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.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by Edrick
Marriage should not be a legal institution.
I agree. That includes EVERYONE.
Originally posted by Nutter
And do you really want to return to the original definition of "marriage"?
For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.
Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Bored To Tears
LOL, I know. I was just trying to indicate that I wasn't intending to be as hostile to the poster you were originally responding to.
Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?
Originally posted by Bored To Tears
I figured I had better clarify it so that he didn't get his panties in a bunch.
As you can see after my clarification the figure of speech went way over his head.
There's a few other things that marriage effects that simply isn't covered in a civil union. If a partner is sick, the other may not be able to visit (just one example).
It also effect things from pay to insurance.
there is a pay gap between married folks and the unmarried counterpart.
Here's a link with a few other examples:
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by IAF101
I wonder how that high divorce rate works out for the much-touted (but oh so overrated) nuclear family unit?
Let's just face it: This is an issue best left up to the courts, not the ignorant masses.
But this IS a representative democracy with majority rule (in spite of what BH says above). And majority rule only works for you as long as you agree with the outcome, such as obama's election? Hypocrisy alert!
Ignorant masses? Is everyone that doesn't agree with your own "exalted" points of view a member of the "ignorant masses"?
But I can guess why you want the courts to handle this issue. They've been filled with liberal judges that feel that they should legislate from the bench on issues that liberals can't get voters to approve.
[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]
Originally posted by Bored To Tears
reply to post by Janitor From Mars
Leave it up to the courts so that they can pass things that the majority doesn't agree with?
Funny how everyone wants the government to stay out of our lives, but when things don't go the way we want them we want them to step in.
Originally posted by centurion1211
I your statement was correct, the group or candidate with the least votes on any issue would be declared the winner of an election.
[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]
Originally posted by centurion1211
And if they want to hide behind the "equal protection clause", it is there to protect the majority from special interest groups and the opinions of small minorities just as much as it is there to protect those groups.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?
I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.
Originally posted by sos37
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?
I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.
Would you still feel that way had the majority voted in favor of gay marriage?
2nd line.
Originally posted by LostNemesis
Originally posted by IAF101
At least the heterosexual family can produce offspring and further the human species- something a homosexual couple could never do by themselves ever!
[edit on 4-11-2009 by IAF101]
You make it sound like reproducing is a good thing? Just cause an idiot has the ability to knock up another idiot, doesn't mean they should have at it. When gays marry, nobody but them must deal with the 'consequences'.
When heterosexuals breed out of control, we all must put up with the loud, disgusting offspring wherever we go.
What is so magnificent about one human suing another for half of their paycheck for the rest of their natural lives, just because they forgot a condom one night?
As for the courts... Who do YOU believe should decide who can marry who, the CHURCH?? Gotta be kidding. The church needs to be painfully KICKED out of our social issues.
Nobody should decide who can marry who, except for those getting married. In a case like this, since RELIGION has claimed all rights to the word 'marriage', let's get the state out of it and make sure that 'Marriage' is nothing but a religious ceremony. For anyone who wants their relationship to be recognized by the state/insurance/etc... We should call it a 'Civil Union' or something, whether homo or hetero.
This way the church can KEEP their prejudiced Jesus-worshipping ceremonies to themselves. The state cannot regulate religious-types. Religious-types cannot regulate the rest of us. It's a Win-Win.
[edit on 4-11-2009 by LostNemesis]
Originally posted by Bored To Tears
reply to post by jimmyx
You hit the nail on the head, congrats.
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by centurion1211
Oh, and you do understand that the idea of marriage being between a man an a woman predates our government - in fact all governments and religions by thousands of years.
Really? Care to back up that statement?
And do you really want to return to the original definition of "marriage"?
For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.
Monogamy as a Best Response
In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy. The selection factors in favor of different mating strategies for a species of animal, however, may potentially operate on a large number of factors throughout that animal's life cycle. For instance, with many species of bear, the female will often drive a male off soon after mating, and will later guard her cubs from him similar to that of other animals after they are born. It is thought that this might be due to fact that too many bears in close proximity to one another may deplete an area of food resources for the relatively small but growing cubs. Monogamy could be social but rarely genetic. Thierry Lodé[16] argued that monogamy should result from conflict of interest between the sexes called sexual conflict. Organized from territory defense and mate guarding, monogamy appears as a response of male for the control of female sexuality, but exclusive monogamy would be rare and the biological evolution would privilege the diversity of sexual behaviors.
Originally posted by sos37
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?
I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.
Would you still feel that way had the majority voted in favor of gay marriage?
2nd line.