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.

 

Obama orders same-sex hospital visits

page: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


Ok - maybe you should have a quick scan through the history of marriage in the West...

a quick synopsis

Take note of the reasons for marriage through time and please stop telling me it's about Religion past, present, future. It's not always (or even primarily) about it and never was.



ed: fix link

[edit on 16-4-2010 by LadySkadi]




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEMONcrats

no matter where you stand on this issue you have to admit the majority does not want it.

in every state it has been put up to vote it has been either voted down or outright banned.




The majority also opposed civil rights for blacks in the American South.

The founding fathers did not intend to give the majority the ability to vote away the rights of the minority, hence why civil rights were never meant to be put to a vote.



All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

-Thomas Jefferson




In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.

-James Madison


I am sorry, but your entire argument is invalid according to the framers of the laws of this nation.

Perhaps you should take it up with them.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by VintageEnvy
 



the divorce rate is high. the reason? NO FAULT DIVORCE. its not that it was because of a social 'stigma' of being divorced,it was because you had to prove who was at fault or you had to pay out the butt to get one.

we can thank ol ronnie reagan for that one(i genrally liked reagan...but dang it he screwed up the family for that one).

look up 'no fault divorce' and how divorce was before that.

the problem is that in todays time you can just a divorce so easily now....and nobody takes the vows seriously....i mean why take them seriously if you can just divorce at the snap of a finger.

why do you you see old couples together 40-50 yrs?

its not that they could not get divorced...its just back then you did not rush to get married.

back then divorce was not as readily available as today. you had to prove someone was at fault:infidlity,parenting fraud,etc.

what this did was cause people who would just up and divorce for smaller things then that to sit back and work out there problems...or pay out the butt for a divorce.

you have people today divorcing because:"i dont feel the romance anymore".

my grandmother told me "son you wont always love the person your with. sometimes you will hate them,want to divorce them.want to be rid of them...i know i felt that way about your grandfather many times...but we worked through it and are happier because of it"

and i said "but grandma dont you divore if you fall out of love"

she said "heavens no you dont...at least not back then.sweety you fall out of love eventually...no matter who you are with."

i said "then how did you and grandpa stay together for 50 yrs"

she said"well we did not rush off to get married...we became best friends first. we became such good freinds that we could not fathom the world without the other in it. and when we fell out of love we had that rich and deep friendship to fall back on. you never truly 'fall out of love' like i said. its the romance that goes away...the passion and fire fizzle out. i still love your grandfather very much and cannot picture NOT being married to him."



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
It's about time we start treating each other as equals.

who could possibly be against this besides moronic homophobes.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


So your saying, if you want to get married, you should be able to by just signing a marriage certificate that will be recognized by the states as a marriage between you two people including gays and lesbians. But that the wedding ceremony itself would have to be given at the churches discretion?




no im saying that their should be some kind of 'civil union' for all people no matter what your orientation is.

it would carry the same benifits of marriage today.

marriage should be a institution of the church...not the state or federal government.

if the chruch wanted to marry gay people it could.....but it would be going against the bible so....i dont know how that would pan out with the other churches...maybe a super church could somehow ban other churches from marrying gay folks.

my point is marriage would be a religious institution. and since the bible is like "if you are gay your going to hell" i dont think that many churches would marry gay people.

but if your heterosexual you can get MARRIED. the marriage itself would carry no benifits.

if you want benifits enter into a 'civil contract' like stated above.

but if you are gay and want to be married...go ask a preist. if he refused because it goes against his faith you cant cry 'discrimination' and sue.

church is separated from state remember...or it was before the government got mixed up in it.

contrary to popular belief separation of church and state was not to protect the GOV from the church...it was the OTHER way around. it was to protect the chruch from the GOV.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


Very good for your grandma and a long successful marriage is something to be very proud of. But she cant speak for every married couple and how they feel. She was able to make hers work and she admits to having her problems but they were able to work through them. Thats not everyone's situation though. We cant make other peoples decisions based on how we made ours, they're not us.


I myself have no desire to get married but I wouldn't tell you thats the way for you to live your life nor would I expect you to. That lifestyle isnt for everyone.

People should have the right to get a simple divorce. You shouldn't have to prove a reason in my opinion, your an adult not a child trying to get a sit out of gym pass. There isnt anything to prove besides that you no longer want to be married.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


for Obama I will give him credit were credit is due. This group of people deserve to be able to visit loved ones. And if you dont think they do something is wrong with you. Every man and woman deserve the same equal rights in this country period. And if you think that government should meddle in religion just remember one thing that door swings both ways.


This is a good step and I totally support it.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by Subjective Truth]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Damage control. That's all this is. I'm sure you don't care as it benefits you, personally, but this is nothing more than a bit of damage control to his political reputation.


Of course it is. The president does something good and all his haters gang up and claim it's something it's not. The man did something good, will you ever appreciate it? Probably not.

Right now I'm proud to have this man as OUR commander in CHIEF

[edit on 16-4-2010 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by DEMONcrats

no matter where you stand on this issue you have to admit the majority does not want it.

in every state it has been put up to vote it has been either voted down or outright banned.




The majority also opposed civil rights for blacks in the American South.

The founding fathers did not intend to give the majority the ability to vote away the rights of the minority, hence why civil rights were never meant to be put to a vote.



All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

-Thomas Jefferson




In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.

-James Madison


I am sorry, but your entire argument is invalid according to the framers of the laws of this nation.

Perhaps you should take it up with them.


its not invalid,you cheery picked my words.

marriage in this nation has ALWAYS been between 1 man and 1 woman.

how can you desrciminate something that has never been?

you made the civil rights for black argument...and im sure you will also bring up the virginia vs loving case to support gay marriage.

the problem with that is...there has never been gay marriage in this country...EVER.

you cant be discriminatory at something that has never existed. save the virginia vs loving argument. yes back then a white/black FEMALE could not marry a black/white MALE.

but even then you could only marry a member of the opposit sex.

virginia vs loving only expaned existing marriage laws.

so opponents of gay marriage no matter if there homophobes,bigots or what ever have the right to protest the creation of a new law that would alter marriage...that in there eyes and has always been male/female.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


marriage between a man and a women was created by man anyway so , if you create something and tell this type of person they cannot be part of it like everyone else, then it's discrimination.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


Very good for your grandma and a long successful marriage is something to be very proud of. But she cant speak for every married couple and how they feel. She was able to make hers work and she admits to having her problems but they were able to work through them. Thats not everyone's situation though. We cant make other peoples decisions based on how we made ours, they're not us.


I myself have no desire to get married but I wouldn't tell you thats the way for you to live your life nor would I expect you to. That lifestyle isnt for everyone.

People should have the right to get a simple divorce. You shouldn't have to prove a reason in my opinion, your an adult not a child trying to get a sit out of gym pass. There isnt anything to prove besides that you no longer want to be married.



yeah well thats your opinion. if your going to use a high divorce rate to support gay marriage "look look at the straights...and they want to act self-righteous HO HO HO" then i can point out to you that before no fault divorce things were very different.

so before you point fingers at divorce rates you should understand the only reason its this high is because of a law that made it so.

you cant turn around and say 'a law cant do that.....people get divorced because its natural..so gay people should get married too' either.

the only thing that can explain the divorce rate is no fault divorce. after it passed there was a gradual increase of divorce until what you see today.

and in my opinion..NO you should not have the 'right' to a 'easy' divorce.

there should be a person at fault.

also before no-fault divorce the family courts were much more fair.....why? because if you were the one at fault you were the one to get shafted...not the other way around.

now adays women get half of everything most of the time,custody of the kids,alimony,etc.

back then it did not happen like that.

if you were the one at fault...you got nothing and had to pay for it.

people can cheat now adays and get everything...back then it was much more fair and not so biased towards women.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


marriage between a man and a women was created by man anyway so , if you create something and tell this type of person they cannot be part of it like everyone else, then it's discrimination.



who says? you?

marriage pre-dates recorded history...so whos to say who created it? did you go back in time and see the first ceremony.

give me a break your grasping at straws. according to the bible its between a man and a woman.

according to the koran its between a man and women.

you cant turn around and state marriage is created by man unless you are a atheist.

and if you are that makes you a little more then biased in that line of thinking.

even if it was created by man.

marriage is what the majority define it.

and the majority define it as between a man and a woman.

when the pilgrims came over into this nation they brought marriage from english commen law which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

the bible defines marriage as between man and woman.

not man and man. not woman and woman.

therefore marriage in america is based off the bible.

if there is another culture when marriage was introduced into the world that allowed gay marriage and still exists today...go get married over there or fight to get your state to recognize it.

if not though, marriage in america is defined by man and woman.

marriage in this country has always been between man and woman...from the very begining.

it was only until early 2000 that homosexuals really started pushing for gay marriage.

its not discrimination...its always been this way.

only a few examples of ancient same -sex marriage have been found.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


marriage between a man and a women was created by man anyway so , if you create something and tell this type of person they cannot be part of it like everyone else, then it's discrimination.



and even if we did create marriage...why cant we define what it is??

why cant we say who gets in it??

sorry to burst your liberal politicle correct bubble but since according to you 'men created it' who cares? if we created marriage we should be able to say who gets to get married.

the majority should be able to define what marriage is...not the minority.

i know we are not a democracy at all we are a republic...but guess what the constitution says nothing about gay people or gay marriage.

gay marriage is in the publics(states) hands...they get to decide what they define marriage as.

there has never been gay marriage in this country...you cant cry descrimination because this is the way its always been.

but i DO support gay cohabitation benifits.

thats why i say get rid of all benifits for marriage and make a seperate contract for everyone.

let marriage be a religious institution.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
all this bickering as to why this was put into play.

has anybody thought that maybe this is just a small step towards gays receiving the civil rights they deserve? i mean, big-0 is a democrat, isn't something like this a democrat type of thing to do?

"the sanctity of marriage and the american family"



marriage is not just a religious thing. if we stop gays from being able to marry one another, shouldn't non catholics, christians, muslims etc... be prevented from having these types of rights.

and this bill doesn't just stand for gays, think about it. if i break my neck because my friend knocked me off my balcony by mistake, he can be presumed as being gay and not able to visit me?

this works for the people as a whole to an extent

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Hardstepah]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 



so basically you're saying only religious people should be allowed to get married?

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL


basically i shouldn't be allowed to marry my fiance' because we aren't religious and don't attend any cul...er...churches?


if gays and lesbians can't then neither should any of us.

do you religious wackos think that you are better than everybody else and should only be the ones to get married? i laugh at those people, they don't seem to realize just how many of these people treat marriage like a joke by cheating on spouses because "the devil was inside them"..



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hardstepah
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 



so basically you're saying only religious people should be allowed to get married?

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL


basically i shouldn't be allowed to marry my fiance' because we aren't religious and don't attend any cul...er...churches?


if gays and lesbians can't then neither should any of us.

do you religious wackos think that you are better than everybody else and should only be the ones to get married? i laugh at those people, they don't seem to realize just how many of these people treat marriage like a joke by cheating on spouses because "the devil was inside them"..



yes thats exactly what im saying.

how many times do i have to state this??

does everyone on ATS have a comprehension problem?

im stating marriage should be a religious institution...you know matrimony.

and yes im stating that marriage should not have any benifits.

all benifits should be taken away from marriage and put into a seperate contract that can be accessed by any couple regardless of orientation,religion,or race.

if you are straight and want to get married....go to a chruch.

if you want benifits go sign the sontract like states above.

its so freaking simple its pathetic.

and im not religious thank you.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hardstepah
all this bickering as to why this was put into play.

has anybody thought that maybe this is just a small step towards gays receiving the civil rights they deserve? i mean, big-0 is a democrat, isn't something like this a democrat type of thing to do?

"the sanctity of marriage and the american family"



marriage is not just a religious thing. if we stop gays from being able to marry one another, shouldn't non catholics, christians, muslims etc... be prevented from having these types of rights.

and this bill doesn't just stand for gays, think about it. if i break my neck because my friend knocked me off my balcony by mistake, he can be presumed as being gay and not able to visit me?

this works for the people as a whole to an extent

[edit on 16-4-2010 by Hardstepah]


YES THANK YOU.

this is exactly what im talking about.

take away all the benifits of marriage and put it into some different type of union.

and let the religious people have there marriage....god cant people understand this?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


A lot of states that don't support homosexual marriage, still have domestic partner rights. And as a domestic partner you are allowed visitation rights.

So the spin is, this is a huge impact. When in reality, it wont change much of anything.

The right to sign POA and visit are already present for the most part.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DEMONcrats
 


When you say....
no im saying that their should be some kind of 'civil union' for all people no matter what your orientation is.

it would carry the same benefits of marriage today.

marriage should be a institution of the church...not the state or federal government.

I was married by a church in the two-spirit Native American tradition. The church declared me married 6 years ago although the state does not recognize our civil benefits.

if the chruch wanted to marry gay people it could.....but it would be going against the bible so....i dont know how that would pan out with the other churches...maybe a super church could somehow ban other churches from marrying gay folks.

A church married me. The church in question does not follow the "bible" Said building says "church" in the name.

my point is marriage would be a religious institution. and since the bible is like "if you are gay your going to hell" i dont think that many churches would marry gay people.

I know of 4 in SC that will happily marry any person that loved each other. The state will not recognize it though.

but if your heterosexual you can get MARRIED. the marriage itself would carry no benifits.

if you want benifits enter into a 'civil contract' like stated above.


So all in all I have a claim to marriage because I was in fact married in a church. The church performed the ceremony and declared us married 6 years ago. I've got a paper around here in the scrapbook that commemorates our marriage from the church.





[edit on 16/4/10 by toochaos4u]

[edit on 16/4/10 by toochaos4u]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   
back to the original issue.....hospital visitation rights....

umm.....I'm not gay, been married for over 30 years now, done raised three boys, but well...got to tell ya...

If I am sick, or hurt, or dying....
I want the right to say who should or shouldn't be visiting me!! we should all have that right! so many of those "rights" that the gays are fighting for, well.....there shouldn't be a need for them to have to fight for them....
they are the result of society trying to find some kind of balance to offset the act of removing some rights or allowing some type of discrimination to begin with!



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join