It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Unconstitutional Prop 8 OVERTURNED

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:54 AM

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
This is about freedom and liberty. I know, those words don't sit well with conservatives.

You should have stopped before the attack. Because then you really dig yourself a hole with your next statement of ...

Also, I'm ashamed to see such ignorance on this web site...out of all places. I think the hate forums are easy to find...go post on them..not here. Thank you.

Calling the kettle black lately Mr. Pot?

I agree that this is about Liberty (Freedom is synonymous of Liberty and should only be used in conjuncture if you delineate between the two.)

Liberty would be the correct word here because it is breaking people from the political strong-arm in regards to whom a person can be seen as a couple in the eyes of the State.

So in that you are correct, but you guys all get caught up in the name games and for some reason just enjoy putting people into boxes, even if they barely could even qualify for such a box.

No wonder politicians are running rampant, you all are too focused on ensuring that your political rivals look bad.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by ownbestenemy

Quite the invalid argument you attempted to pull there. There is no room for homophobia in our society, nor should there be.


posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by SeventhSeal

Where do you see homophobia at?

My stance is that it is not the Federal government's nor the State's responsibility to legislate marriage.

I understand and respect the point that many bring up in regards to the sanctity and religious aspects of marriage. There point is valid within the circles of the society they operate. That is protected under the First Amendment to be able to worship how they see fit. What is not protected is their forceful attempts at placing their faith upon a whole of society through legislation.

That said, the State and Federal governments should also drop out of the fight because they are now choosing sides in regards to religious freedom.

What we see here is the classic battle between a society that holds a certain moral standard that was never regulated nor legislated; they need not be nor should they ever be and the crowd that wishes to regulate or legislate their beliefs into society.

In a perfect world, this would be a community or city issue. Since the States should not have the power to tell two consenting adults, who find it mutually beneficial for tax reasons (as really that is all it is about when you take out the religious aspect of marriage), that they should not be together as a family unit.

Continue to call me something that you have no idea about. Attacking a character that you do not know shows even an argument that I agree with as more emotional and illogical.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in