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.

 

Same-Sex Marriage Judge Finds That a Child Has Neither a Need Nor a Right to a Mother

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

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.


Thank you. Nicely explained.

I've tried to focus on legal benefits and Equal Rights.

And per my style - keep it as short and simplified as possible.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Annee]




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

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.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
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]



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

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


Alright keeper. Where does our rights come from then? Our humanity? im sorry but marriage is not a right at all. Same-sex marriage or just marriage period. Anyone who thinks that your 'rights' are given to you by birth needs a wake up check. Yes i know a few founding fathers thought that way. But they were REALISTS.

We are talking straight legality here right people? Not philisophical stuff? which the whole 'your rights are given to you by your humanity' would fall under.

The problem with this in the REAL world is that the constitution is the only thing that gives you rights. If you did not have the bill of rights you would not have any rights at all.



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

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



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
double post..

[edit on 8/11/2010 by tothetenthpower]



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



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

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]


That's an ideological argument, it holds no weight in a court of law.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

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.

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?


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.

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?


If marriage was not a legal institution which provided more rights, trust me, homosexuals would NOT want to get married.

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?



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   

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?


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?



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?


Sure, marry whoever you want. although your children won't be very happy, or healthy about it.



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?


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?

~Keeper

[edit on 8/11/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Nofoolishness
 


You really just need to get over it.

Gay people aren't going away...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

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


We are talking LEGALITY here. Not 'right or wrong' keeper. Gays are allowed to marry keeper.They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like everyone else. No one is being discriminated against keeper. What does marriage have to do with love? If your argument is you have the right to marry who ever you want(which also does not exist) say so.

But i would once again state that there is no right to marriage. You could say that since its not mentioned in the constitution it goes to the state and people. If thats the case the people and states have spoken. Marriage is between man and woman according to the people. Which then of course you could come back and say "you cant say only a certain people can have marriage" which in that case i would say once again gays are not being denied the right to marry the opposite sex,just like everyone else. There is no discrimination going on.

Its not like the people said "you can only have heterosexual marriage" THAT would be discrimination. The people said marriage is between one man and one woman REGARDLESS of sexual orientation.

If all gay people want is benifits, go the vermont route.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

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?

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.)


Sure, marry whoever you want. although your children won't be very happy, or healthy about it.

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.)


What definition are you talking about? If you are straight and married, how is it changing? You're still married aren't you?

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?


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?

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.

[edit on 12/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

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.


This is like saying there is freedom of religion if everybody is allowed to choose whichever Christian denomination they prefer.

I don't think it is the government's place to change a definition of the word, hence I believe in taking the definition of "marriage" out of the government's jurisdiction.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I think we should adopt the european mentality to this. Go read about the european high courts decision on gay marriage. Thats my view on gay marriage here.

hotair.com...

Although i still dont think there is a right to marriage at all.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   


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.


I answered the question.



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.


I've never seen a law preventing that, so long as they were both of legal age. Social stigma? I wonder how those are perpetrated...



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.)


So suddenly you're worried about the social stigma facing gay people? Are you trying to imply that your argument is based in empathy? So people should stop being themselves and exercising their freedoms (or attempting) because other people are offended and impose some sort of social "no no"?


I don't think my children will be happy being raised by two men either. I don't think it's healthy for them.


My children turned out fine. Wonderful actually.



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.)


I assume they won't be happy because they will be inbred. What you described is is a belief based in discrimination. I have no such belief.


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?


Relevance? That's a ridiculous scenario.



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.


Who set the goals? What are these goals?

Raising a family? Contributing to society? Procreation?

All my parts work, I've raised a family and contribute to society in a positive way. I don't see why you are implying that heterosexual marriages are somehow superior to same sex marriages.

~Keeper

[edit on 8/12/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

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.


Not when it's used to alter a legal institution which is just happened to be called "marriage" and really changing nothing at all but including more people, hence freedom.

The "living document" mentality you speak of is what allowed women and blacks to vote, abolished slavery etc.

The truth here is that I don't care what it's called, most don't. Just call it a civil union. As long as it affords the same rights, what's the problem?

I'm sure it would become a non issue if both sides were willing to come to a compromise.

~Keeper


[edit on 8/12/2010 by tothetenthpower]




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join