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.

 

Is gay marriage a Trojan horse?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


No, there is nothing EXTRA or SPECIAL about what the gay rights movement wants, they merely want the religious sanctions that limit marriage to a man and woman to be recognized as irrelevant, unconstitutional, and dropped.

This is an interesting concept... see after emancipation black people could always go to school.. so long as it was the one set aside for black people. They could always fight in the army, so long as they were in the right regiment. We see that that limitation on a right did not hold.

Rights are an unconditional assignment. Now if you can give me an absolute definition of marriage that MANDATES that it be between a man and a women that doesn't automatically disqualify ANY OTHER heterosexual marraige out there, I would listen. So far, I see no practical, pragmatic, or other reason that this right should be limited in any way shape or form based on gender.


edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I think the best way to find out if gay people want equality in marriage is to give them that equality, and then if they still moan, one can moan about that.

We got gay marriage in SA in 2006, and things have been pretty quiet.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
What in the hell is the difference between marriage and a civil union? Why is it that gays cant be happy with a civil union that protects their rights to property, etc..?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77
What in the hell is the difference between marriage and a civil union? Why is it that gays cant be happy with a civil union that protects their rights to property, etc..?


I would hazard to say it is the resugance of "seperate but equal".. All marriages should be changed to civil unions -- at least on paper.. people can call it whatever they want socially.. *shrug*



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


No, there is nothing EXTRA or SPECIAL about what the gay rights movement wants, they merely want the religious sanctions that limit marriage to a man and woman to be recognized as irrelevant, unconstitutional, and dropped.

This is an interesting concept... see after emancipation black people could always go to school.. so long as it was the one set aside for black people. They could always fight in the army, so long as they were in the right regiment. We see that that limitation on a right did not hold.

Rights are an unconditional assignment. Now if you can give me an absolute definition of marriage that MANDATES that it be between a man and a women that doesn't automatically disqualify ANY OTHER heterosexual marraige out there, I would listen. So far, I see no practical, pragmatic, or other reason that this right should be limited in any way shape or form based on gender.


edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)


Marriage is a term that comes from religious ceremonies and religious practice.

Civil Union is the government equivalent. And they are looking for the legal/ tax benefits right?

All this fuss over what to call something.

You say abortion, I say murder.

See how easy it is

edit on 4-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by discharged77
 


Google 'Separate but equal'... there's LOTS of precedent in that area...

By your logic, African-Americans should have been plenty happy with their 'Colored Only' drinking fountains and restrooms...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Marriage is a socially constructed institution that has been absorbed by both religious and governmental institutions. I'm going right back there: Are you willing to strip those who are not religious of their right to marry? Is marriage only for those who are religious and are going to procreate? Any more limitations you want to put on it?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by discharged77
 


Google 'Separate but equal'... there's LOTS of precedent in that area...

By your logic, African-Americans should have been plenty happy with their 'Colored Only' drinking fountains and restrooms...


** SIDEBAR **

I find it interesting.. the side effect of desegragation is that builders no longer had to install two of everything... cheaper buildings, increased labor force, etc....



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Marriage is a socially constructed institution that has been absorbed by both religious and governmental institutions. I'm going right back there: Are you willing to strip those who are not religious of their right to marry? Is marriage only for those who are religious and are going to procreate? Any more limitations you want to put on it?


Where is the RIGHT to marry you are talking about?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by discharged77
 

Because mostly a civil union doesn't protect some crucial rights.
For example, I read a thread recently of a US and Australian gay male couple, and although the US man is deathly ill and his partner is his only care-giver, the partner must now leave the US because his visa expired.
Now that would never happen to a straight couple who can get married.

In SA I now see what happened is that they did not expand the existing marriage act, instead they made a new parallel act.
So it's equal to hetero marriage in all respects, but it does not alter the existing marriage act.
Quite a clever compromise.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I am fine with making all marriages civil unions, it wouldn't matter to me either way. I'm sure if it was up to religions to marry gays in churches they would be hard pressed to find a church that would do it?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
PLEASE STOP THE HATE ON ATS. Seriously all of you homophobes, deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


You know damn well what I'm talking about, so don't try to get cute and use semantics to weasel out of this. According to current laws in most states and on the federal level, heterosexuals have the RIGHT to enter into a marriage contract and homosexuals do NOT have that same right. It is the LEGAL contract that we are talking about here... You know, the one that takes a LAWYER to get out of....



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77
I am fine with making all marriages civil unions, it wouldn't matter to me either way. I'm sure if it was up to religions to marry gays in churches they would be hard pressed to find a church that would do it?



And I support that 100%. Churches should have the right to decide without fear of litigation who they can perform a religious ceremony for/to/on.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini
Where is the RIGHT to marry you are talking about?




Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


civilliberty.about.com...


Wait.. I don't see why they allowed interracial marriage. Blacks and whites could get married to whomever they wanted so long as they were of the same race.
edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


You know damn well what I'm talking about, so don't try to get cute and use semantics to weasel out of this. According to current laws in most states and on the federal level, heterosexuals have the RIGHT to enter into a marriage contract and homosexuals do NOT have that same right. It is the LEGAL contract that we are talking about here... You know, the one that takes a LAWYER to get out of....


Are you serious, you are now arguing about rights that you just made up.

I am still waiting to see real evidence of what you are claiming.

Especially after your insulting comments earlier about lack of proofs.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


You know damn well what I'm talking about, so don't try to get cute and use semantics to weasel out of this. According to current laws in most states and on the federal level, heterosexuals have the RIGHT to enter into a marriage contract and homosexuals do NOT have that same right. It is the LEGAL contract that we are talking about here... You know, the one that takes a LAWYER to get out of....
Homosexuals do have the right to enter into a standard marriage contract, just as heterosexuals do. Exactly equal; 1 man 1 woman.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by discharged77
 


Google 'Separate but equal'... there's LOTS of precedent in that area...

By your logic, African-Americans should have been plenty happy with their 'Colored Only' drinking fountains and restrooms...
Stop comparing gay politics to the plights of blacks in this country, it's not the same thing. Please don't assume anything about my logic.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


That is nice and all but what about this?

TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
Prev | Next
§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
How Current is This?
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by discharged77
 


Google 'Separate but equal'... there's LOTS of precedent in that area...

By your logic, African-Americans should have been plenty happy with their 'Colored Only' drinking fountains and restrooms...
Stop comparing gay politics to the plights of blacks in this country, it's not the same thing. Please don't assume anything about my logic.


How is it not the same thing? Basing the rights and/or privileges granted to a person based on their genetic makeup (or creed, depending on your view on the nature/nuture argument)...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join