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: 21
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Pretty difficult to object to something you don't have rights to. Let's make sure the RIGHTS are there first.



I don't think you know what a right is...




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
. . . it is the traditional institution of marraige that implies a romantic component. If you reduce things to a purely civil affair between "any 2 consenting adults" than there is absolutely no justification for not allowing siblings to "marry," roomates to "marry" etc. etc. etc.


Screw the argument/excuse of traditional institution of marriage.

The true history of marriage is not romantic nor is it religious.

Even in remote Amazon tribes they have complex systems to insure diversity in the generational gene pool.

Henri Marie Raymond de Toulouse-Lautrec-Monfa - - - was not a dwarf but suffered from Pycnodysostosis and ostosis ("condition of the bone"), caused by a mutation in the gene that codes the enzyme cathepsin K - - - a result of his parents being first cousins.

Thus - - - legitimate reasons against siblings procreating. However - - there have been cases of elderly brother and sister marrying for legal reasons of inheritance and pension benefits.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SevenBeans
. . . it is the traditional institution of marraige that implies a romantic component. If you reduce things to a purely civil affair between "any 2 consenting adults" than there is absolutely no justification for not allowing siblings to "marry," roomates to "marry" etc. etc. etc.


Screw the argument/excuse of traditional institution of marriage.

The true history of marriage is not romantic nor is it religious.

Even in remote Amazon tribes they have complex systems to insure diversity in the generational gene pool.

Henri Marie Raymond de Toulouse-Lautrec-Monfa - - - was not a dwarf but suffered from Pycnodysostosis and ostosis ("condition of the bone"), caused by a mutation in the gene that codes the enzyme cathepsin K - - - a result of his parents being first cousins.

Thus - - - legitimate reasons against siblings procreating.


What on earth are you talking about? Who said anything about siblings having sex or procreating? You'd have no justification for not recognizing their "marraige" if it no longer is going to have anything to do with romance and the potential of procreation.


Originally posted by Annee
However - - there have been cases of elderly brother and sister marrying for legal reasons of inheritance and pension benefits.


Interesting, can you cite any recent examples?

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Who said anything about siblings having sex or procreating?



I'm sorry. You don't like factual information?

My bad.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I'm sorry. You don't like factual information?

My bad.


What factual information would that be? I like it fine but the information you provided is irrelevent.

If two straight brothers wanted to "marry" would you object and if so why?

If a straight brother and sister wanted to "marry" but had no intention of incest etc. etc. but simply wanted access to the legalities of marraige, would you object and if so why?
edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Interesting, can you cite any recent examples?


I've been hanging out - researching - and reading stuff on the net for at least 25 years. My hubby and I owned a company. My only job was phones and greeting customers. Other then that I read a lot.

Finding older stuff on the internet is difficult. However - it was documented. The stipulation was they had to be beyond age of ability to procreate. There were actual names and data provided. I don't remember the dates.

You can accept it or not. I do not have any recent data.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So you can say screw it to those that disagree........and they have no right to say the same thing. More intellectual dishonesty, although I expected nothing less.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Sorry all - - got pseudo derailed there for a nano second.

Back on topic.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware said former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker did not have to divulge whether he wanted to marry his own gay partner before he declared last year that voter-approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.

This is not about being homosexual. It is about Equal Rights.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Back on topic.



LOL

It's always "let's get back on topic" when someone asks relevant questions or makes relevant points that you don't want to address.

If two straight brothers wanted to "marry" would you object and if so why?

If a straight brother and sister wanted to "marry" but had no intention of incest etc. etc. but simply wanted access to the legalities of marraige, would you object and if so why?
edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.


Once again, I don't think you know what a right is...

The legalities imposed upon marraige can all be changed/removed/altered tomorrow...

If they were actually rights that wouldn't be the case.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Annee
Back on topic.



LOL

It's always "let's get back on topic" when someone asks relevant questions or makes relevant points that you don't want to address.



I am fully aware of your viewpoints/opinions from other threads.

Which is why I now end any further discussion with you.

Others can engage you if they wish.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Unless you can agree to every possible match up and number of partners.....related, underage, infirm, mentally unstable, more than 2, outside species, etc.................you are asking for special rights, not equal...and to try and say otherwise is plain untrue. Marriage as defined is between a man and a woman, to try and change that for one group is just dishonest.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I am fully aware of your viewpoints/opinions from other threads.

Which is why I now end any further discussion with you.

Others can engage you if they wish.


Hey don't feel bad, I made you look silly, it happens to the best of us.

The important thing is to learn from it rather than get defensive and close-minded.

Besides I'm sure that it's your views people want to see, so you should answer the questions I asked for their benefit. : )

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 

Reality is that you are being obtuse, as you are not wanting to accept the definition of what and how I would view a marriage in todays society. You asked, I told you how I viewed it. I view such as a social contract, yet you are persisting in trying to convience me that I am wrong, and failing to do such in the process. Your original premis, had no merit, or basis, failing to provide proof, even when I took the time to show, with legal backing where such had already been decided as unconstitutional in a legal grounds, primarily incest and polygamy. Marriage is a social contract, that has some aspects of a legal contract for both spoken and unspoken terms. If there is a legal contract that has unspoken terms, then by all means please provide proof of such. Government is a social contract, where politicians are put into office, yet the terms of their employement is vague with unspoke terms and expectations put on them, that every one knows. But we ultimately have digressed, from the original topic about how the original ruling set out in the Prop 8 case had been confirmed and how every one was upset cause the original judge, is gay and has a long term partner. His ruling was fair and concise as was the opinion he wrote. Bottom line is that the denial of gay marriage is unconstitutional and this is ultimately uncharted territory judicially, as there is no other precident on the books in the US to determine the validity of such.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeansMany people view it as a contract


Prove how it isn't a legal contract or recognize yourself as being incorrect and misinformed.


Originally posted by SevenBeansthose people are idiots, yes that is my opinion.


I've posted a plethora of information, evidence, and other relevance tidbits that point directly to how marriage is a legal contract as it functions within the United States. You have not provided anything to the contrary other than your own opinion. And unfortunately someone's opinion, experience, and ignorance means jack squat when it comes to trying to prove or disprove a claim.

I have proven that in every nuance and detail that marriage functions exactly like a legal contract. Marriage is even recognized as a legal contract.

It is my opinion that an idiot is someone who does not observe and recognize the facts, and who instead allows their misinformed and biased opinion to supersede actual evidence.


Originally posted by SevenBeansLet me ask you... when did I agree to the legalities imposed by the government upon my marraige?


When did a businessman agree to the legalities imposed by them on corporate mergers, starting a business, taking out a loan? Are you kidding me? The laws exist to protect and enforce legal documents. Do you even understand how law and contracts work?

If the law did not impose itself on things, people could do as they please. Someone who took out a loan and signed a contract with the loan company probably didn't like the interest rates, the fact they have to pay back the loan or anything of the sort, but the person AGREED to the loan contract. Just like despite the legal hurdles you may dislike about marriage, you AGREED to the marriage contract and you AGREED to marry your partner.

You aren't being forced to marry someone. You aren't being forced to agree to marrying anyone. So what is your complaint really about?


Originally posted by SevenBeansThe answer of course is never. Can the government change these legalities w/o asking me? The answer of course is... of course.


They can change them by going through a legal process. By going to court, etc. Guess what though? People can change the conditions of their own contracts by the same processes! So thank you for proving the point that marriage is a legal contract even further.

You're free to disagree with how marriage functions. But it's dumb to ignore the reality that it is a legal contract in every facet to how it functions. If you don't agree, however, please provide evidence for your claim rather than meaningless opinion.


Originally posted by SevenBeansThat is not a contract, it's government imposition upon my relationship.


Oh, so I suppose that the little document I signed with a loan company isn't a legal contract either? It's just a government and legal imposition upon my "borrowing" money from an acquaintance. Good to know I didn't really sign a legally binding contract of any kind! And it's good to know I don't have to pay the money back, especially not with interest! And it's good to know that I won't receive any type of legal reprimand for ignoring the little document I signed.

But seriously, you basically described a freaking legal document and legal contract, despite the inane spin you put on it in order to reinforce your own ignorance and unwillingness to accept the fact that marriage is a legal contract. Congratulations, you just figured out how contracts that are enforced by law work!


Originally posted by SevenBeansSo, let's be clear about one thing... people asking the government to "recognize" same gender marraige are not asking for more freedom, they are asking for less freedom, they are asking the government to interfere in and impose upon their personal relationships.


I'll spin it a better and more accurate way for you. People asking to recognize same-sex marriages are asking for equality, they are asking for their constitutional right to engage in a contractual relationship with their significant other that will grant them benefits that they couldn't otherwise have, and they are asking to be treated as something other than a second-class citizen in this regard.

The government doesn't impose anything upon their personal relationship. The government only imposes itself upon marriages because of the attainments and benefits that go hand-in-hand with marriage. The government is (unwittingly) recognizing marriage as a legal contract in that regard. People are free not to engage in that type of legal contract, that legal union. So the government really isn't interfering with someone's personal relationship in the least. But homosexuals at least want the RIGHT to engage in that type of legal contract, that legal union with their same-sex partner if they so choose.


Originally posted by SevenBeansWhat? It's self-evident what it is.


You'd think it was self-evident. But you seem to disagree that marriage is a legal contract, despite the fact that in the US it operates as a legal contract in every capacity. If you don't want to get married, then don't engage in that type of contractual union. The government isn't forcing you into the contract. You're free to choose whether or not to get married.

However, that same right doesn't extend to same-sex couples. They are denied that choice when it pertains to their same-sex partner. That is unconstitutional. So the government is actually imposing itself in a bad way by NOT allowing same-sex couples to marry. Actually, if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, that would be less government imposition upon their personal relationship because it would at least allow the same-sex couples to decide whether or not they want to get married.


Originally posted by SevenBeansYou don't even have to marry in many cases for the government to impose these legalties.


Yes you do. Since this is a thread about marriage and same-sex couples, if two people can't get married then they cannot benefit from the positive legal impositions surrounding marriage... which is one prime reason people even get married.


Originally posted by SevenBeansYou don't seem interested in having an honest discussion.


Says the person who's being dishonest and who's denying evidence and fact in favor of opinion and personal perspective.
edit on 16-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Another intellectually bankrupt thread continues. If you don't want equal rights (including marriage) for all types of relationships, you're not exactly being honest here. It's about special rights, nothing else......in a society, not everyone can, nor should be equal, it's a fact of life.....to say otherwise is nothing less than intellectual dishonesty.


What you said isn't entirely true. It wouldn't be equal rights for all types of relationships, that would be dangerous. It is equal rights for all types of relationships between consenting, competent adults. Nothing more, nothing less. So no, it really isn't about special rights. Such a thing doesn't really exist. It's about equal rights between a responsible group of adults. It's only a bit less restrictive to how marriage already operates.

Actually, traditional marriage is a special right given to heterosexual couples. So in that sense, the concept of same-sex marriage works in reverse to what you're claiming. Traditional marriage is about special rights, allowing same-sex marriage would be about equal rights.

And here you thought this thread was intellectually bankrupt! We've still got some good stuff for you to try and dispute yet.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
Prove how it isn't a legal contract or recognize yourself as being incorrect and misinformed.


I already have.

First, the government can impose the legalities of marraige onto couples who never even got married if they "fit the bill."

Second, it's self evident that I never signed a contract agreeing to conditions that weren't even thought of until years and years after I got married.


Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
I've posted a plethora of information, evidence, and other relevance tidbits that point directly to how marriage is a legal contract as it functions within the United States. You have not provided anything to the contrary other than your own opinion. And unfortunately someone's opinion, experience, and ignorance means jack squat when it comes to trying to prove or disprove a claim.

I have proven that in every nuance and detail that marriage functions exactly like a legal contract. Marriage is even recognized as a legal contract.


Have you ever signed a contract whose terms can completely change the next day w/o your consent?

That is a very strange sort of contract.

The legal conditions imposed upon my marraige can be changed... therefore calling it a "contract" (and saying that I agreed to all of the legalities imposed upon my relationship, even the ones that were imposed long after I got married) is completely and utterly absurd.

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
When did a businessman agree to the legalities imposed by them on corporate mergers, starting a business, taking out a loan? Are you kidding me?


They didn't obviously.

Those legal conditions were imposed upon them whether they liked them or not. Same goes for the legalities that the government imposes on married people. These things can change, new ones can be imposed, old ones removed etc. etc. etc. It isn't like a contract where two parties sit down and agree to the terms of an agreement, the government says "this is how it will be" and it doesn't matter if you don't like it.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
Oh, so I suppose that the little document I signed with a loan company isn't a legal contract either? It's just a government and legal imposition upon my "borrowing" money from an acquaintance.


Of course that's a legal contract. Both parties sat down and agreed to the terms, neither party can generally change those terms, add to them, them etc. etc. etc. unless there is a specific provision allowing them to do so in the contract.

The legalities of marraige are imposed whether the marrying couple agrees with them or not, and they can be changed, added to, deleted from etc. etc. etc. the next day or long after the fact.


edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: typo



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
However, that same right doesn't extend to same-sex couples. They are denied that choice when it pertains to their same-sex partner. That is unconstitutional. So the government is actually imposing itself in a bad way by NOT allowing same-sex couples to marry. Actually, if same-sex couples were allowed to marry, that would be less government imposition upon their personal relationship because it would at least allow the same-sex couples to decide whether or not they want to get married.


How niave... I think there are something like 1,200 laws/regulations etc. etc. applicable to my marraige.

Once the government "recognizes your marraige" (and they don't need your permission or signature) they can impose all sorts of crazy legal obligations. If you don't like them than it's just too bad.

edit on 16-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join