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.
...recognized by law...
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]
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
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
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.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of the Government approval of Happiness.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by ThaLoccster
FYI the Declaration of Independence isnt the Bill of Rights.
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
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.
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
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.
If you would like to make a thread where we argue government intervention in our relationships then we can talk about that fact there.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?