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.

 

Gay marriage judge question?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


-No excuse you. Ask around, find some openly homosexual individuals and ask them if being "gay" was a choice. Ask me: I did not choose to be this way. I have always known I was different and did not understand what exactly that was until my teens. To tell a gay person that they chose to be gay is ridiculous and insulting.

-You cannot force anyone to like or dislike something. Whether is be males with males or females with females. That would be the same thing as forcing an adult to eat a food they dislike. So you are going to tell me that the testimony of distinguished members of the scientific and medical community, who have degrees and PhDs is worthless over the religious beliefs of activists? Maybe you need to research a bit more before making such a claim.

-The "church" says otherwise, along with hundreds of other religious organizations. Marriage for centuries has been define by the church. They define it, and thus governments base their laws off those definitions, hence depriving the rights of Americans, illegal even under the nation's constitution. You cannot intentionally deny the rights of any American. Basing law off religious beliefs is simply illegal and morally wrong. That is NOT the will of "the people" as a whole in the US, nor was it the will of the founding fathers.

-Your insults are quite old, and really just an attack on individuals at this point.

At this point to respond to all your insults, would require me to insult you. But I have a bit more respect for people than you do. If you are a true American you would see that taking rights away from the people violates everything our country was founded on. If you want that, then go live in a dictatorship. I hear the weather is nice in Venezuela.




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 

Explanation: St*r for you!

I've have been openly gay [but not currently or recently] and IMO it was, is and has always been my choice! Instinctively or not, it was I that was responsible and if that is not the case and I am not my own body then please tell me where I actually am OK???


Unfortunately people CAN be forced to do what they don't want to do. That is what the problem is, was and will be
and I completely agree with the moral AND constitutional viewpoint that you and many others have are and will promote and IT should be promoted! [
]

Personal Disclosure: As for dictatorships... by my barometer and thermometer it seems the weather is even better in that regard inside the boundaries of Nofoolishness! They don't need to go live outside of themselves to find a dictatorship as they are already clearly there!


@ Nofoolishness ...

We are all our OWN task masters! I'll stay off your back if you stay off mine OK! [puns also intended!!!]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
If this was an internal debate, concerning the US only, these legal arguments about a relatively small percetage of the population gaining its will over the majority might be considered a tempest in a tea cup.
But there are troops in Iraq and Afganistan trying to win the hearts and minds of those people to our way of life; Democracy. Simply stated this would seem to be the will of the majority over minority. Now, without being aware of all the legalize, it apppears that in America the minority rules. One judge against the voters. And on a subject that is so touchy in these countries that I doubt it is spoken of in public, let alone taught in school or posted in the just married section of the paper.
So is this what is in store for the citizens of these countries if and when they take up our democratic lifestyle? And will they, like the clergy of California, (and Canada), be forced by law to perform a cerimony they deem wrong?
Remember that after gay marriage, the terms husband and wife go out the window. From this point on, all are spouses. Gender neutral.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SimplyGord
 


Regardless of what the "voters" voted on, you cannot take away rights. What part of "all men are created equal," isn't clear these days? You simply cannot violate constitutional rights simply because you don't like someone. I say constitutional rights because taking the rights of a class of people, is a violation of our national constitution, and even on a state level that trumps it. How would you feel if in that same state, they suddenly said only African Americans could marry other African Americans and so on for Asians and etc? What difference would that be?

And those people in Afghanistan and Iraq were/are fighting a war. That is an entirely different thing. But what about other Islamic nations setting an example. You cannot "be gay" in Iran. You can be gay in Egypt, but people are arrested for it sometimes en.wikipedia.org......so a double standard? Their "rights" and "laws" are just? Are the laws not made on religious beliefs?

[edit on 7-8-2010 by DragonFire1024]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness
The state should be obligated to defend the will of the people...PERIOD.


Not if the will of the people is to discriminate against a group of people OR to violate the US Constitution. You seem to be missing that part. If the will of the people was to hang all the black people in the state from trees, and they all voted for it and agreed, someone needs to step in and say, "Hey! You can't do that"!

No matter how prejudiced or nosy a majority of people are or want to be, they cannot discriminate against a minority just because they all vote to do so.



If the judge followed your rules prop 8 would have been ruled consititutional. Because everyone has the same rights.


No. People have the right to choose a consenting adult to marry. Gay people are denied this right according to Prop 8.

I support gay marriage in that I support equal treatment under the law for all Americans. If you don't, then you disagree with the Constitution, which is fine, but you should recognize that.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 


I live in Canada and gay marriage has been a fact here for about 4 years. I hold no problems with that.
In Canada, anyone with the right to perform marriages are obliged to do the cerimony, gay or straight, wheither it is against their beliefs or not. So far I have only heard of this rule being enforced against Christian and personal beliefs. No Muslims or Jews have been forced to perform or resign to my knowledge.
Frankly, for a time after the laws were enacted, some gays seemed to take some joy from getting married where they knew it was against the grain of the one doing the marriage.
The only thing I lost personally is the legal definition of 'wife'. She is now and forever my 'spouse'.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Did anyone read the courts decision, what the judge wrote down in his opinion and the court records? Did anyone look at the questions that the judge asked both sides? There was no bias, and both sides had to present evidence and arguments to answer the questions.
Does everyone understand that the state did not even defend the law. And furthermore, the person to really be upset at is the side that was defending the law, more specifically, all of the witnesses there of that did not even show up to court. The lack of witnesses, actually disturbed the judge, and that is why he put a hold on the law, refering it up to the next level of courts, rather than actually strike it down. So yes it was a victory for those who do not agree with Prop 8, but only cause the other side did not ensure that their witnesses would show up to court and testify, nor when giving an answer in court, especially defending a law, to answer any question with the answer: I don't know.
What would you think, put yourself on the side of the judge there, in his shoes: You have a case, where the question if a law is going to be legale or not. The side against, shows up with expert witnesses, and is able to give you definative answers to all of your questions. The side for this law, shows up with no expert witnesses, most refusing to show up in court, and can not give any definative answers, what would you decide?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


Dude, don't you know the district it got overturned is the most liberal? Anything will get overturned if it is considered conservative.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Equal treatment for all? So why do we have laws that target certain people like pedophiles or polygamists? I guess it is okay to target them? I am in no favor of pedophiles, but it is like the pot calling the kettle black.

LOL History is repeating itself just how during the the times the Roman empire fell.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Equal treatment for all? So why do we have laws that target certain people like pedophiles or polygamists? I guess it is okay to target them? I am in no favor of pedophiles, but it is like the pot calling the kettle black.

LOL History is repeating itself just how during the the times the Roman empire fell.


This is using some form of idiot binary logic. Dolphins are mammals, dolphins rape, so we should rape???

Grow up. Homosexual people are nothing like pedophiles. It's these kinds of statements that get thrown around everywhere.

Here is a nice offensive example ... Islam has terrorists, Catholics had terrorists in Ireland, lets ban both of them and have them all killed!

All the sort of logic you're using does is obfuscate matters and affect those with an IQ under 110.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


you do know that back in the roman days it was a normal thing? grow up? I have far from grown up mentally and physically. I however question the human race how it survives especially when I see things like this.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
you do know that back in the roman days it was a normal thing?


Homosexuality has ALWAYS been fairly common. Not just in Rome and not just in the US, but everywhere there are people. Just because there were homosexuals in Rome and Rome fell, don't make the assumption that they have something to do with each other. It's only fairly recently that people have been sticking their noses SO far into other people's lives, trying to dictate to them the "right" way to live. And I'm sad to say that that practice is rampant in the US.

Live and let live.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


-No excuse you. Ask around, find some openly homosexual individuals and ask them if being "gay" was a choice. Ask me: I did not choose to be this way. I have always known I was different and did not understand what exactly that was until my teens. To tell a gay person that they chose to be gay is ridiculous and insulting.

-You cannot force anyone to like or dislike something. Whether is be males with males or females with females. That would be the same thing as forcing an adult to eat a food they dislike. So you are going to tell me that the testimony of distinguished members of the scientific and medical community, who have degrees and PhDs is worthless over the religious beliefs of activists? Maybe you need to research a bit more before making such a claim.

-The "church" says otherwise, along with hundreds of other religious organizations. Marriage for centuries has been define by the church. They define it, and thus governments base their laws off those definitions, hence depriving the rights of Americans, illegal even under the nation's constitution. You cannot intentionally deny the rights of any American. Basing law off religious beliefs is simply illegal and morally wrong. That is NOT the will of "the people" as a whole in the US, nor was it the will of the founding fathers.

-Your insults are quite old, and really just an attack on individuals at this point.

At this point to respond to all your insults, would require me to insult you. But I have a bit more respect for people than you do. If you are a true American you would see that taking rights away from the people violates everything our country was founded on. If you want that, then go live in a dictatorship. I hear the weather is nice in Venezuela.


You really think someone gay is gonna say they had a choice? maybe to them they dont have a choice. But there is no scientific proof.

Religion has nothing to do with this. Im not christian. im agnostic. I dont care how many PHD someone has. Do they have apoorf? scientific proof? if not shut up. there is no proof.

You are assuming i give two craps about the church and there definition of marriage. I dont. I am saying this.

-There is no scientific proof someone is gay.PERIOD. you can parade around all the 'experts' with Phd but if you pressure them enough and ask "do you have proof?are you sure?" And you know as well as i do they will say "no we dont have definent proof...but i think" which is opnion.

-No rights are being taken away. Gay people have always had the right to marry.

-The judge ruled under the equal protections law because he believes marriage is a fundamental right. He ruled that gays are being discriminated against by being denied the right to marry and receiving the benifits that married people do. This is a faulty ruling. Because like i said before. Gays have always had the right to marriage.PERIOD. It is even further faulty because....THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. No where in the constitution does it even MENTION marriage. That means it goes to the state under the the tenth ammendment.

Are you following?

1.)Gays have always had the right to marriage. Just like everyone else. There is no rights being taken away. There is no discrimination.

2.)the judge ruled under equal protections because he believes marriage is a fundamental right. Which is wrong. If we followed the constitution to a tee(like the judge should have done) you will find no mention of marriage period.

get it?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nofoolishness



-No rights are being taken away. Gay people have always had the right to marry.

1.)Gays have always had the right to marriage. Just like everyone else. There is no rights being taken away. There is no discrimination.

get it?


i view that as a very weak argument. heterosexual people are able to marry whomever they choose because the law just so happens to be catering to heterosexual marriages, relationships, etc at the moment. homosexual people however, due to this law, are unable to marry who they choose. they will choose a person of the same sex and are unable to enter into marriage because your laws have not yet caught up to the progression of your society.

there is a part of your constitution that states that all men are equal and given certain unalienable rights such as the "pursuit of happiness" a gay person wants to pursue happiness by creating a life with another, by marrying a person of the same sex. they have just as much right to pursue happiness as any heterosexual person. the fact that their idea of happiness differs from yours, is not a good enough reason to leagally restrict that right by removing their opportunity to marry the person of their choosing.

everyone has a different idea of happiness. just because you dont like their idea of happiness doesnt mean you're allowed to prevent them from going after it. its not like these people are trying to legalize something dangerous and harmful to society in the pursuit of happiness...they just want to be able to marry the person of their choosing! there is nothing harmful in that.

this judge made the correct decision. perhaps people are freaking out because they're not used to seeing people in authority in the US actually making the right decision




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join