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: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I am all for gay marriages which would afford them tax breaks and a marriage license that legally proves their union.
But, forcing a church or a priest to preside over a holy matrimony that they do not believe in, or wish not to do, is just as disgusting as denying a common legal privilege as marriage.

So heres the solution, let the gays get married. But if a church or a priest refuses to preside over it, let them practice their beliefs as is their right. And if there are churches and priests that wish to take part in gay marriages, let them, as it is also their right. But in a court of law marriage must not be denied, so a courthouse will officiate a gay marriage without prejudice.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I really do want to try this from a different approach.

What is marriage to you?


Marriage to me is unfathomable.

It is an archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.



No.

Marriage is when two ppl care more for each other than for anything else
That is not archaic

The debate is the state recognition that two ppl of the same sex can feel that kind of care


But the definition you gave isn't particularly correct. People who do not care for each other, yet who are still heterosexual, can get married. How does your definition account for them?


Want to re-read that?

Specific quote is: Marriage is when two ppl care more for each other than for anything else
That is not archaic



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
If it hasn't been said already then it bears repeating....

Gays should be allowed to marry...

Why should they be spared the misery the rest of us have to endure.
edit on 15-6-2011 by whaaa because: funny



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrChuck

I am all for gay marriages which would afford them tax breaks and a marriage license that legally proves their union.
But, forcing a church or a priest to preside over a holy matrimony that they do not believe in, or wish not to do, is just as disgusting as denying a common legal privilege as marriage.

So heres the solution, let the gays get married. But if a church or a priest refuses to preside over it, let them practice their beliefs as is their right. And if there are churches and priests that wish to take part in gay marriages, let them, as it is also their right. But in a court of law marriage must not be denied, so a courthouse will officiate a gay marriage without prejudice.


No church forced; that is a fool's argument. This is about a secular recongnition the same as hetero marriages are afforded.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


So I take it that you believe that marriage is both a legal contract as well as a social contract? I'm just making certain about this so that I don't unintentionally misinterpret what you said.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by DrChuck

I am all for gay marriages which would afford them tax breaks and a marriage license that legally proves their union.
But, forcing a church or a priest to preside over a holy matrimony that they do not believe in, or wish not to do, is just as disgusting as denying a common legal privilege as marriage.

So heres the solution, let the gays get married. But if a church or a priest refuses to preside over it, let them practice their beliefs as is their right. And if there are churches and priests that wish to take part in gay marriages, let them, as it is also their right. But in a court of law marriage must not be denied, so a courthouse will officiate a gay marriage without prejudice.


No church forced; that is a fool's argument. This is about a secular recongnition the same as hetero marriages are afforded.



I wasn't implying that a church was forced. It was a hypothetical statement. Chill the f#ck out. The main opponents of gay marriage are Christians, and if gay marriage is legalized how do you not know the churches will be forced by law to conduct them? It would be discriminatory not to do so.

By law a business cannot refuse service to someone due to race or sexual orientation. Which in fact is a violation of the business owners right to refuse service to anyone. And by law must serve them even if they don't want to, or simply forced to serve someone they don't want any part of.
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


I dont classify myself as a Christian, so dont think I believe the same garbage they do. Maybe research who the real Name of our Messiah is Yahuwshuwah, not that fake Jesus, and the real Name of the Father Yahuwah, not God before you make your bogus claims. Thats pagan garbage from babylon that is still here floating around in the religions.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
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.


In reality - - when automation began to take away jobs from humans - - - the logical course of action would have been to stop making an excessive number of more humans.

But religion still living in the archaic past - - - continues with "God said go forth and multiply".

Sometimes - - you have to open your eyes and see TODAY.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


I read what you said perfectly fine. It is somewhat archaic and it isn't particularly true because it ignores the fact that marriages were also about uniting two enterprises together. Like a king and a queen who didn't particularly care for each other, yet they still married because it was beneficial for their lineage and for their kingdoms. In that sense it was more about the benefits than the affection or care.

And that trend continues to this day.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by DrChuck

I am all for gay marriages which would afford them tax breaks and a marriage license that legally proves their union.
But, forcing a church or a priest to preside over a holy matrimony that they do not believe in, or wish not to do, is just as disgusting as denying a common legal privilege as marriage.

So heres the solution, let the gays get married. But if a church or a priest refuses to preside over it, let them practice their beliefs as is their right. And if there are churches and priests that wish to take part in gay marriages, let them, as it is also their right. But in a court of law marriage must not be denied, so a courthouse will officiate a gay marriage without prejudice.


No church forced; that is a fool's argument. This is about a secular recongnition the same as hetero marriages are afforded.



I wasn't implying that a church was forced. It was a hypothetical statement. Chill the hell out. The main opponents of gay marriage are Christians, and if gay marriage is legalized how do you not know the churches will be forced by law to conduct them? It would be discriminatory not to do so.
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



Doctor Chuck: it NOT hypothetical for the women and men I served with. People who put their lives on the line for your ass and others, only to be denied the same recognition as us straights.

It will be one cold day in hell when desert them.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Aimee is right, she did not say special rights, she said equal rights.

Every adult should be able to choose whom to fall in love with.

What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is non of any body's business.

If two people are in love and want to marry.................they should be allowed to marry period.

The hate MUST STOP.

This is how TPTB divide us.

The three D's (for the one hundreth time)

DUMBING US DOWN
DISTRACTING US
DIVIDING US

Again the hate MUST STOP......................Hatred for another race, another religion, another sexual orientation, another belief.

Live and let live as long as nobody is harming another.

God, when in sam heck will humanity grow the muck up.

Like talking to a bunch of two year olds.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


I read what you said perfectly fine. It is somewhat archaic and it isn't particularly true because it ignores the fact that marriages were also about uniting two enterprises together. Like a king and a queen who didn't particularly care for each other, yet they still married because it was beneficial for their lineage and for their kingdoms. In that sense it was more about the benefits than the affection or care.

And that trend continues to this day.


Funny, after men went to the moon, and science proved the world was round and not the center of the universe - I thought we were done with the archaic notion that a human's worth was defined by their sex or orientation.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


I agree, but I am sure there are plenty of priest, ministers, rabbis, judges, etc that wouldn't object.

A same sex couple would just need to find one.

Who is to judge?

If everyone just concentrated on their own dirty laundry and leave everyone elses alone, (live and let live) this would be a nicer planet to live on.

Treat others exactly as you wish to be treated.

Now, with major earthquakes, oil gushers, nuclear melt downs, volcanoes erupting, sink holes, war, war and more war..................who is marrying and going to bed with who is the least of our problems.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by DrChuck

I am all for gay marriages which would afford them tax breaks and a marriage license that legally proves their union.
But, forcing a church or a priest to preside over a holy matrimony that they do not believe in, or wish not to do, is just as disgusting as denying a common legal privilege as marriage.

So heres the solution, let the gays get married. But if a church or a priest refuses to preside over it, let them practice their beliefs as is their right. And if there are churches and priests that wish to take part in gay marriages, let them, as it is also their right. But in a court of law marriage must not be denied, so a courthouse will officiate a gay marriage without prejudice.


No church forced; that is a fool's argument. This is about a secular recongnition the same as hetero marriages are afforded.



I wasn't implying that a church was forced. It was a hypothetical statement. Chill the hell out. The main opponents of gay marriage are Christians, and if gay marriage is legalized how do you not know the churches will be forced by law to conduct them? It would be discriminatory not to do so.
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



Doctor Chuck: it NOT hypothetical for the women and men I served with. People who put their lives on the line for your ass and others, only to be denied the same recognition as us straights.

It will be one cold day in hell when desert them.



What the hell are you talking about? Try and make some sense.
What was not hypothetical for the women and men you served with? That churches would be forced?

Who won't you desert before it will be a cold day in hell? Your fellow soldiers? I would hope not.
What the fu%k?
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


I dont classify myself as a Christian, so dont think I believe the same garbage they do. Maybe research who the real Name of our Messiah is Yahuwshuwah, not that fake Jesus, and the real Name of the Father Yahuwah, not God before you make your bogus claims. Thats pagan garbage from babylon that is still here floating around in the religions.


So prove it. Gimme one miracle.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 

It is a social contract. Unlike a normal contract where the terms are carefully spelled out, a social contract has terms that would not normally be used and conditions associated with it that is not only implied, but also has to follow certain terms. Think about it, people who are rich marry to increase their wealth, and most of the time have a prenuptial agreement, that outlines who gets what if the marriage were to break apart. In a divorce, it is the court and lawyers that decides who gets what and how the assets of the marriage is to be split apart.
It is partially like a partnership, where people come together for a common goal, the articles of partnership, (The contract) states who is responsible for such, but unlike a business, there are parts of the social contract that is not spelt out but expressly understood by both persons, as to what is and is not acceptable while they are married together, such as fedelity. It is never stated that you don't cheat on your partner, but it is understood that you don't.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:50 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?
Gay Marriage isn't going to harm you in anyway, it's not going to collapse the economy, it's not going ruin marriage as many homophobes mentioned, it's not going to start communism/socialism/etc. There is no valid reason as to why gay marriage is wrong, much less why it would be considered "special priveleges".


Originally posted by camaro68ss
I dont understand how a judge can overturn the will of the people


Just like a king i guess
edit on 14-6-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
Equal rights should not be determined by mob rule.
edit on 15-6-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by DrChuck

I am all for gay marriages which would afford them tax breaks and a marriage license that legally proves their union.
But, forcing a church or a priest to preside over a holy matrimony that they do not believe in, or wish not to do, is just as disgusting as denying a common legal privilege as marriage.

So heres the solution, let the gays get married. But if a church or a priest refuses to preside over it, let them practice their beliefs as is their right. And if there are churches and priests that wish to take part in gay marriages, let them, as it is also their right. But in a court of law marriage must not be denied, so a courthouse will officiate a gay marriage without prejudice.


No church forced; that is a fool's argument. This is about a secular recongnition the same as hetero marriages are afforded.



I wasn't implying that a church was forced. It was a hypothetical statement. Chill the hell out. The main opponents of gay marriage are Christians, and if gay marriage is legalized how do you not know the churches will be forced by law to conduct them? It would be discriminatory not to do so.
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)



Doctor Chuck: it NOT hypothetical for the women and men I served with. People who put their lives on the line for your ass and others, only to be denied the same recognition as us straights.

It will be one cold day in hell when desert them.



What the hell are you talking about? Try and make some sense.
What was not hypothetical for the women and men you served with? That churches would be forced?

Who won't you desert before it will be a cold day in hell? Your fellow soldiers? I would hope not.
What the fu%k?
edit on 15-6-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)


You made hypothetical statement by your own admission; I stated it was not hypothetical to the people I have actually served with. Would you care to clarify?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 


Actually YOU need to clarify. What wasn't a hypothetical statement?

Or did you just throw in a trolling post for the sake of announcing that your a soldier that fights for everyones asses?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DrChuck
 


Mere facts are one think, as in academic teams.

Debate is a higher order of mentality.

Your unsettlement is evidence that debate is much more valuable than mere memorization: it is what you know and about how you use it.



Argument is no trivia game.
edit on 15-6-2011 by mydarkpassenger because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join