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: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpigI do not agree with the statement that gay marriage would lead to polyamourous or incest, as it is a blanket statement that only leads to fear and the contention that by allowing 2 people who are of the same sex to marry.


I think you missed the point. The fact of the matter is that if keeping gay marriage illegal is unconstitutional, then so is keeping polygamy and adult incest. Someone who says marriage should be about equality, which is the typical argument put forth in favor of gay marriage, cannot reasonably keep polyamorous and incestuous relationships from receiving the same rights, right?

That's what I'm saying. Gay marriage by constitutional association and by proxy opens the door for polygamy and incestuous marriages because it effectively removes the traditional barriers that have been imposed on marriage for centuries. I'm not sure how you don't see that.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigIt is a strange notion, having no real basis in fact, or any proof that such would occur, beyond logic. Show us the proof that such would occur, as such would be required, beyond logic.


It isn't a strange notion. You just aren't understanding the argument or the implications. I know you're an intelligent person, but for some reason you're translating what I'm saying with an obtuse interpretation. If gay marriage being illegal is unconstitutional, then polygamy and incestuous marriages being illegal are unconstitutional as well. You can't allow one while preventing the other when the logic that it is unconstitutional to do so is put forth.

That kind of stance is no better than the stance that marriage traditionalists take when they want gay marriage to remain illegal.

I'll try this from a different approach. Can you answer my question about why gay marriage should be legal?


Originally posted by sdcigarpigTo make such a statement, is the same to put out the argument that a straight marriage leads to child abuse.


No it isn't, not by a long shot. Those are two entirely different issues that share no correlation. My statement implies the fact that if preventing one marriage between consenting adults is unconstitutional, then it is also unconstitutional to prevent marriage between the other consenting adults. And that is the truth.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigOne could link the logic this way: In a straight marriage, they have children. And as 99% of all child abuse cases are from the home, therefore straight marriage should be prohibited from raising any children, for the safety of the child.


That's a different issue entirely, and is also something which isn't comparable to what I said in the least. It's also a red herring logical fallacy.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigOr how about this one: Straight marriages should be against the law, as it leads to divorce, 100% of all of the divorces are from straight marriages, and it is a determent to the community and society.


That's a different issue with no relation either. It's also a red herring.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigThe logic is there, yet without the proof it is not really correct.


The logic and truth are in the implication. Please dispute that rather than relating what I said to things that it can't be related to.

Tell me how a person can reasonably use the argument that marriage is about equality for gay marriage, but are unable to use the argument that marriage is about equality for polygamy and incestuous marriages? One would open the door to the other since it is a constitutional right for anyone to engage in a government-sanctioned contract. To prevent any of the aforementioned groups from marrying becomes unconstitutional. So if you allow one, they all need to be allowed by that relationship alone.

Explain how one can be unconstitutional and about equality while the other one cannot.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigBy giving proof it gives weight to the argument, else it is nothing more than just fear and speculation. And that is what the statement that was made equates to, fear and speculation and nothing more.


It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with constitutionality. Preventing gay marriage, polygamy, and incestuous marriages from being legal is unconstitutional, plain and simple. If you allow one you pretty much have to allow the others. I mean, marriage is about equality right?


Originally posted by sdcigarpigThere is no proof that allowing gay marriage would give a rise to either incest or a multi family home fighting for the right to marry.


Giving rise and opening the door are two separate issues. Gay marriage would open the door for the other two. Whether or not people seek to actually engage in incestuous marriages or polygamy is separate, but if people wanted to they would be justified in their actions because marriage would have been redefined to be about equality and constitutionality. It would be unequal and unconstitutional to keep polygamy and incestuous marriages illegal. Please explain to me how it's anything different.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigThose are 2 separate issues, both of which have already been debated on, and fought over in not only a court of law, but also the full scientific weight behind it to not be allowed.


They're the same issue. It's about marriage as it relates to equality and constitutionality. Scientific proof has little merit when debating marriage being about equality among consenting adults. So scientific interjection is mostly irrelevant in this case, since this particular issue is about consenting adults being allowed to marry other consenting adults. The issue isn't about whether or not sexual attraction is natural. It's about a person's freedom to marry whom they please.


Originally posted by sdcigarpigGay marriage has neither, until recently, either been debated in the courts or have any real scientific weight to prohibit such behind it.


Scientific interjection is mostly irrelevant and unnecessary to the marriage debate. The fact of the matter is it is unconstitutional to prevent consenting adults from marrying other consenting adults since marriage is a government-sanctioned institution and it has been argued about being equal among consenting adults.
edit on 15-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children?


No, like I've said twice already, that would obviously be impractical and it's none of their business, and that's why they aren't going to void your marraige.

Hmmm, let me think, what would be a good easy way to identify relationships that are prone to producing offspring? I wonder, when a man and a woman declare that they're entering into a committed romantic relaltionship (I think they call that marraige), might that be a good indication that their relationship is the type that's prone to producing offspring? I think so...
edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)


If your reason to deny someone marriage is because they're not likely to produce offspring, then you'll need to qualify that with some facts. And if you deny some people, you'll need to deny ANYONE who can't have kids at that point.



he doesn't "Need" to do that- that is just you acting like a little tyrant and demanding it- clearly marriage is centred around the bedrock of civilisation, the family, which means mother, father and kids- some people choose not to and others are unfortunate, but that is what it grew out of (as well as the religious aspect)

Now me personally, I don't really care, and if some "group" demand these imaginary rights and bizarre state recognition then so be it- clearly most people in California do oppose it though


It's a hypocritical standard and wouldn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. It'll happen and this entire debate will just go away...



"HYPOCRITICAL"- no, because many people clearly view gay relationships differently.

Me personally I do not care if gay people get married, the recognition by the "state" is a bizarre demand, the state is not my totem pole, and we are hardly talking about a group of people living in concentration camps,

I do think the will of the voters should generally be respected, and that cuts both ways (and yes I am aware of the way it works in America with checks and balances)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
 


I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.



excellent post and this is a far more progressive outlook than some posters on here who bizarrely talk about "bloodshed" over such a relatively minor issue



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by voidla
Did you even read the full post?

He gave the idea more population = better economy.


Yes I did - that was your own silly interpretation of what he said, but he said no such thing.


Originally posted by voidla
Do you even understand how mating works? It doesn't involve marriage in anyway.


I know that, but the government uses marraige (you know, publically declaring your romantic relationship with someone of the opposite gender) as a way of identifying relationships that are prone to producing offspring.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
 


I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.

But did you read the reason why the judge did his ruling? His opinion is very clear cut, and made alot of sense. In short the main reason why this law got overturned, is cause those defending the law failed to do such. There was no legal trickery, no judicial misprocess, it was in short a failure to sway the judge that the law should stand in the face of constitutional review. And do you not think that if you wrote a law, that was going to be a controversy, that you would ensure that all of the witnesses and evidence would stand up in court? Don't you think that the words: I don't know, would give a bad light to the side that utters them? But that is why the law was overturned, a lack of evidence and witnesses who refused to show up in court.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?


Actually there is nothing more important today than individual rights.

Give me one single rational non-religion BS based argument why a same sex couple should be kept from being allowed to get married, while any hetero couple has no problem getting married?

Special rights? How in hell is wanting to be able to do what everyone else can become a "special" right?

By your silly statement, black people wanted "special" rights to vote, as did women, and non-landholders



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?


Actually there is nothing more important today than individual rights.

Give me one single rational non-religion BS based argument why a same sex couple should be kept from being allowed to get married, while any hetero couple has no problem getting married?

Special rights? How in hell is wanting to be able to do what everyone else can become a "special" right?

By your silly statement, black people wanted "special" rights to vote, as did women, and non-landholders





It is silly to equate this issue with women getting the vote for instance- that is just hyperbole.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
 


I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.


The whole idea is that while the Majority may rule, it must NOT infringe on the rights of the Minority; otherwise black citizens would never have gotten the vote. That is why and how the system is set up.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


How is being straight a broken thing? Aren't things in this universe made right first, and then its gets destroyed, tampered with or broken later by man or other things? Are you saying we cant have children anymore because sex with a man and women doesnt work anymore? I dont get your point.

Conservation law of thermodynamics. Everything tends to disorder. Over time things are getting worse, not better. That goes for science and relationships.
edit on 15-6-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
If it aint broke, dont try to fix it!!!


It is broke. Some citizens are being denied the same privileges as other citizens. Of course it doesn't seem broken to those who are permitted the privileges, but to those who are being denied Constitutional protection, something definitely is broken.



... or should I say, Satan.


Church Lady? Is that you?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
 


I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.


The whole idea is that while the Majority may rule, it must NOT infringe on the rights of the Minority; otherwise black citizens would never have gotten the vote. That is why and how the system is set up.



"NEVER", that is a long time and I doubt it is reality- using 19th century mentality in the 21st century.


How does affirmative action fit in - infringing on the rights of the "majority" by the "minority"- yowser!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


S & F Annee.

Take a deep breath homophobes.

How is it right that the Federal tax code recognizes various marriage status for income tax, when it is allowed by states that SOME couple's marriages can be denied?

Tell me the right by which YOU, not some fiat God in a book written by men 1800 years ago, but that YOU may deny any couple the right to marry? Ever got educated enough to understand these two concepts? Equal treatment under the law, and no taxation without representation?

If you don't mind taking probably 11 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers off the books for fed and state and local and consumer taxes, then by all means continue to not allow gay and lesbian couples to make the same mistake and get married as hetero couples do.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by Annee
 


S & F Annee.

Take a deep breath homophobes.




oooooh he tried to demonise people, brilliant



How is it right that the Federal tax code recognizes various marriage status for income tax, when it is allowed by states that SOME couple's marriages can be denied?



what about a couple of spinsters that have lived together for 30 odd years but clearly do not have sex?



Tell me the right by which YOU, not some fiat God in a book written by men 1800 years ago, but that YOU may deny any couple the right to marry? Ever got educated enough to understand these two concepts? Equal treatment under the law, and no taxation without representation?


Why the need to denigrate and abuse those that oppose it out of religious belief. I have no "right" to an abortion, I will not moan about it though




If you don't mind taking probably 11 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers off the books for fed and state and local and consumer taxes, then by all means continue to not allow gay and lesbian couples to make the same mistake and get married as hetero couples do.



11% "lol"



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Of course there is gonna some with priveleges and some with not. How else are you gonna keep up law, you cant keep everyone happy. Someone has to stamp their foot down and say "Marriage is man and woman and thats FINAL". Its not a privelage, or a right, to be gay, its a choice, choose it on your terms but stay out of making it legal so you can justify doing your wrong. Maybe we should keep to the gold standard, I mean The Scriptures, the word of our Creator Yahuwah who laid the rules down and therefore dont change cause someone has hurt feelings because they cant be gay and happy. Well thats the way it is. Rules are not meant to be changed or broken.
edit on 15-6-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



edit on 15-6-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by grahag
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.



If people want "bloodshed" over this imaginary right (to be honest I dont care, but if someone threatens bloodshed over it, then I am going to react)- then they will get the serve returned


I'm sure that same phrase was uttered regarding civil rights in the 60's. It's only imaginary to people who already have the right to marry who they want.


anyone who threatens murder because their "group" does not have recognition by the state over marriage should be dealt with in the firmest manner, keep referring to 50 years ago all you want


You escalated it from violence to murder. I hear people talk about revolution and requiring the tree of liberty to be refreshed with blood and I don't think that's the way it needs to go, but people in the wrong, usually start the violence first. If you oppress someone long enough, they're going to fight back with whatever means they have.

And denying the importance of events because they were 50 years ago belittles all historical events...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
 


I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)

Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.


The whole idea is that while the Majority may rule, it must NOT infringe on the rights of the Minority; otherwise black citizens would never have gotten the vote. That is why and how the system is set up.



"NEVER", that is a long time and I doubt it is reality- using 19th century mentality in the 21st century.


How does affirmative action fit in - infringing on the rights of the "majority" by the "minority"- yowser!



Rub some braincells together first, ok?

Affirmative action, as an example, is allowing a person with the same quals to be rejected as a candidate in favor of a minority person simply by virtue of race, religion - whatever.

Got that, or am I going too fast?

Keeping a minority person from enjoying the same rights as a majority person, simply based on their difference from the majority, is discrimination.

Let me know if you need a refresher on all this.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?


Actually there is nothing more important today than individual rights.

Give me one single rational non-religion BS based argument why a same sex couple should be kept from being allowed to get married, while any hetero couple has no problem getting married?

Special rights? How in hell is wanting to be able to do what everyone else can become a "special" right?

By your silly statement, black people wanted "special" rights to vote, as did women, and non-landholders





It is silly to equate this issue with women getting the vote for instance- that is just hyperbole.


Silly means you have no valid counter. Men could vote; I guess Women wanting to vote was "special right" Ditto for black people.
edit on 15-6-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Garfee




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


No, they wont. But then you know that dont you? And just wanted to have a dig? Crawl back in your hole or go to church or whatever it is you do. Burn books perhaps.
edit on 15-6-2011 by Garfee because: arrgh typos



ha ha, when the hyperbole is returned your thin veneer of tolerance and "equality" is removed and you resort to crude and, in my instance, incorrect stereotyping

Couldn't have gone better


Which betrays the fact that you trolled. So what if I got pissed off? Why shouldn't I?




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join