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.

 

What is the State's compelling interest in banning gay marriage?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

as i said before NO ONE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

you have a state PRIVILEGE. and a privilege is NOT A RIGHT.



Right.

But for that privilege to be constitutional, it must be equally and universally applied to all citizens.

For those who claim that everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender, don't make me laugh. It's just like saying anyone has the right to marry someone of the same skin color or ethnicity (this was an actual law at one time). You probably would have defended the Jim Crow laws under the same logic (separate but equal).

You people who are against gay marriage are against it simply because you want to limit the freedoms of other people. The sooner you accept this simple truth, the sooner we can all move on from this ridiculous debate.

Love knows no boundaries. This I can assure you.




Dont make me laugh. You cant compare jim crow laws to this. because for one being black is a state of being. BEING GAY IS NOT. Its that simple.Alot of gays and there supporters like to say "i/they were born that way"...since when? since when has there been scientific proof that people are born gay? thats right....there IS NONE.

Until proof its a life style choice or PREFERANCE.

The burden of proof falls on the LGBT community for them making such claims. PERIOD.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
The text of Prop 8 is:

Section I. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."
Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.


California already has laws in place to provide benefits to same-sex couples mirroring the vast majority of those extended to heterosexual couples via marriage.

It does not "ban" anyone from anything they didn't already have the right to do. The proposition simply establishes the California Constitution's definition of what marriage is. And now a judge has decided that the definition established by and in accordance with the opinion of the majority of voters through the state's Constitutionally required means to affect such a change is incorrect.

[edit on 8/6/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


Did you even think about anyother group that would try and follow in the gays footsteps to get ther version of marriage legalized? no you didn't all you care about is what affects you and you don't care about anyone else.


It is fairly rude of you to assume but I am actually a heterosexual male.

I don't care if a man marries his dog. Frankly, it doesn't affect me at all and I support the freedom for people to live their lives the way they choose. The only thing I am against is marrying children for the obvious reasons (sex with minors). Frankly, what goes on behind closed doors doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Originally posted by Mercenary2007
I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the constitution it says anyone has a right to marry! quit with the straw man arguements and show your proof that marriage is a right!


I never said marriage was a right guaranteed by the constitution. It isn't.

The right that is guaranteed under the constitution is equal protection under the law for all people.

If a law is established (state or federal) that dictates marriage rights, it must equally apply those rights to all citizens.

You cannot say that men can only marry women. That does not equally protect homosexual relationships (be definition relationships between men and men or women and women). Thus, it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution.

It's time we accepted gays into our culture as legitimate couples. The entire issue is ridiculous.

Again, people who stand against gay marriage do so solely because they wish to limit the freedoms of others,and that is inherently unamerican.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


Until proof its a life style choice or PREFERANCE.

The burden of proof falls on the LGBT community for them making such claims. PERIOD.


Well, it's already been proven:



Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.


Royal College of Psychiatrists





Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.


American Academy of Pediatrics



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


Did you even think about anyother group that would try and follow in the gays footsteps to get ther version of marriage legalized? no you didn't all you care about is what affects you and you don't care about anyone else.


It is fairly rude of you to assume but I am actually a heterosexual male.

I don't care if a man marries his dog. Frankly, it doesn't affect me at all and I support the freedom for people to live their lives the way they choose. The only thing I am against is marrying children for the obvious reasons (sex with minors). Frankly, what goes on behind closed doors doesn't bother me in the slightest.


Originally posted by Mercenary2007
I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the constitution it says anyone has a right to marry! quit with the straw man arguements and show your proof that marriage is a right!


I never said marriage was a right guaranteed by the constitution. It isn't.

The right that is guaranteed under the constitution is equal protection under the law for all people.

If a law is established (state or federal) that dictates marriage rights, it must equally apply those rights to all citizens.

You cannot say that men can only marry women. That does not equally protect homosexual relationships (be definition relationships between men and men or women and women). Thus, it violates the 14th amendment of the US constitution.

It's time we accepted gays into our culture as legitimate couples. The entire issue is ridiculous.

Again, people who stand against gay marriage do so solely because they wish to limit the freedoms of others,and that is inherently unamerican.



We can and WILL say that. So your entire argument is this?

"You cannot say that men can only marry women. That does not equally protect homosexual relationships (be definition relationships between men and men or women and women)"

Are you freekin serious? if thats the best you got you better just QUIT. It DOES equally protect relationships. No one is being denied the right to have a homosexual relationship. NO ONE.Homosexual RELATIONSHIPS are not being outlawed. No one is saying you cant dip your wick in another mans fecal matter.That would be unconstitutional. This entire argument of yours is foolish. so anything and everyone should be able to get married under the 14th? sorry pal this is not a anarchist society. we have rules. One of those rules is marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

No single person is being denied the right to marry. Each homosexual man can marry a woman and each lesbian can marry a man.

No one is being denied any rights. Using your arguments marriage should be abolished all together because single people of all sexual preferances are being discriminated against. After all they are being denied the 'rights' of married people.




[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


Until proof its a life style choice or PREFERANCE.

The burden of proof falls on the LGBT community for them making such claims. PERIOD.


Well, it's already been proven:



Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.


Royal College of Psychiatrists





Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.


American Academy of Pediatrics






Im sorry but that is not proof. PERIOD. thats Hypothesis NOT THEORY. NONE. no proof. just saying "being gay is likely a combination of factors" DOES NOT CUT IT SIR. I know you being gay think you are born gay...but sorry...no proof. There is no proof PERIOD. What you posted was just HYPOTHESIS which does not count because that is not PROOF. Its not a theory in the scientific method. AND YOU KNOW THIS. You are being intellectually dishonest on purpose.

There is no scientific evidence of people being born gay. There is hypothesis for sure...but thats not proof.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


Until proof its a life style choice or PREFERANCE.

The burden of proof falls on the LGBT community for them making such claims. PERIOD.


Well, it's already been proven:



Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.


Royal College of Psychiatrists





Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.


American Academy of Pediatrics





There is hypothesis for sure...but thats not proof.

Quoted from your 'proof'

"Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation"

Yeah...thats proof.


[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Im sorry but that is not proof. PERIOD. thats Hypothesis NOT THEORY. NONE. no proof. just saying "being gay is likely a combination of factors" DOES NOT CUT IT SIR. I know you being gay think you are born gay...but sorry...no proof. There is no proof PERIOD.


Those are links to very in depth studies. I suggest you read them, they are much more than simple statements. And while it is impossible to prove anything that exists strictly as a case-by-case basis (such as human sexuality), the science is very compelling.

I can't help but notice the amount of passion in your writing. Obviously this issue touches a nerve.

Did you know that homophobia has been scientifically linked to repressed homosexual tendencies?

Perhaps it is time for some self-evaluation?
I kid.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Im sorry but that is not proof. PERIOD. thats Hypothesis NOT THEORY. NONE. no proof. just saying "being gay is likely a combination of factors" DOES NOT CUT IT SIR. I know you being gay think you are born gay...but sorry...no proof. There is no proof PERIOD.


Those are links to very in depth studies. I suggest you read them, they are much more than simple statements. And while it is impossible to prove anything that exists strictly as a case-by-case basis (such as human sexuality), the science is very compelling.

I can't help but notice the amount of passion in your writing. Obviously this issue touches a nerve.

Did you know that homophobia has been scientifically linked to repressed homosexual tendencies?

Perhaps it is time for some self-evaluation?
I kid.


Like i said before proof or GTFO(i dont really mean it that way.....its just a meme
)

I dont care how 'compelling' the studies supposedly are. There is no proof in this studies. In fact one study itself admits uncertainty of there own hypothesis.

"Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation"

There i bolded it for you...like i said before....PROOOF I WAAAANT ITTTTT!

Just come out and say you dont have any.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
But thats the problem.....homosexuals,bisexuals,and transgender CAN get married. To the opposit GENDER. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone. I cant marry a man because im a man. A woman cant marry a women because shes a woman. Its not a sexuality thing. Its not a race thing. Its a gender thing.
[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

And how can you believe that if a gay man or a lesibian were to marry, to the opposite sex that it would be legale? Most state laws, and by the very traditions that you tout, state that for a marriage to be legal in the eyes of the law, it would have to be consumated. To give you an example, you were to get married, and were not able to have intercourse with your bride, after a reasonable amount of time, she then could take you to court, demand an annullment and ask for damages on her part as you were not able to fulfill the marriage contract. And under those same laws, she would win that court case. So what you are proposing is unequal in the eyes of the laws, as a gay man and a lesibian would not be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and could not fulfill that part of the marriage contract, thus they are at a disadvantage in that case, and the laws are unequally applied as well, violating their rights.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
But thats the problem.....homosexuals,bisexuals,and transgender CAN get married. To the opposit GENDER. Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone. I cant marry a man because im a man. A woman cant marry a women because shes a woman. Its not a sexuality thing. Its not a race thing. Its a gender thing.
[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

And how can you believe that if a gay man or a lesibian were to marry, to the opposite sex that it would be legale? Most state laws, and by the very traditions that you tout, state that for a marriage to be legal in the eyes of the law, it would have to be consumated. To give you an example, you were to get married, and were not able to have intercourse with your bride, after a reasonable amount of time, she then could take you to court, demand an annullment and ask for damages on her part as you were not able to fulfill the marriage contract. And under those same laws, she would win that court case. So what you are proposing is unequal in the eyes of the laws, as a gay man and a lesibian would not be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and could not fulfill that part of the marriage contract, thus they are at a disadvantage in that case, and the laws are unequally applied as well, violating their rights.


Wrong again. No where does it state that a marriage has to be consumated. that is a bold faced lie.Because the government has ruled that what goes on in the bedroom is private. You really are grasping for straws. Want or sexual attraction has nothing to do with marriage. It is a social contract defined as 1 man 1 woman. It requires no love,no sex,no anything but signing a dotted line and marrying the opposite gender.

Your whole argument is foolish and a lie.

Marriage does not require love or sex. It require it be 1 man and 1 woman. Want to change that? push for it to be be redefined. But it would still be the states and the will of the peoples decisions.

Like i said before. sexuality has nothing to do with it. attraction has nothing to do with it. You can do a anullment for anything. A woman can ask damages for anything. Everyone has equal protection. Like i said before....YOU ARE GRASPING AT STRAWS.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


No, these laws really do exist. A marriage can be annulled, if it is not cosumated in a reasonable amount of time. In the state of California one of the grounds for annullment is either the man is impotent or the marriage was never consumated. So this is a true fact.Marriage Annulment
Answers From The Expert

One party was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage


And then there is this little bit of information on the subject as well:
In some states, U.S. military personnel may be able to annul a proxy marriage provided there is no consummation, no cohabitation, or no treatment as husband and wife after the marriage ceremony.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by sdcigarpig]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   
And the point on the consumation of the marriage is also used in the federal guidlines, when it comes to the determination if a marriage between a citizen and an immigrant is a legale one or not. Immigration will not consider the marriage to be legale unless it is consumated between the 2 individuals. So that too is a part of law and federal statute. They may not ask what it was like, but they will ask if sex did happen between the couple. And have been known to, in order to determine if the couple is as they are claiming on the forms.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


No, these laws really do exist. A marriage can be annulled, if it is not cosumated in a reasonable amount of time. In the state of California one of the grounds for annullment is either the man is impotent or the marriage was never consumated. So this is a true fact.Marriage Annulment
Answers From The Expert

One party was impotent and unable to consummate the marriage


And then there is this little bit of information on the subject as well:
In some states, U.S. military personnel may be able to annul a proxy marriage provided there is no consummation, no cohabitation, or no treatment as husband and wife after the marriage ceremony.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by sdcigarpig]


So? my point still stands. Marriage requires no attraction or sex. just because one can get it annulled because someone cant get a erection or a women cant get wet means little to squat.

Nothing you said takes away from my points i made. A straight man can be impotent just as a gay man can. This proves my point exactly.

Erectile dysfunction can happen in ALL men.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
And the point on the consumation of the marriage is also used in the federal guidlines, when it comes to the determination if a marriage between a citizen and an immigrant is a legale one or not. Immigration will not consider the marriage to be legale unless it is consumated between the 2 individuals. So that too is a part of law and federal statute. They may not ask what it was like, but they will ask if sex did happen between the couple. And have been known to, in order to determine if the couple is as they are claiming on the forms.


Like i said before. attraction does not matter at all. what you just posted would not fly in the courts and you know it. I dont know where you live but in my state it requires no consumation.

And i really am doubting this bullcrap your posting. I have never heard of this happening.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join