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.

 

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by voidla
 


Gays have the equal right to marry the opposite sex, no one is stopping gays from marrying except themselves. They are not allowed to marry the same sex, nor am I. The American government recognizes the union between a man and a woman because they can produce offspring which actually helps the economy. I hope this clears things up for you.


Gays aren't attracted to the opposite sex or hadn't you realised that? They would not love them or enjoy the partnership and it would break down.

I notice that your argument is based on reproduction and the ecomomy. Gay people can surrogate or adopt and many heterosexual couples can not or choose not to reproduce. I pay my taxes whether I can have a legally recongised partnership or not.

I hope this clears things up for you.


edit on 15-6-2011 by Garfee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by voidla
And, especially within America where the economy is shot, the amount of people you have, according to you, your economy should be booming!


A big part of the problem we have is not enough people entering the work force to pay for those retiring, the government should have done even more to encourage people to have kids.

If you don't raise any kids maybe you shouldn't be eligible for any government retirement benefit, it's the kids paying for it after all.


Originally posted by voidla
And since when does marriage = reproduction?
You better run to the White House and tell them infertile couples should have their marriage dissolved!


The idea is to recognize those relationships which are prone to producing offspring (when adult humans of the opposite gender declare that they've entered into a committed romantic relationship, IE. traditional marraige, it's a pretty good indication that it's that type of relationship). They obviously can't test everyone's fertility.

Two guys getting it on obviously isn't that kind of relationship.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by BIGPoJo
 


This argument is and has been all about the money...pensions,Social Security,alimony etc....all else is a smokescreen


So you're okay if we just take that out of marriage and require a legal contract between two people instead? (oh wait, that's what a marriage license is for...)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
This is such a joke, man marries man, Thousands of years of procreation by their ancestors gone to waste because being gay is promoted as normal and equal. What about all the ancestors that fought tooth and nail to survive then one branch of the family tree just stops because being gay is acceptable. It's kinda like abortions, life killer. :/
edit on 14-6-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)
If same sex marriage is allowed, it won't signal the end of humanity just because gays cannot procreate. There's plenty of you heteros doing enough of that for the entire world. Also, marriage is not a requirement for procreation. That is evident from all those single mothers with children from different men. Marriage isn't such a cherished institution which is evident by the 50% divorce rate.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Abrihetx
So, if a fertile woman and a sterile man sleep together is this an unequal circumstance?

Yes, this is an unequal scenario to a fertile male and female. Often times however this is unknown before the marriage. Even if it were known it would be micro-management for the government to discourage what is a generally favorable scenario. Let's say hypothetically that I ran a red light the other day. It's 2 a.m. and there is no on-coming traffic but the light won't change for me even after 10 minutes. I'm not going to get legal permission to run that light from any government authority. They'll tell you to sit at that light till hell freezes over because generally running red lights is a safety issue. This is what the government does. It decides what is generally the most favorable scenario and makes laws to encourage those scenarios are played out.



Originally posted by Abrihetx
What about someone that gets sick because they have a weakened immune system. Should we just let them die or try to help them through medicine? That darn Nature playing favorites again..smh.

You're on the opposite end of nature now. I'm talking about creating life, you're speaking of destroying life. Generally government passes laws to encourage life so yes people who are sick get treatment.


Originally posted by Abrihetx
You pointed out how it is unequal. It is not unequal. Just different.

No, different is when you prefer American Airlines over Southwest Airlines. Unequal is when you prefer Ford to Boeing. Totally different equipment. One can fly the other never can and I have no issues with the government preferring Boeing built craft for over Ford built automobiles for flying.



Originally posted by Abrihetx
please understand that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the desire to have children.

No, not the desire, just the ability.
edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)


Wha? Homosexuals have the "ability" to have children, they have all the right gear and I'm sure if suddenly everyone went Gay there would still be plenty of kids in the world, just lots of Adults who concieved them with their eyes closed or while watching Gay porn!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
When looking at reasons for denying someone rights, all you have to do to see if it's fair is apply it to YOUR current rights.


Okay lets do that... can I marry someone of the same gender?

Nope.
edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


So that doesn't seem fair. It should be fixed.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mossme89
 


He didn't uphold a gay marriage ban. He upheld a ruling in FAVOR of gay marriage. Just for clarity.


Ah, ok. Thanks!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by voidla
 


Gays have the equal right to marry the opposite sex, no one is stopping gays from marrying except themselves. They are not allowed to marry the same sex, nor am I. The American government recognizes the union between a man and a woman because they can produce offspring which actually helps the economy. I hope this clears things up for you.


So the reason that it's legal for a man and woman to marry is because they can/will produce offspring? So the marriages of people who can't/won't produce offspring should be voided. Nope, that doesn't clear things up at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee
 


Your right!


The only thing I'm mad about is the vote was on the ballet two times, and people voted for it.

So does our vote really matter?

That's the right thing to be mad about.


Why would people be against it in the first place? Why would it be such an issue that it would have to be on the ballot? How does same sex marriage affect yours or anybody else's marriage? Why should gay people have to get the approval and consent of the heterosexual population? What do you care?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
So that doesn't seem fair. It should be fixed.


It's fine the way it is, everyone has the same rights when it comes to marraige.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Just another step on the slippery slope of normalizing everything, no wonder we are headed in the direction we are. Funny, Judges should only recluse themselves when it helps the under dog, not the majority, typical nonsense.


You have every right to your personal feelings.

In law and equal rights - you don't.

The "under dog"? Interesting analogy. So does that make you the persecutor? Persecuting a victim of injustice? Who's only crime is being born homosexual?

1: a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest
2: a victim of injustice or persecution

being homosexual is not a crime



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee
 


Your right!


The only thing I'm mad about is the vote was on the ballet two times, and people voted for it.

So does our vote really matter?

That's the right thing to be mad about.


Why would people be against it in the first place? Why would it be such an issue that it would have to be on the ballot? How does same sex marriage affect yours or anybody else's marriage? Why should gay people have to get the approval and consent of the heterosexual population? What do you care?


Haven't you heard? If gay marriage is legalized, then EVERYONE will be gay... Dogs and people will get married and people will start marrying children! It'll be ANARCHY! No one will have babies anymore and humanity will die out! AIDS will run rampant and the planet will crack open and spill the gayness all over it (It'll be very effeminate, but look absolutely fabulous!).



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by voidla
 


Gays have the equal right to marry the opposite sex, no one is stopping gays from marrying except themselves. They are not allowed to marry the same sex, nor am I. The American government recognizes the union between a man and a woman because they can produce offspring which actually helps the economy. I hope this clears things up for you.


Gays aren't attracted to the opposite sex or hadn't you realised that? They would not love them or enjoy the partnership and it would break down.

I notice that your argument is based on reproduction and the ecomomy. Gay people can surrogate or adopt and many heterosexual couples can not or choose not to reproduce. I pay my taxes whether I can have a legally recongised partnership or not.

I hope this clears things up for you.


edit on 15-6-2011 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



two sisters who live together all their life do not have the same "rights" as a married couple, this is just attention seeking, and let's be honest, who cares if the state "recognises" you or not, I don't care about "state" recoginition- "MARRIAGE" is primarily a religious institution, so why people insist on this "look at me me me I am special" nonsense is baffling.

Shame on this judge



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
So the reason that it's legal for a man and woman to marry is because they can/will produce offspring? So the marriages of people who can't/won't produce offspring should be voided. Nope, that doesn't clear things up at all.


When a man and a woman announce that they're entering into a committed romantic relationship it's a situation that is prone to producing offspring. They obviously can't check everyone's fertility etc. etc.

Do you really think the government cares to know about a couple of men who are having sex with each other?
edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
So that doesn't seem fair. It should be fixed.


It's fine the way it is, everyone has the same rights when it comes to marraige.


Ah, the old, "Gays have the right to marry members of the opposite sex" argument. It's just a very clever way to say, "No, you can't get married to who you want. You have to marry the people 'I' want you to marry".

Switch it around and see if it seems fair. You can't marry someone of the opposite sex because it's illegal. You gonna be okay with that? I didn't think so.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerimar65
reply to post by leo123
 


Oh right, and the institution hasn't been cheapened by the 50% divorce rate?


Thanks to the feminists, you are right, but it certainly doesn't need another hit as well.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by zerimar65

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee
 


Your right!


The only thing I'm mad about is the vote was on the ballet two times, and people voted for it.

So does our vote really matter?

That's the right thing to be mad about.


Why would people be against it in the first place? Why would it be such an issue that it would have to be on the ballot? How does same sex marriage affect yours or anybody else's marriage? Why should gay people have to get the approval and consent of the heterosexual population? What do you care?


Haven't you heard? If gay marriage is legalized, then EVERYONE will be gay... Dogs and people will get married and people will start marrying children! It'll be ANARCHY! No one will have babies anymore and humanity will die out! AIDS will run rampant and the planet will crack open and spill the gayness all over it (It'll be very effeminate, but look absolutely fabulous!).



Yes, and if these attention seekers do not get these "rights" then gays will disappear completely



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
why do people have to make the legal system get involved to make their 'wicked acts' more appropriate? Don't you think the reason there is a female and a male on this planet? So we can express the correct way of marriage not some screwed up crap of gay marriage. And yes I am against people who are gay, but I will not hate them, just think its the dumbest choice out of many(smoking, drinking to get drunk, doing stupid daredevil stunts etc.).

Why can't people just leave things the way they were for thousands of years. Its worked till now, why change it?

If it aint broke, dont try to fix it!!! And see how far the human race gets when everyone decides to be gay, 100 years and bam, no more humans. Looks like the Global Elite are getting what they want, or should I say, Satan.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
So the reason that it's legal for a man and woman to marry is because they can/will produce offspring? So the marriages of people who can't/won't produce offspring should be voided. Nope, that doesn't clear things up at all.


When a man and a woman announce that they're entering into a committed romantic relationship it's a situation that is prone to producing offspring. They obviously can't check everyone's fertility etc. etc.


You don't seem to be getting my message. Let me give you a VERY personal example. I am infertile. I am married. Should my marriage be voided because I cannot father a child? Is my ONLY reason for getting married to produce children?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I have a feeling the longer that they are denied equal treatment, the more you're going to hear from them. That's how the civil rights movement went in the 60s... In the end, it'll probably take bloodshed to make people realize that human rights aren't about gender or preference or race.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join