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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Annee
However - - there have been cases of elderly brother and sister marrying for legal reasons of inheritance and pension benefits.
Originally posted by SevenBeans
What on earth does that have to do with anything? Who said anything about siblings having sex or procreating?
Originally posted by Annee
I'm sorry. You don't like factual information?
My bad.
Originally posted by SevenBeans
Interesting, can you cite any recent examples?
Originally posted by Annee
Back on topic.
Originally posted by Annee
LEGAL marriage is about the rights (same rights) afforded straight couples who legally marry.
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.
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.
Originally posted by SevenBeansMany people view it as a contract
Originally posted by SevenBeansthose people are idiots, yes that is my opinion.
Originally posted by SevenBeansLet me ask you... when did I agree to the legalities imposed by the government upon my marraige?
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.
Originally posted by SevenBeansThat is not a contract, it's government imposition upon my relationship.
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.
Originally posted by SevenBeansWhat? It's self-evident what it is.
Originally posted by SevenBeansYou don't even have to marry in many cases for the government to impose these legalties.
Originally posted by SevenBeansYou don't seem interested in having an honest discussion.
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.
Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
Prove how it isn't a legal contract or recognize yourself as being incorrect and misinformed.
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.
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?
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.
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.