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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Philalethes
 



...recognized by law...


Do you see that group of words there?


That is the entire problem with this debate.

People think that it is a RIGHT to have their relationship be RECOGNIZED by the government.

IT is not.

But it *IS* a right to *Not* have to ask for PERMISSION from the government in personal matters.

The government does not have the right to recognize relationships.

The homosexual community thinks that they are fighting for their "Rights" but in actuality, they are Fighting for More government control over their lives.

-Edrick




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I honestly expected more effort from you Janky... I really did.


The right to speak freely and call the ceremony MARRIAGE -


First amendment, you can call your ceremony whatever you like...

If you want to call it the "Celestial Alignment precursor to the coming of the Great old ones" then that is up to you.


The pursuit of happiness that such a union might provide to the participants and loved ones.


Whoever said that you couldn't be in union with another?

Homosexuality is not against the law here, neither is same sex cohabitation.


And the liberty to chose who they would like to MARRY


So your love interest is being picked for you, eh?


ALL three fundamental to American liberty

If you are trying to dictate or define these three things for me, then you are trying to impose your ideals on me which is the enemy of freedom.


You clearly have no idea what freedom is my friend, because you are swimming in it, and complaining about your lack of rights to name your "Commitment" ceremony.

-Edrick

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Edrick]


I know exactly what freedom is -



Main Entry: freedom
Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-dəm\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action


www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com...

You guys are not promoting freedom - you are promoting the opposite

In fact you also want to mandate that it is NECESSARY that marriage is defined by a man and a woman. I say there is NO necessity - you can marry ANY human you WISH

YOU are infringing on two parts of freedom

Constraint and placing a mandate on necessity

OPPOSITE of freedom



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

The homosexual community thinks that they are fighting for their "Rights" but in actuality, they are Fighting for More government control over their lives.

-Edrick


That's the biggest issue I have right there. If anyone should be fighting for anything it's all of us fighting to get government out of marriage altogether.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I think it kinda spells it out right there.

Being able to "legally" marry who you please is about as close to the pursuit of happiness as it gets.



You have no idea what you are arguing for.


The pursuit of happiness, YES.


The government APPROVAL of happiness? NO!

THIS is what you want:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the Government approval of Happiness.



Do you get it yet?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


FYI the Declaration of Independence isnt the Bill of Rights.


Thanks for clearing that up for me. I've been alive for 28 years and I just now figured that out.


So since its not the bill of rights, we have no right to the pursuit of life, liberty or happiness.

Thanks for clearing that up also.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



You guys are not promoting freedom - you are promoting the opposite

In fact you also want to mandate that it is NECESSARY that marriage is defined by a man and a woman. I say there is NO necessity - you can marry ANY human you WISH

YOU are infringing on two parts of freedom

Constraint and placing a mandate on necessity

OPPOSITE of freedom


Do not presume to know my intentions here, especially after you have CLEARLY not read ANYTHING that I have posted up to this point.

Makes you look like you are blinded by your emotions.

No one is stopping you, or ANYONE from being in a relationship.

PERIOD.

Do you refute my claim?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Missletow
 


Its the liberals and those for the gay agenda working to put intoo elementary school cirriculum regarding how to properly perform gay sex acts as well as heterosexual ones. That is totally inappropriate.

I have heard those arguments before, but here is the question for you, have you talked to your children about sex, and the consequences for such? When you look at the number of school aged children that are getting pregnant, and ending up with any number of STD's, maybe putting it where the children can read and understand may not be such a bad idea.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I think it kinda spells it out right there.

Being able to "legally" marry who you please is about as close to the pursuit of happiness as it gets.



You have no idea what you are arguing for.


The pursuit of happiness, YES.


The government APPROVAL of happiness? NO!

THIS is what you want:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the Government approval of Happiness.



Do you get it yet?

-Edrick


Once again, you keep playing word games with me.

I'm not arguing for the government approval of anything. But since we apparently have to vote on whether its ok or not for 2 gay people to get married then the government does in fact have to approve it.

We can go back and forth all day. I see your point, that we should be arguing for less government intervention into a personal, private relationship.

But thats not the case at hand. The case in hand is a vote, to allow government approval of gay marriage so that therefore is what I'm arguing about.

Do you get it yet?

If you would like to make a thread where we argue government intervention in our relationships then we can talk about that fact there.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



I see your point, that we should be arguing for less government intervention into a personal, private relationship....

But thats not the case at hand. The case in hand is a vote, to allow government approval of gay marriage so that therefore is what I'm arguing about.


So, what you are saying, is that you understand that government intervention in personal relationships is potentially dangerous, and yet you still want this for people that you are attempting to "Defend"?

That's kinda sick.


If you would like to make a thread where we argue government intervention in our relationships then we can talk about that fact there.


In case you have not noticed... THAT is precisely what this thread is about!


-Edrick

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Janky Red
 



You guys are not promoting freedom - you are promoting the opposite

In fact you also want to mandate that it is NECESSARY that marriage is defined by a man and a woman. I say there is NO necessity - you can marry ANY human you WISH

YOU are infringing on two parts of freedom

Constraint and placing a mandate on necessity

OPPOSITE of freedom


Do not presume to know my intentions here, especially after you have CLEARLY not read ANYTHING that I have posted up to this point.

Makes you look like you are blinded by your emotions.

No one is stopping you, or ANYONE from being in a relationship.

PERIOD.

Do you refute my claim?

-Edrick


Well I assume you are defining the limits of freedom, which is contrary to the concept.

I am not even a slight bit emotional - I would say gay people and anti gay marriage people have an emotional attachment to the issue. I have an intellectual one...

NO I can't refute that, then again you defined the parameters of the question.

My question is why do you feel the government has the right to define that the participants in marriage must be a man and a woman?

This is interfering with peoples happiness, provided people feel happy getting married,
presumably it is an unalienable right here in America.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I am VERY GLAD that you asked this question.


My question is why do you feel the government has the right to define that the participants in marriage must be a man and a woman?


My answer...

No, the government does not get that right.

The government does not HAVE the right to dictate, stipulate, legislate, or adjudicate ANY ASPECT of personal relationships.

The government SANCTION of Personal relationships is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I think you see my point now.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   




E -

Frankly you are trying to use the government and current definitions as a tool
to limit peoples freedom.

You are advocating that the government should have the power to define and uphold the conditions of marriage - once again contrary to the word freedom.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
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?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
You are advocating that the government should have the power to define and uphold the conditions of marriage - once again contrary to the word freedom.



That's just the opposite of what he is arguing.

I'm amazed people still arent getting it. It couldnt be any simpler a concept.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bored To Tears
 


This isn't about "winning" or "losing".

The rights of people should not be UP IN THE AIR FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO DECIDE!

What part of this is hard for you to grasp?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I am VERY GLAD that you asked this question.


My question is why do you feel the government has the right to define that the participants in marriage must be a man and a woman?


My answer...

No, the government does not get that right.

The government does not HAVE the right to dictate, stipulate, legislate, or adjudicate ANY ASPECT of personal relationships.

The government SANCTION of Personal relationships is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I think you see my point now.

-Edrick


But in spirit you are using this SANCTION as a wedge, another benchmark which only
redefines the goal.

But in process, your stance is only used to prevent the goal of gay marriage, because the government sanction of marriage would need to be eliminated.

which would not be supported by people.

The new line in the sand would be "THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO END THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE".

"the humanity!!!!"

YOU damn well know people would not SANCTION THAT... I understand the way it works as do you... You are setting a new goal which would only perpetuate the same practical outcome.

You are spinning rather wildly



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Janky Red
You are advocating that the government should have the power to define and uphold the conditions of marriage - once again contrary to the word freedom.



That's just the opposite of what he is arguing.

I'm amazed people still arent getting it. It couldnt be any simpler a concept.



NO he is saying, "if the government gets out of the business of marriage then gay people can get married"...

What he is not saying is that such a move by the government would be used as a political tool.

"The government is trying to end the institution of marriage"

Which average person would not defend that on principle alone?

SO by default gay people cannot get married, because the government would get hell if they tried to end "marriage".

It would be the next line in the sand -

I think you guys know it too...

Its a wedge - and you guys are going the back route

the outcome would be the same



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



But in spirit you are using this SANCTION as a wedge, another benchmark which only
redefines the goal.

But in process, your stance is only used to prevent the goal of gay marriage, because the government sanction of marriage would need to be eliminated.

which would not be supported by people.

The new line in the sand would be "THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO END THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE".

"the humanity!!!!"

YOU damn well know people would not SANCTION THAT... I understand the way it works as do you... You are setting a new goal which would only perpetuate the same practical outcome.

You are spinning rather wildly


You are hilarious!

Everything in your world hates you doesn't it?


While I feel complimented that you think that my goals and motives are so deviously clandestine and draconian, you couldn't be farther from the truth if you were paid to do so.


You are not Fighting for the right to love, you are fighting for the privileged of a government approved relationship, with benefits.

You are not fighting for "Rights", you are fighting for the government to be in control of your relationship.


You are not fighting for equality... you are fighting for institutionalized slavery.


It is not the government's right to dictate these things.

It is not the governments right to approve or disapprove of these things.

The government has no legal SAY in our personal lives, because it is BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTION!


I'll say it again.... IT IS BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTION


What you are really arguing FOR, is the governments RIGHT to dictate what happens to your collective assets once you "Break" your relationship contract.

You apparently have no idea what government is FOR.


-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:47 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?


Me too

So if someone told you about homosexuality at such an age would you like men now?

Seems to me you are saying the could be a possibility...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
"The government is trying to end the institution of marriage"

Which average person would not defend that on principle alone?




You're probably right. Lord knows the nation is populated by morons and imbeciles who for some reason vote. Look how long it's taking for people here to notice the stupidity of begging the government to tolerate them rather than simply tell the government to f-off. Which is why I never get behind mob rule systems. Even one purportedly buffered and vetted such as this 'republic.'

But in the end which is a better battle to fight and potentially win: increasing government interference in out lives and dragging more slaves into the system or smashing it in it's mouth and freeing us all?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join