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.
Originally posted by Unity_99
Marriage existed before the constitution and is a given. The constitution does not give you your rights, all rights are yours already including the right to marry. The constitution names specifically circumstances that are needed for key areas, so they are not abused by governments. The part that pertains to marriage would be in the equal right to pursue happiness that all citizens have, which includes marriage which is already your choice and right.
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Gays are not being denied any rights...they are not being denied the right to marriage or having a marriage liscense. They can marry the opposite sex.
Originally posted by ironfalcon
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled last week in federal court in San Francisco that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?
Judge Vaughn R. Walker has not read the Constitution correctly, has he?
Even worse, where in the Bible does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?
Surely America has long abandoned God and His moral precepts.
Surely this is the Sodom and Gomorrah of new.
If you were a judge, would you rule that every child has both a need and a right for a mother?
www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Gays are not being denied any rights...they are not being denied the right to marriage or having a marriage liscense. They can marry the opposite sex.
Not interested in your prejudice.
Feel free to take it up with anyone who is.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Originally posted by ironfalcon
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled last week in federal court in San Francisco that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
Where in the constitution does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?
Judge Vaughn R. Walker has not read the Constitution correctly, has he?
Even worse, where in the Bible does it say that same-sex marriage is a right?
Surely America has long abandoned God and His moral precepts.
Surely this is the Sodom and Gomorrah of new.
If you were a judge, would you rule that every child has both a need and a right for a mother?
www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Say what?
Seperation of Church And State---Bible argument taken care of.
The constitution does not provide you with rights, and it protects your rights from the government, anything NOT in the constitution is left to the state and people to decide.
Sodom and Gamorrah? Please.
Careful, you're religious zealotry is showing..
~Keeper
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Gays are not being denied any rights...they are not being denied the right to marriage or having a marriage liscense. They can marry the opposite sex.
Not interested in your prejudice.
Feel free to take it up with anyone who is.
How am i prejudice annee? why do you keep saying that? please tell me. Why cant bgays marry the opposite sex? and how is it me thats prejudice for pointing out that they can.
Know what i think annee? I think you call people who you disagree with prejudice or homophobe. Unless you can debate me without calling me 'prejudice'without saying anything of the sort this conversation is done.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Until Gay couples can start reproducing independently (without the reliance of a third party of the opposite sex), there right to marry will keep being questioned. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman for a reason.
[edit on 11/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well I can tell you.
It's discriminatory to NOT allow gays to marry. Why is it that YOU have the right to marry the person you love, but a homosexual does not?
And I'm talking about the person they LOVE here, not which sex that person is.
Furthermore a married couple is provided more rights by getting a marriage license, it's therefore discriminatory to only allow "certain" couples of gaining that license.
If marriage was not a legal institution which provided more rights, trust me, homosexuals would NOT want to get married.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
What if I love my first cousin and she loves me? Why don't we have the right to marry? Why must my right to marry the person I love be prevented by discrimination?
Do you agree it is discriminatory to deny First Cousins the right to marry each other if they are in love? Why or why not?
Fair enough. I can understand the desire for certain rights (e.g. being legally permitted to visit a loved one in the hospital) but why does the definition of Marriage need to be changed in the process?
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Gays are not being denied any rights...they are not being denied the right to marriage or having a marriage liscense. They can marry the opposite sex.
Not interested in your prejudice.
Feel free to take it up with anyone who is.
How am i prejudice annee? why do you keep saying that? please tell me. Why cant bgays marry the opposite sex? and how is it me thats prejudice for pointing out that they can.
Know what i think annee? I think you call people who you disagree with prejudice or homophobe. Unless you can debate me without calling me 'prejudice'without saying anything of the sort this conversation is done.
Well I can tell you.
It's discriminatory to NOT allow gays to marry. Why is it that YOU have the right to marry the person you love, but a homosexual does not?
And I'm talking about the person they LOVE here, not which sex that person is.
Furthermore a married couple is provided more rights by getting a marriage license, it's therefore discriminatory to only allow "certain" couples of gaining that license.
If marriage was not a legal institution which provided more rights, trust me, homosexuals would NOT want to get married.
~Keeper
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Straw man argument. And actually if you did want to marry your cousin, there is really nothing stopping you from doing it legally, you know that right?
Sure, marry whoever you want. although your children won't be very happy, or healthy about it.
What definition are you talking about? If you are straight and married, how is it changing? You're still married aren't you?
Just cause the guys down the street are married too doesn't nullify your vows or your love for your partner does it? How does this affect you in ANY capacity other than going against your beliefs?
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Nofoolishness
I can agree with that. But you cannot take a x hundred year old document and attempt to apply it to modern society. Not in it's entirety anyway.
We are an exponentially evolving society, things MUST change in order for things to move forward.
Have you not realized the status quo is what has gotten us into this ENTIRE mess?
~Keeper
People are resisting changing the definition of a word to include a minority population which cannot achieve the same goals as the majority of marriages between two people of the opposite sex.
Not a Straw Man by any means, actually. It is a valid question which is very applicable to the situation of "two people loving each other" as you described before.
But why should my cousin and I have to face the social stigma? I do believe it is not permitted by law to marry somebody that is so closely related by blood.
Although I could be wrong on that, but the social stigma is still there even if I could. (Which is comparable to the social stigma gay couples face in some countries where it is legal to marry someone of the same sex.)
I don't think my children will be happy being raised by two men either. I don't think it's healthy for them.
You assume they won't be happy because you see 2 first-cousins marrying as something that is wrong (which is actually a belief based on discrimination. Although I doubt you would be willing to admit this.)
If I change the definition of the word "country" and people down the street decide they want to become a country, does the word "country" still maintain the same meaning when neighbourhoods declare their sovereignty?
That is true and I don't think many people are saying that it does. People are resisting changing the definition of a word to include a minority population which cannot achieve the same goals as the majority of marriages between two people of the opposite sex.
Originally posted by Nofoolishness
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Nofoolishness
I can agree with that. But you cannot take a x hundred year old document and attempt to apply it to modern society. Not in it's entirety anyway.
We are an exponentially evolving society, things MUST change in order for things to move forward.
Have you not realized the status quo is what has gotten us into this ENTIRE mess?
~Keeper
So you adhere to the 'living document' mentality. Thanks that is all i needed to know. Then lets just up and change it whenever society wants to or you have enough 'popular support'. This idealogy of yours is dangerous.