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.

 

Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by fred call


A Liberal is basically the "catch all" bucket every time some conservative doesn't agree - - or thinks they need to prove something.




It's probably a good thing you mention that liberals and conservatives use different public restrooms.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by fred call
 


HAHA this made me laugh, sorry but really, there is no way they would legalise polygamy for bisexuals whist legalising homosexual marriage. I’ll have a read through all the post later thanks that made my night. Do you think they legalised murder, rape and paedophile as well for bisexuals while they were at it cause you know..... they are bisexual.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kevinunknown]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by fred call


Gay couples just want to be equal in the eyes of the law with straight couples. The fact that there are people trying to deny them equal rights is WRONG, regardless of legal precedence. You know in legal precedence racial segregation was legal too, that didn't make it right.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


Good for gay couples. Good for bisexual couples. Good for people who want to marry their relatives. Good for people who want to marry Lassie. Good for everyone.

Equal rights is equal rights for everyone?

Or is there a point where a line is drawn in the sand.

In a Democracy, the majority rules. The people of California voted against gay marriage.

Case is under review.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred call

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by fred call


A Liberal is basically the "catch all" bucket every time some conservative doesn't agree - - or thinks they need to prove something.




It's probably a good thing you mention that liberals and conservatives use different public restrooms.


It just gets boring when the Liberal/Conservative gets thrown in the mix.

Its like two little kids on the playground.

I don't see where it has any relevance to this discussion.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by fred call
 





You are a liberal. You don't believe in the Tenth Amendment. When I talk about the Tenth Amendment or the National Nullification of Unfair Federal Laws, I'm not talking to liberals.


Really? What have I said that indicates that? You are making assumptions. Is it possible people can think individually without having to be a member of a camp? Your comment about me being a liberal tells me one thing, that you have no capacity to think for your self. Your views are fed to you by those you idolize as "conservatives" and you lack the ability to question the validity of such "information" for fear of being labeled a "liberal". Sorry but such silly tactics don't work on me or the majority of members on ATS.

Think for yourself...



Ya know, a conservative could explain the Tenth Amendment to a liberal all day long....and you might as well be reading Melville's Moby Dick out loud.


Again you made the decision to make a post about gay marriage. I am curious why you would use that example to highlight the usurpation of state rights when there are more alarming examples. Why are you so concerned about state rights now? Your post seem to indicate that you couldn't careless until now. Why?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by fred call
 


HAHA this made me laugh, sorry but really, there is no way they would legalise polygamy for bisexuals whist legalising homosexual marriage. I’ll have a read through all the post later thanks that made my night. Do you think they legalised murder, rape and paedophile as well for bisexuals while they were at it cause you know..... they are bisexual.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kevinunknown]


You are most welcome. Enjoy.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Everything you said was understood. Even your confusion. It wasn't rocket science what you wrote.



o_O
Say what?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by fred call
 


Do you think they legalised murder, rape and paedophile as well for bisexuals while they were at it cause you know..... they are bisexual.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kevinunknown]


You got a little overboard there. Suggesting that murder be legalized and such. But, good try.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred call

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by fred call
 


Do you think they legalised murder, rape and paedophile as well for bisexuals while they were at it cause you know..... they are bisexual.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by kevinunknown]


You got a little overboard there. Suggesting that murder be legalized and such. But, good try.


It's called a extreme example man. Did you not catch that?
2nd line.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by fred call
 




Good for bisexual couples.


Umm... what? How does giving gay couples equal rights with straight ones have ANYTHING to do with what bi-sexual couples can and can't do. Yes Bi-sexual people can still get married and always have been able to. No polygamy laws do not and are not changing because of gays getting equal rights.

Your pathetic attempts at linking gay marriage with things like bestiality and incest won't work, they are asinine, laughable and childish.

To suggest such is no different than those who suggested that racial integration would lead to reverse segregation and Whites becoming second class citizens. It is fear mongering and nothing more.

Gay marriage is about one thing, giving gay couples the right to marry that they have been denied for so long. That's 2, count them 2, A PAIR, A COUPLE, the same number of individuals are involved as those involved in straight marriage.


Equal rights is equal rights for everyone?


Right, unless those rights infringe upon the rights of another. Gay marriage doesn't do that, it merely makes gay couples equal to straight ones in the eyes of the law.



Or is there a point where a line is drawn in the sand.


I think that most people would be in agreement in stating that bestiality and incest should remain illegal. For one an animal cannot consent. For the latter incest is usually abusive and typically begins before the age of consent and is damaging to the gene pool if procreation takes place (incest between consenting adults is sort of a gray area though). I agree, we need to draw the lines, okay, but we don't need to get all bent out of shape because some down-trodden minority (gays), finally have the audacity to ask for equality. These two issues aren't even related to gay marriage.



In a Democracy, the majority rules.




Only we don't live in a pure Democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic which was specifically set up to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority thereby leaving us FREE.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been covered.

Why does it matter?

Why can't we just get to a stage were people of consenting age can do what they want as long as it does not hurt others.

Would it bother me if a bi wanted to marry their male and female partner's? I could care less. If that is what makes them happy, and it does not hurt anybody, why not?

My opinion is the same for gay marriage, what was the big deal in the first place? Man, if I was a judge, the gay marriage issue would have been done in court in 30 minutes.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread600292/pg4#

and you lack the ability to question the validity of such "information" for fear of being labeled a "liberal". Sorry but such silly tactics don't work on me or the majority of members on ATS.
]

Yep, you're a liberal, all right. You think you speak for the majority of liberals. Don't be ashamed of being what you are. Stand up to proubly proclaim you are a liberal. It could be worse....somehow. Though at the moment I don't want to think of anything getting worse.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Would it bother me if a bi wanted to marry their male and female partner's? I could care less. If that is what makes them happy, and it does not hurt anybody, why not?




Because nobody cares what your sexual preference is. That is not the important point of this entire conversation. The important part of this conversation is about state's rights, equal rights, etc. etc. Again, nobody cares what your personal sexual preferences are. The voters of California did not vote one way or the other on your sexual proclivities.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread600292/pg5#


Only we don't live in a pure Democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic which was specifically set up to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority thereby leaving us FREE.



And there is nothing to add to that statement other than to display said statement as an example of pure surrealism.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Procession101

It's called a extreme example man. Did you not catch that?
2nd line.


Yeah, I got it. It wasn't that difficult to understand. I'm pretty sure eveyrone else got what you meant.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by fred call
 


Surrealism? All I'm saying is that's how the American system is INTENDED to work. If it really did work that way we wouldn't be having this discussion because gays would have been allowed to marry from day 1.

I could also mention that your entire OP is based on sensationalist anti-gay propaganda. Fear mongering about bestiality and polygamy somehow changing as a result of simply giving gay couples equality.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Although States' Rights don't affect me up here, the point is that if a man is bi-sexual and wants to marry a man and a woman based on his sexual preference it should follow the lead that gay couples are providing. Who are any of us to say that this man does not love this man and woman equally? They should be allowed the same rights as any other married people. If all three of the adults involved have agreed there should be no questioning it. That would be based on the notion that all adults have the right to marry and reside with the spouse(s) they have chosen. Because some people here have posted that they think some bi-sexual people they know would not does not mean it can't or won't happen.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968
Because some people here have posted that they think some bi-sexual people they know would not does not mean it can't or won't happen.


Not only it might happen, it has happened.

But, like everthing else, there are legal issues. Just because it has happened doesn't mean that every state in the union is legally bound to accept or not accept it happening. Thus, we touch back on the Tenth Amendment thing.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred call

Originally posted by habfan1968
Because some people here have posted that they think some bi-sexual people they know would not does not mean it can't or won't happen.


Not only it might happen, it has happened.

But, like everthing else, there are legal issues. Just because it has happened doesn't mean that every state in the union is legally bound to accept or not accept it happening. Thus, we touch back on the Tenth Amendment thing.


Seriously - - multiple marriages are not even in the equation right now.

FIRST - - we need to guarantee all couples.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join