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.

 

Challenge of same-sex marriage ban begins in Calif.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


That's exactly what happened in Canada. Gay's are married/"unioned" by a Justice of the Peace (Judge) and are recognized as if they were married in a union of faith. All the good stuff and all the bad, all come along with that union.

If the church, mosque, synagog, or whatever temple doesn't want to recognize gay "marriage", "unions", or whatever title you want to give it, then so be it. We must not forget that church and state are completely separate entities.

As for the wording of the act of 2 people loving each other and wanting to live happily with legal rights as such, what is it to anyone? Will your marriage, or union, or whatever suffer or mean less? Will you love your wife or husband less because 2 guys or 2 girls are also married? If you don't like it, then shut your eyes as you pass by city hall and let people be happy.

Peace,

Magnum




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by truth_of_truth
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


no one should stand in the way of two people who love eachother from gettin married


So I should be able to marry my mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, etc?

How about a 12 year old?

How about multiple people?

Multiple family members?

Multiple 12 year olds?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Don't you live in a "free country"? Shouldn't you be able to do what you want? Here's one that will stir the pot a little...

Go back, oh let's say, 200 years... Women were married by the age of 14 or soon after their puberty started... Why you ask? Because they were ready to have children. Society has decided that women should not have children before a certain age, not biology...

And that religion of yours that says that it's not ok for 2 men to marry, well it also says that it's ok for old men to touch little boys if you are preaching that religion... At least it says it by its actions, or lack of...

Peace,

Magnum

[edit on 10/1/11 by Magnum007]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Don't you live in a "free country"? Shouldn't you be able to do what you want? Here's one that will stir the pot a little...


There is no such thing as a totally free country.

There must be laws, or society dives down into complete chaos.

Look at Somalia, for instance. Perfect world, huh.



Go back, oh let's say, 200 years... Women were married by the age of 14 or soon after their puberty started... Why you ask? Because they were ready to have children. Society has decided that women should not have children before a certain age, not biology...




This was to have a greater impact on society. Women who marry later, generally have kids later in life, have received an education, and are in a position to support themselves and their child. It is also safer to give birth to children after the teen years.

Society also says that they do not want two people of the same sex called a married couple.

Why?

What impact will it have on society and marriage as a whole? How will this benefit society?



And that religion of yours that says that it's not ok for 2 men to marry, well it also says that it's ok for old men to touch little boys if you are preaching that religion... At least it says it by its actions, or lack of...

Peace,

Magnum

[edit on 10/1/11 by Magnum007]


Hrmm

1.) No where did I say I was Catholic. I used to be Baptist . . . now I am non-denominational.

2.) No where in the Bible does it say it is okay to touch little boys. Even so, the amount of priests that molested children account for about 4% of the total amount of priests.

Way to make two totally baseless assumptions and generalizations, making yourself look like an ass in the process.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Magnum007 reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Society also says that they do not want two people of the same sex called a married couple. Why? What impact will it have on society and marriage as a whole? How will this benefit society?

And that religion of yours that says that it's not ok for 2 men to marry, well it also says that it's ok for old men to touch little boys if you are preaching that religion... At least it says it by its actions, or lack of... Peace, Magnum [edit on 10/1/11 by Magnum007]
Hrmm 1.) No where did I say I was Catholic. I used to be Baptist . . . now I am non-denominational. 2.) No where in the Bible does it say it is okay to touch little boys. Even so, the amount of priests that molested children account for about 4% of the total amount of priests. Way to make two totally baseless assumptions and generalizations, making yourself look like an ass in the process.





Society says it doesn't want 2 people of the same sex married; according to who? Is that an assumption?

How will marriage between man and woman benefit society compared to a marriage between man and a man, or woman and a woman?

And BTW I wasn't talking about the bible when I said it was supposedly ok to touch little boys... Notice the line after that said something like "At least it says it by its actions, or lack of...".

One more question... Are you making up statistics about sexual abuse cases in the church? 4%? Where did you get that?

Peace,

Magnum



[edit on 10/1/12 by Magnum007]

[edit on 10/1/12 by Magnum007]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007




Society says it doesn't want 2 people of the same sex married; according to who? Is that an assumption?


The voters . . . derr


How will marriage between man and woman benefit society compared to a marriage between man and a man, or woman and a woman?


Are you that dense?

Seriously . . .

CHILDREN


And BTW I wasn't talking about the bible when I said it was supposedly ok to touch little boys... Notice the line after that said something like "At least it says it by its actions, or lack of...".


Yeah . . . you did not say it, but it was obviously implied.


One more question... Are you making up statistics about sexual abuse cases in the church? 4%? Where did you get that?
. . .



--US clerics (priests, deacons, bishops, etc.) accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
--

Link

An anti-catholic site, if I might add.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Really? It doesn't matter. The fact remains that ignorent bigots are discriminating against a group of individuals. This is no different than if the government out lawed a type of religion.

In X amount of years when this is said and done and gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else our children, grand children or great grand children will look back and shake their heads at us for being no naive.

In reality, this prop only passed because almost half the state of California has been indoctrinated by a hateful group of religious fanatics. And I'm not an athiest or an agnostic... so lets not assume I don't believe in God. I just don't believe God is hateful like humanity is.

We do not follow in his footsteps like we like to say we do.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   

How will marriage between man and woman benefit society compared to a marriage between man and a man, or woman and a woman?


*Are you that dense?

Seriously . . .

CHILDREN*

...And what do we do with the Hetero people who have children who DON'T 'benefit' society?,Or don't have children at all?!...

...Quality,Not Quantity...LMFAO

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Rory27]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenic
Really? It doesn't matter. The fact remains that ignorent bigots are discriminating against a group of individuals. This is no different than if the government out lawed a type of religion.


Be careful how you label those who oppose Gay Marriage. There is a big difference between opposing Gay Marriage and hating or even disliking people with a different sexual orientation. Yes, there are a minority of people that do hate, but they are present in all regions of the globe.


In X amount of years when this is said and done and gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else our children, grand children or great grand children will look back and shake their heads at us for being no naive.


Humans will always look back on history and place their faces in their palms. Experience and Hindsight are beautiful things. The thing is people of all sexual orientations have the same rights. Are heterosexuals allowed to marry members of the same sex? How about bisexuals? Transsexuals? Hermaphrodites? All are free to marry members of the opposite sex, because marriage is the union between two members of the opposite sex.


In reality, this prop only passed because almost half the state of California has been indoctrinated by a hateful group of religious fanatics. And I'm not an athiest or an agnostic... so lets not assume I don't believe in God. I just don't believe God is hateful like humanity is.

We do not follow in his footsteps like we like to say we do.


That is your opinion. Ask yourself this: is Gay Marriage so wide spread and socially acceptable around the world? Aren't Western countries in general more open and tolerant towards people of differing sexual orientations? (Excluding the minority that hate all non-heterosexuals.) You don't need to be any more of an atheist to believe in Gay Marriage than you do a Christian to oppose them. There are some things that feel innately wrong and some things that feel innately right. I guess it is a matter of perspective.

[edit on 12/1/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by truth_of_truth
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


no one should stand in the way of two people who love eachother from gettin married


So, if Bob and Jill are married, and Bob wants to marry Susan, no one should stand in their way, right? How about if Jill wants to marry Gwen? Where do you draw the line? How about lowering the age of consent to 1, otherwise you may be discriminating against those young people because of their age. How about ..... a slippery slope. Are you sure you want to begin moving more and more standards out of place? Especially standards that have been in place since the beginning of recorded history? California has a strong gay political influence, and the average gay has a higher than average income to pay the politicians. Is it any surprise that these perverted people want to push their perversion onto others? They are pushy and often violent, so it's not a one-way street by any means.

There are special interest groups that ignore the will of the voters. They also have the judicial system in their pocket, too. It's not about good laws or what's right and wrong, it's about who can influence who to make laws change. California can't even balance a budget, get a budget on time, or keep itself out of bankruptcy. The Californians that work hard and teach their kids right from wrong are generally ignored. I'm not even sure the voting system in California is honest. I find it hard to believe that a large Christian population would vote for gay marriage.

I think that the judicial system needs the voters to overhaul it, too, if they can keep turning over the will of the people. It's time to make some changes.

Prop 8 was ***and amendment to the Constitution**** of California. Are you telling me that the courts, which are supposed to uphold the Constitution, are allowed to change the Constitution? It was overturned once, because it was only a law. ***We wrote it into the Constitution so it could not be changed by the courts.*** What else can we do? How can they change the Constitution in a courtroom? We, the people, decide what laws we want, and what laws are fair.



[edit on 1/12/2010 by Jim Scott]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


So the voting system is corrupt but resulted in something that you favor? Make up your mind.

If it's not fair, it's obviously working in your interest and not the gay community. And, your judgement of gay people is wrong. You must understand that religion is outdated trash meant to control the masses. It's full of disgusting lies about impending doom and acceptable moral standards that its own practitioners cannot even follow. You might be surprised to know that christianity stems from Paganism - Sun worship and stellar astrology. Why do you think you go to church on Sunday? It's right in your face, and you refuse to see it because you see what you want to. Want more? They say jesus is the son of god, the light of the world, the alpha and the omega. Couldn't have said it better myself. The Sun is the light of the world. We owe our existence and eventual end to it, making it the beginning (alpha) and end (omega). Pure Sun worship, along with the seasons and planets, Mother Earth while god is considered the Father. That is sexist by the way, and just as influential as this trash that makes life for gay people more difficult.

Religions (most) have a way of demonizing the ones who are different than they are. Religious people might not like gay people, but there's one thing they hate more: those with opposing religious views. Religion is why we can "explain" why Arabs would sacrifice their lives and take a few thousand people along with them. How else would such an atrocity be explained? The governments understand this and exploit it so much. It's sickening what these bibles and texts have done to hypnotize young people into hating their fellow human beings. And, in the end, that's what we are.

We used to understand this more, like in Roman times when Senators were well known and accepted to have a gay lover. Nobody condemned them for it or discriminated against them for it, obviously as they were in the position they were in.

Don't worry though. Religions will soon be in for a wakeup call as younger generations are not as sheltered and stupid as previous ones. It's funny how as a child I went to catechism and asked how did jesus walk on water. The other kids didn't bother to ask such serious questions that required critical thinking skills. And that explains a lot: people don't think critically about serious things. If I told you an outright lie, you'd be better off to be able to catch it, yet here we are with hatred hiding behind a bible and the word of god. Well, I don't know what god is or isn't exactly, but I don't think god or the gods would approve much of hatred and violence and lots of other things religion stands for. Rest assured, though, if there is a judgement day of some kind, the ones who hate others won't be floating up to heaven.

I can't wait for the day when religion is just abolished. There may come a time when the world will be running out of resources, and the remaining ones will need to be used for better things than blowing each other up like lunatics. At that time, it might be a good idea to revert back to Paganism (worshiping Mother nature / Mother Earth) so that we give ourselves an extended period. Maybe it would do some good to bring it about even sooner, if the Vatican would ever settle down and play nicely with others. Personally, I'm all for it. We need to start respecting each other and the Earth more, and I say most religions are standing in the way of those goals. I'm sorry Mr. Pope, but your bible is quite problematic for the ultimate survival of our race.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Yeah, I don't understand this. Wasn't this voted down another time too? Doesn't votes count anymore?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenic
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Really? It doesn't matter. The fact remains that ignorent bigots are discriminating against a group of individuals. This is no different than if the government out lawed a type of religion.

In X amount of years when this is said and done and gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else our children, grand children or great grand children will look back and shake their heads at us for being no naive.

In reality, this prop only passed because almost half the state of California has been indoctrinated by a hateful group of religious fanatics. And I'm not an athiest or an agnostic... so lets not assume I don't believe in God. I just don't believe God is hateful like humanity is.

We do not follow in his footsteps like we like to say we do.


I think you need to stop exagerrating

"same as outlawing religion"


"Hateful", because you disagree with the formal arrangements regarding the status of two people

"hateful"- flip me, talk about ott



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by glitchinmymatrix
 


way to go, be a superhero fighting prejudice and hate by being prejudiced and hateful


Comedy stuff



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
reply to post by americandingbat
 


That's exactly what happened in Canada. Gay's are married/"unioned" by a Justice of the Peace (Judge) and are recognized as if they were married in a union of faith. All the good stuff and all the bad, all come along with that union.



And straight couples too?

That's what I'd suggest. The way it works here (NYC), we have to apply for a marriage license with the city, which then has to be signed by the person who "marries" us -- whether that's in a church or not. There is also a separate process to apply for a "Civil Union" for gays (or I imagine straights who would prefer), or you can file a form as a "Domestic Partner" which doesn't give you the legal rights of marriage but is recognized by most employers for benefits coverage purposes.

A "marriage" here doesn't have to be in a community of faith -- you can get "married" at town hall, by a ship's captain, or wherever you want as long as the person who does it has been granted that power by the state. I'm not sure about Civil Unions, but I think the process is the same.

I don't think that churches that don't recognize gay marriage should be forced to (separation of church and state), but as a heterosexual I would have no problem if I had to go to town hall to get a "civil union" (which would be granted by a judge or similar, the way I'm imagining it) and then have my "marriage" be just a social/religious matter -- the bit where I ask my friends and family to recognize and support my union.

EDIT: accidentally hit post before typing anythin


EDIT AGAIN: to add, as something to ponder, that the US has historical experience with "separate yet equal" processes. Luckily we realized the problems with regard to water fountains, maybe we'll realize the problems with regard to this.

[edit on 1/12/2010 by americandingbat]

[edit on 1/12/2010 by americandingbat]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


then let me repharse for you no one should stand in the way of two consenting adults from marrying eachother



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Magnum007
Here in Canada it is clear in our Charter that there should be no discrimination in any way whatsoever therefore making same sex marriage legal.


It's also clear in our Constitution, but our states laws don't always abide by the Constitution. Hopefully, this ban will be overturned and all people will have equal treatment under the law in this issue.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 



The clause "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." is now officially part of the California state constitution (as of November 5, 2008).

www.whatisprop8.com...


ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

This is a Constitutional Amendment, instituted by the voters of California. It cannot be an "unconstitutional law", it is a part of the Constitution.





Did you read the story? This is Federal Court. The state supreme court did uphold the Constitutional ban. The Federal case is about whether or not the law violates the Federal Constitution, therefore it can be ruled unconstitutional.


[edit on 12-1-2010 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So I should be able to marry my mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, etc?

How about multiple people?

Multiple family members?


Straight people are not permitted to marry family members or multiple people under the law. So, gay people would not be permitted to do so, either. Duh.



How about a 12 year old?

Multiple 12 year olds?


Marriage is a legal contract. Children are not permitted to enter into a legal contract.

These arguments are so stupid.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I find this very, very funny; Gay Marriage people are going to be REALLY PISSED off if the Supreme court upholds the PROP 8 vote, Not only does that neglect there complaining, but it may strike down every state that has passed civil unions or Marriages.

I can’t believe (well actual I can) Its a freaking word, in California Gays have the right to have a civil Union. Then the little queens run and cry because they want it called marriage. Well the state already recognizes you the Federal Government doesn’t... What does that say? Oh and By the way The Supreme Court has a 5-4 Conservative advantage, Also it may be fair to say the Justice Sotomayer (Hispanic) May vote against it, Hispanics and blacks typical are against homosexuality, ESP Latin Catholics.

I do think if it makes it the US Supreme Court and they vote to uphold it Gays who were content on it being called Civil Unions are going to be pissed at the militant in your face gays who are pushing to call it Marriage…. Equal Rights does not Equate to Special rights, Could also be used by the Court and turn down the ban, which in turn would allow it nationwide, Gays would be happy, The supports of marriage between man/and women would then have an uphill battle to add a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution banning gay marriage, But that would be highly unlikely… So it’s really excited and only time will tell.


But then again Nowhere in the US Constitution does it allow anything like marriage, so maybe then will turn down marriage NATIONWIDE AND I CAN BE FREE AGAIN YEAH



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join