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.

 

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

page: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Radiobuzz

PS: It's been a long time since this forum became inadequate to discuss gay subjects.


A gay subject isnt being discussed here. Marriage is.


You must be in the wrong thread then:

"Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional" And the law doesn't agree with you.


The funny thing is how confused those arguing against gay marriage are on the subject being discussed here because it took a turn down bible lane.

Judge declares [Federal] US gay-marriage ban is Unconstitutional [due to the 10th Amendment reserving this right of choice to the States respectively]

Not...

Judge declares every state and person must now accept gay marriage

EDIT: Because of that the topic at hand should have been...

1. Federalist vs Union
2. State sovereignty
3. Federalist expansion
4. Common Law
5. Personal freedoms
6. Federal and State constitutions.

BUT NO It's a religious argument completely detracted from the point of the article, which is that of legal jurisdiction.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Anything for you darling


EDIT:


The funny thing is how confused those arguing against gay marriage are on the subject being discussed here because it took a turn down bible lane.


And that's the reason why it's futile to always discuss these sort of things. You can't argue with someone who base his arguments on faith rather than logic.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Radiobuzz]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I feel like I killed the thread with my logic and empathetical compassion. Jesus had that effect on people also.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
And that's the reason why it's futile to always discuss these sort of things. You can't argue with someone who base his arguments on faith rather than logic.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Radiobuzz]


True but the reader sees. Must let logic take its course.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I wouldn't even call it faith. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with judging an action to be moral or not. That's religious righteousness.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
I wouldn't even call it faith. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with judging an action to be moral or not. That's religious righteousness.


If I may expound on that, "Faith has absolutely nothing to do with judging a LEGAL action to be moral or not."



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Logarock
 


JUST ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION PLEASE!

IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT TO FUTHER AND PROTECT YOUR , OR ANYONE ELES RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND VALUES?

Or will you evade and run.....again?


You dont have the right to redefine marriage and have the state sanction it for you. Thats why they have been calling it a civil union because for the state to change the definition of marriage on philosophical terms is outside of its capacity. These philosophical under pinning cannot be challanged or changed by the state because they were before the state EVEN AS A CIVIL UNION. The definition of marriage falls under the 9th artical of the bill of rights and has been for many many years a natural right. The govs meddling is all about taxes and property so why do you seek to have the gov meddle further?

Religious beliefs are tied up in the definition of many things and you and the government cant change that. I personaly dont like having a marriage licence handed down by the state. My understanding of marriage has nothing to do with the state sanction or a branch of religion saction but goes back to why the creator gave man and woman life to begin with. The reason the state attached itself to marrige are for legal reasons.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Radiobuzz
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Anything for you darling


EDIT:


The funny thing is how confused those arguing against gay marriage are on the subject being discussed here because it took a turn down bible lane.


And that's the reason why it's futile to always discuss these sort of things. You can't argue with someone who base his arguments on faith rather than logic.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Radiobuzz]


Dude in a purly natural way gay marriage is not even logical. It flys in the face of mountains of logic. It is purly an indulgence.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I see you skipped over my posts again? Don't you like me?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Who cares?

I don't believe sex is natural or logical. It's a bio-logical reaction we discovered and because our species found pleasure in it we continued.

Sex is purely an indulgence. However you would argue that without it we would not be able to procreate. Ah but we could procreate with a man and a woman minus penetration.

Sex its self is a physical indulgence of the flesh.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
We dont have to fall back and let gays just waltz on in and attach themeselves
to this meaning as if the parts are interchangeable and without any meaning other than contract or because of happiness.


Why? How does this in the least bit affect you? This is starting to sound like the interracial marriage problem up until 60 years ago. So bad the gov't had to pass a law making it legal.


Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.


en.wikipedia.org...


What are you arguing about? Interracial is still hetrosexual. This leap from race to sex prefrence is simply an arguing tactic.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
We dont have to fall back and let gays just waltz on in and attach themeselves
to this meaning as if the parts are interchangeable and without any meaning other than contract or because of happiness.


Why? How does this in the least bit affect you? This is starting to sound like the interracial marriage problem up until 60 years ago. So bad the gov't had to pass a law making it legal.


Interracial marriage in the United States has been fully legal in all U.S. states since the 1967 Supreme Court decision that deemed anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, with many states choosing to legalize interracial marriage at much earlier dates.


en.wikipedia.org...


What are you arguing about? Interracial is still hetrosexual. This leap from race to sex prefrence is simply an arguing tactic.


So is arguing religion and "morals". It's all personal perception. And once you realize that it's just perception you begin to understand you are no more right than someone else. And as such owe them as much courteousness and freedoms as you demand for yourself.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
What are you arguing about? Interracial is still hetrosexual.


Yes but at the time it was looked upon as an aberration. Same as this is today.

Thanks for the reply. I was feeling left out. What about my other question:


Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by mryanbrown
 


Your lack of understanding about what marriage is is all the more reason it shouldnt be allowed in a gay context.


You are right. Let's go with the dictionary definition:


▸ noun: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony ("Their marriage was conducted in the chapel")
▸ noun: two people who are married to each other ("His second marriage was happier than the first")
▸ noun: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce) ("A long and happy marriage")
▸ noun: a close and intimate union ("The marriage of music and dance")


www.onelook.com...

Hmm, I don't see "gays" mentioned there. Maybe YOU don't know what a marriage is.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by intrepid]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Logarock
 


Who cares?

I don't believe sex is natural or logical. It's a bio-logical reaction we discovered and because our species found pleasure in it we continued.

Sex is purely an indulgence. However you would argue that without it we would not be able to procreate. Ah but we could procreate with a man and a woman minus penetration.

Sex its self is a physical indulgence of the flesh.


Wow you are on the ropes with that responce. Come on man tell me about how same sex sex is the same as hetrosex sex.
How any dumbass can have kids or keep a marriage together for 50+ years.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Logarock
 


Who cares?

I don't believe sex is natural or logical. It's a bio-logical reaction we discovered and because our species found pleasure in it we continued.

Sex is purely an indulgence. However you would argue that without it we would not be able to procreate. Ah but we could procreate with a man and a woman minus penetration.

Sex its self is a physical indulgence of the flesh.


Wow you are on the ropes with that responce. Come on man tell me about how same sex sex is the same as hetrosex sex.
How any dumbass can have kids or keep a marriage together for 50+ years.


I completely fail to see how your response relates to my statement. I feel sex regardless of whether or not it's between homosexuals or heterosexuals is a physical indulgence of the flesh, hence a sin. As we are capable of procreating without it.

But you completely ignored that.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Intrepid, you are clever to a fair degree but I am seriously tring to debate here. lol I am sure you were a good debate guy in school but I dont subscribe to the modern school of debate. And you know what I am talking about.

Like posting an on line def dictionary....like its going to cover the subject...and you know that. Or making oblique connections.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


So you have no answer for it then. Gotcha.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by intrepid
 


Intrepid, you are clever to a fair degree but I am seriously tring to debate here. lol I am sure you were a good debate guy in school but I dont subscribe to the modern school of debate. And you know what I am talking about.

Like posting an on line def dictionary....like its going to cover the subject...and you know that. Or making oblique connections.



There are no oblique connections of you're talking about redefining what marriage means. When the actual definition makes no mention to heterosexuals or homosexuals.

It's a valid point that marriage is no longer a religious institution and as such, religious arguments have no bearing on it.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Logarock
 


Who cares?

I don't believe sex is natural or logical. It's a bio-logical reaction we discovered and because our species found pleasure in it we continued.

Sex is purely an indulgence. However you would argue that without it we would not be able to procreate. Ah but we could procreate with a man and a woman minus penetration.

Sex its self is a physical indulgence of the flesh.


Wow you are on the ropes with that responce. Come on man tell me about how same sex sex is the same as hetrosex sex.
How any dumbass can have kids or keep a marriage together for 50+ years.


I completely fail to see how your response relates to my statement. I feel sex regardless of whether or not it's between homosexuals or heterosexuals is a physical indulgence of the flesh, hence a sin. As we are capable of procreating without it.

But you completely ignored that.


What I am trying to say is that your are pulling it down to a low point. Common denominators like... we are capable of procreating without it... While a fact this even has issues of its oun it really doesnt confront the issue. Nor does all sex is an indulgence.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by intrepid
 


Intrepid, you are clever to a fair degree but I am seriously tring to debate here. lol I am sure you were a good debate guy in school but I dont subscribe to the modern school of debate. And you know what I am talking about.

Like posting an on line def dictionary....like its going to cover the subject...and you know that. Or making oblique connections.



There are no oblique connections of you're talking about redefining what marriage means. When the actual definition makes no mention to heterosexuals or homosexuals.

It's a valid point that marriage is no longer a religious institution and as such, religious arguments have no bearing on it.


I moved out of the religious area a few posts back. The oblique connection was Intrepids use of interrace marrige as it related to gay marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join