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.

 

California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I did read somewhere - - - there have been legal marriages between brother and sister - - if the woman is beyond her reproduction period. For purposes of inheritance and pensions.

Can't remember exactly where I read it though.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Back at ya..........there never will be equality, and never can be. Tolerance has nothing to do with it, it's null and void.......neither side has it, nor will they.


Excuses - excuses - excuses.

Yes - definitely Obtuse.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Being against something and forbidding others from doing it are two different things. Some of us have expressed our disagreement that close relatives be allowed to marry, but believing it should be illegal is an entirely different matter. And debating on whether or not those types of marriages should be legal is for another thread. For this one we are talking about gay marriage. Two gay consenting adults should be allowed to marry if two gay heterosexual adults can. It is pretty simple and there is NO IMPACT on anyone else's life if they do marry. Neither is there an impact if three or four adults marry.

There can, however, be an impact on someone's life if two close relatives marry because of the genetic abnormalities that result int he offspring. Relatives can still reproduce and not be married and that is why there are incest laws. Now, if we were to say that incest laws cover forbidding married relatives from reproducing then, well, they should be allowed to marry, but they cannot reproduce.

Therefore, gays should be allowed to marry regardless of anyone's feeling on if being gay is okay or not. You say it is a matter of choice? So is religion. But religion is covered under discrimination laws. A government forbidding a certain protected group from marrying is discrimination and it is against the constitution. This has been the determination by many judges. You personal belief has nothing to do with the constitution.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I did read somewhere - - - there have been legal marriages between brother and sister - - if the woman is beyond her reproduction period. For purposes of inheritance and pensions.

Can't remember exactly where I read it though.


That is why I said this in my previous post:




There can, however, be an impact on someone's life if two close relatives marry because of the genetic abnormalities that result int he offspring. Relatives can still reproduce and not be married and that is why there are incest laws. Now, if we were to say that incest laws cover forbidding married relatives from reproducing then, well, they should be allowed to marry, but they cannot reproduce.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I find it funny that those accusing others of intolerance are the first to resort to name calling etc. Prove I'm wrong. Not hard to do, prove it. How many of these topics turn into blatant flame fests, from both sides, and those supporting the homosexual side are usually the first to start the name calling. While this one has been civil, calling me obtuse, when I could call you something as well, just shows how childish some truley are.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Well, it's NOT for us to decide, and without going back into the history books right now, I'm going to say that it was MEDICAL SCIENCE that decided that. I'm sure it can go a little deeper, but on the surface, this is what makes sense. Since there are no medical reason that same-sex couples should be prohibited, then I don't think it's one in the same.

On the issue of polygamy/bigamy, yes, I DO believe that should be legal. One or more adults of consenting age should be able to marry each other, legally. Whether God recognizes it is not my business, the state should, though.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I did read somewhere - - - there have been legal marriages between brother and sister - - if the woman is beyond her reproduction period. For purposes of inheritance and pensions.

Can't remember exactly where I read it though.



Well, regarding this point, there is no differance logically betwee the marriage of siblings and the marriage or gays or any other pair. Siblings can have sex and reproduce without marriage. Thus marriage has nothing to do with sex (as many married men would point out) nor does it have anything to do with children.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Well, regarding this point, there is no differance logically betwee the marriage of siblings and the marriage or gays or any other pair. Siblings can have sex and reproduce without marriage. Thus marriage has nothing to do with sex (as many married men would point out) nor does it have anything to do with children.


Oh - there have definitely been brother and sister common law "marriages". With off spring. I'm pretty sure there have been daughter/father & son/mother common law "marriages". We know there have been daughters who have given birth to their own father's child.

It happens.

No marriage is not about sex. Sex happens regardless.

Marriage is a legal government contract to protect rights and property of those joining basically 2 households into one.

I think most gays have made the point - - its mostly about Legal Rights - Medical Rights - Tax Rights - Insurance Rights - Death Rights - etc.

The ridiculous have no valid argument against Equal Rights.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Saying you're being 'obtuse' is not name calling. We are simply characterizing the nature of your arguments in which you are pretending to take a certain stance and then turning around and saying that is not really your stance you are just trying to prove us wrong. Obtuse is clouding the issue with arguments that you don't truly hold.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Saying you're being 'obtuse' is not name calling. We are simply characterizing the nature of your arguments in which you are pretending to take a certain stance and then turning around and saying that is not really your stance you are just trying to prove us wrong. Obtuse is clouding the issue with arguments that you don't truly hold.


Thank you.

I've been participating in forums for about 10 years. I am very conscious of name calling - - and have been the target often.

I even looked up the word Obtuse - - to be clear on the meaning - - before using it.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I'm well aware of what it means.......however I fail to see how I've even begun to fit that definition. I never pretended to be anything. I'm against gay marriage, as I've stated. I only pointed out that gays aren't the only ones who can't legally marry, and gave examples........I didn't pull the what's next marrying animals thing, or the ever popular, my God said so........I asked what I thought was a rational question. However, now I'm ridiculous for asking such a thing. Seems only seeing something from one side would be more ridiculous.........and again, in the end there will be no equality, it can't happen, for obvious reasons, and never will. I'm off now to something more productive, again it was nice chatting with you....look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the boards.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Do I think you are being ridiculous for harping on the "siblings can't marry" as a legitimate argument against Equal Rights.

Yeah - I do.

Why? Because I'm giving you credit for knowing the reason they should not marry.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Seems like the fundies are the ones with a major problem in this. Why do they keep trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us and the world. Earlier in this thread or another someone said they were concerned about loosing their tax status next if they refuse to marry gays in church. That got me to thinking why are religious buildings, property and income tax exempt? Is it fair for them to enjoy a benefit the rest of us do not? Fair is fair, right? Can I worship myself and family and not pay taxes?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


If you were aware of what 'obtuse' means, then you would realize that it is not name calling. And I personally NEVER said you were being ridiculous and think that you and I have had a rather constructive argument, for the most part.

It is was not so obvious that you disagreed with gay marriage given that you kept bringing up how it is unfair to keep relatives/polygamists/bigamists from marrying. This would lead one to think you were saying you think it is unfair for them, just as it is for gays, and therefore gays should not marry if they can't. In fact, I'm pretty sure you said that exact thing.

It was not obvious until your last post that you think NONE of these people should be allowed to marry because of what you believe and that you only brought up this argument to try to prove a point. So what you really meant was that only an adult consenting man and woman should marry. No one else. If you had said that from the beginning you would not have been accused of being obtuse.

Furthermore, this has been a very productive conversation as this is one of the most civil conversation about gay marriage I have seen on ATS. It has also been productive because I now am completely aware that people, like you, don't want gays to be married because you disagree with their lifestyle and who cares if it is a violation of the constitution as is forbidding relatives/polygamists/bigamists to marry.

I learned something today, therefore, productive.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


I said in my third post on here that I wasn't for gay marriage, so, I don't see how that comes into play, unless you missed that post. As far as comparing, it seems that everyone involved in a certain topic maintains a right to equality as to how it affects them, I was merely trying to point ot that equality, true equality isn't possible. Just as several here have voiced how wrong inter relations marriage is wrong, others feel the same way about homosexal marriage. No one is ever truely unbiased as their lives and experiences color their perceptions of right and wrong, it's human nature. As far as violating someones civil rights......up in the air on that one.....hasn't been decided officially, and no matter what the experts here have to say, the courts in the end will have the final say on this issue. Again, I have enjoyed talking with you, and the rdiculous comment came from Annee, sorry if you thought I was refering to you.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
It has been very interesting to see where those from both sides of this debate determine boundaries are acceptable.

To reiterate, either there is "equal protection" for everyone or there is not. If the fact that a same-sex couple should have equal access to marriage licenses has nothing to do with their sexual practices, then why is permissable to exclude those with familial ties? The fact that incestuous "sex" has the potential to produce children with physical and mental abnormalities should be ignored, as well (to follow the same logic).

I won't regurgitate all of my previous arguments, but if societal norms can not be determined by a majority of the voters, then by whom? Do you really want the government, through lifetime appointment Judges, setting the standards?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


I'm not sure if you did or not, but I ultimately came to the conclusion that relatives should be able to marry as long as they don't produce offspring together, which is in fact a law already for obvious reasons. So, yeah, I am truly for equal protection for all as long as it involves consenting adults.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The ideas of equal treatment under the law comes to a point when it comes to the issue of where a person can marry the same sex, no matter who and what it is. Society has changed since the days gone by, and is much more tolerant today than those who are different. This is expressed more so in the United States of America, than it is around the world. The arguments for and against the gay marriage issues are plenty but boils down to the following, after doing a bit of research. Some of the arguments that both sides would propose opens a dangerous door that should never be opened up at any time, as it leads to more government involvement in a persons private life. Many people would state that yes gay men and women are entitled to the same protection under the law, all of the rights and responsibility that goes along with such, but the same people tend to get real silent very quick on the issue of gay marriage. Some of the problem is on the part of the gay men and women, as the notion that most gay people are promiscuous, yet fail to see that most people in their youth tend to be a bit wild, as that is human nature. And with the age and maturity most tend to settle down. There are gay couples out there, people who have been with each other for years, settling down to make a life, and sharing a lot of the same values, hopes and desires as those who are heterosexual in nature. Most are civic minded, loyal to their choice of mate and are seen to be an asset to their communities, as well as, are very private individual, not wanting the attention or the publicity, just to live equal with their neighbor. In 1989, Denmark first made it legal for 2 people of the same sex to be married, and the only opposition was the clergy of the different religious organizations. But after seeing the benefits of what such has done for society, the numbers of those who oppose such have gone down and many other countries have embraced such.
The arguments are against are based off of fear, and what many people fail to understand is that it opens doors that many people would not want to have opened, as it will lead to more government interference in our very private lives.
The argument that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. As it was passed as a federal law, it opens a door to where the government can go one step further and state who can and can not marry, using the justification as it would be good for the society. But the question should be asked would you be happy if the government told you who you can and can not marry?
The argument has been made that marriage is for procreation. If this is the case then why would we allow for infertile couples to marry, as they could never have any children? And would about the married couples who have no desire to have children, often sterilizing themselves at an early age? Should those marriages be allowed to continue on, or would the argument invalidate the reason for their marriage?
The argument has been made that same sex couples are not the optimum environment to raise a child. But ask yourself this, what is the optimum environment to raise a child? Why is it that society would look down on a same sex couple raising a child, but finds it ok for a convicted felon, a murdered, drug dealer, child molester, drug dealer to marry and have children. Are those the kind of people who should be having children?
Some would say gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. But the question must be asked, do we as a society live under religious law, or the Constitution of the United States of America? Freedom of Religion is a 2 way street, you can not force a people to worship or restrict religious freedoms, but at the same time, people have the right to be free from religion.
In the law, a person who is married can not be compelled to testify against their spouse or even a family member, but as gay people are not granted that protection, then a person in a gay relationship can be compelled to testify against his or her partner, with no protection under the law. Is this right, or equal under the law?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Well, I can certainly say that I have not only learned about other people from this thread but also about myself. i would never in a million years thought that incestuous marriages should be protected, but after this conversation. I do. I think it is wrong and, quite honestly, disgusting, but that is my opinion.

I don't think we can pick and chose who gets certain rights and who don't unless they are mentally unsound to make certain decisions, too young/immature to make such a decision, if the person's actions would directly affect the rights of another.

This reminds me of a conversation I was having with a friend a couple weeks ago about legalizing marijuana. I said it is ridiculous that it is illegal because it is a victimless crime to use the substance and only the actions that can become crimes as a result of the abuse should be punished, not the use itself. He then asked me if I think other, harder drugs should be legal and I said, "yes". He said, "Good because otherwise I would have called you a hypocrite". I then told him that isn't to say I think taking those drugs is okay, because I certainly do not, but my opinion should not deny someone else the right to do something to or for themselves.

You can't really pick and chose who you want to have certain rights without first considering whether or not it violates or is protected by the Constitution.

This thread has given me an entirely new appreciation for that wonderful document.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

In the law, a person who is married can not be compelled to testify against their spouse or even a family member, but as gay people are not granted that protection, then a person in a gay relationship can be compelled to testify against his or her partner, with no protection under the law. Is this right, or equal under the law?


Not to downplay the rest of your well-pointed post, but this stuck out to me because it is another right denied to gay couples if they cannot marry that I did not take into consideration. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join