance. * Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities. * Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families. Other Legal Benefits and Protections * Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy). * Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states). * Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage. * Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime. * Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse. * Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.


www.nolo.com...

[edit on 5-11-2009 by The Transhumanist]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
So you actually having nothing against gay marriage you just have a gripe with the institution of marriage? I would agree that the government shouldn't have a say in marriage but what are you suggesting exactly? Doing away with marriage?


I am suggesting doing away with all LEGAL connotations of marriage.

I don't care if people hook up, pledge themselves to each other, have ceremonies, etc...

But they should not involve the Government in their personal relationships.

That sets a dangerous precedent in Government-Citizen relationships.

The Government is supposed to see us all as individuals, despite our personal relationships.


-Edrick


In fairness isn't that the state of affairs? So your opposition based exclusively on this notion?

Answer me this as I will ask again - Do you think the PUBLIC would support the government dismantling the current notion of marriage?

I say hell no, no politician would touch it and walk

if you agree with the NO assessment - all hands are tied says you?

BTW danger of marriage and all of that -

Please provide 1 source that reports on a death or injury linked to government role in the marriage institution, please.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matt_Mason

Yes, I knew that too . . .


I've discussed in-depth my political views - one time - with one person - on one website - not ATS. If you are not that person - you are not informed.

I support Full Equal Rights - and NO Religion in Government.

Maine's vote was 53% to 47%. This is a very close vote. As I've read - the Catholic church did what the Mormon church did in California.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by The Transhumanist
 



Filing joint income tax returns


Incorporate


Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.


Tax laws need major revamping anyways... they are hardly equitable.


Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples


One does not need to be a "Couple" to create a life estate trust... and any exceptions can be changed as well.


Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse


Living Will.


Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.


Yeah... this one bugs me...

Social security pays out until you die... Naming a spouse (Survivor) effectively cheats the "Until you Die" part of that payout.


Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.


You see what I mean now, about Married people having more rights than single people?

The institution itself (Legally) is discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

........



@Janky Red


In fairness isn't that the state of affairs? So your opposition based exclusively on this notion?


As The Transhumanist has shown above, the government has its fingers ALL IN the "Sacred Vows of Marriage"

My opposition to the "Legal" construct of Marriage is based upon this discrimination.


Answer me this as I will ask again - Do you think the PUBLIC would support the government dismantling the current notion of marriage?


Some of them, yes.

A Majority? At the present? Probably not... not enough people know about it, which is why I am spreading my perspective on the matter.

You would be amazed at the opposition that I receive to, for all intents and purposes, holding true to the original purpose of the constitution.


I say hell no, no politician would touch it and walk


That is true of many other noble endeavors that get absolutely ZERO consideration from our elected officials.


if you agree with the NO assessment - all hands are tied says you?


Not sure I get what you mean here.


Please provide 1 source that reports on a death or injury linked to government role in the marriage institution, please.



Nonononononno.... it doesn't work like that.

The damage would not be Physical, it would be financial, and legal.

I got a real good example though.

Take Mel Gibson... his divorce?

$500 million dollar payment to his ex wife, on government order.

Half of his net worth, taken from him, because he legally joined himself to someone else, and then they decide that his money is now her money.


Pretty soon, it is going to be relationship taxes... ya know?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
You are arguing that marriage discriminates against singles?

If you are a house wife, your husband is the breadwinner and he dies, so you receive his social security for a while. I don't really see the issue here. You can pick and choose individual benefits that may or may not make sense. I agree with you that the Mel Gibson example is ridiculous but it's not like prenuptial agreements can't protect you from something like that.

Are you married? If not I'm sure after reaping the benefits of marriage you might at least have a partial change of heart.

As for it being unconstitutional...just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it is unconstitutional. Credit default swaps and derivatives aren't in there either and it doesn't make them illegal or unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


I understand that you have been arguing against the entire institution of marriage as a legal entity, and to a certain extent I actually agree with you. However, that was not the issue raised by the initial post on this thread, and it seems to me that now that you have made this point, that to continue to restate it is dangerously close to just repeating a bunch of off-topic posts.

Why not start a different thread arguing that the best way to handle the gay marriage issue is to abandon marriage as a legal construct?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Unfortunatley this is the sand "of the people". If there were so many who thought gay people can be as miserable as anyone else where where they at voting time??? Like in California... every marched and supported gay people... But they forgot to vote? This is democracy in action.... and gay people dont like it. Maybe they should go to another country where it is legal then if it is so important.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Here's a question: If you support gay marriage, will you support lifting the ban on polygamy?



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by justinsweatt
Here's a question: If you support gay marriage, will you support lifting the ban on polygamy?



Yes - absolutely!

I actually support polygamy. In my opinion - it is a more natural way of companionship and family - - - only when it is matriarchal. I do not support women subserviant to men - - unless it is truly their choice.

I fully support CONSENTING adults in what ever type relationship that is best for them.

NOTE: forced marriage or arranged marriage of underaged girls is a separate issue.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


Absolutely would support lifting the ban on polygamy. As I stated in an earlier post - we are not designed for monogamy. It is an artificial social construct which runs counter to human nature.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by justinsweatt
 

yep, I agree with lifting the ban on polygamy as well
love is love, and all sorts of relationships can fulfill the requirements or functions of "family".
The important factors are "willingness/consent" of all parties, and functionality in terms of everyone benefiting.
The term "marriage" should also be used in these circumstances. I am not sure what term would apply to the relationship between the multiple wives, or between the multiple husbands; perhaps something novel like "in-law" would have to be tacked onto the word "spouse".



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Cool.....I was just wondering.

I'm all for Gay Marriage by the way, I was just thinking out of the box and thinking of other scenarios here as well.

By the way, I am a Christian and a devout Constitution supporter and it is my opinion that not allowing Gay Marriage infringes on the 13th Amendment. Just saying my opinion is all in case anyone was wondering. I'm all for limiting the power of the federal government and as a conservative I don't find it in the state's interest to recognize or be aware of whatever personal relationship you would like to have.



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by total_slacker
reply to post by justinsweatt
 


Absolutely would support lifting the ban on polygamy. As I stated in an earlier post - we are not designed for monogamy. It is an artificial social construct which runs counter to human nature.



YES! Exactly!

OK - someone needs to start a thread on polygamy now. Geeze - it is sometimes hard to stay on topic.

Question 1 Funded Mostly by Churches - By Julie Bolcer

A report from the National Institute for Money in State Politics shows that support for Question 1, the ballot initiative that repealed Maine's same-sex marriage law, came predominantly from churches and related conservative organizations. Question 1 backers raised nearly $3.4 million, compared to almost $5.7 million raised by opponents, who lost the vote 53% to 47%.

www.advocate.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   


Unfortunatley this is the sand "of the people". If there were so many who thought gay people can be as miserable as anyone else where where they at voting time??? Like in California... every marched and supported gay people... But they forgot to vote? This is democracy in action.... and gay people dont like it. Maybe they should go to another country where it is legal then if it is so important.


Because that would be throwing up the white flag and walking away. America symbolizes fighting for your rights against all odds. This is a lot deeper than just the right to marry. They could always move to another state for that. It is symbolic of equality and freedom for just about the last reaming minority group that is still legally discriminated against. If you don't like gay people fighting for their rights you could always move to Afghanistan.




Here's a question: If you support gay marriage, will you support lifting the ban on polygamy?


No because of all the benefits I posted above. If a husband dies should 16 different wives all receive social security? I don't have any problem with someone having an open relationship with multiple spouses but being legally married would be a huge strain on the system.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join