Prop. 8 Shot Down In California

Wow, my bad didn't know there was such a gay community on ATS

reply to post by PageAlaCearl


What does reproduction ahve to do with marriage? And providing people legal rights afforded to some, but not others?

Doesn't matter that you disagree with homosexuals, you can't discriminate against them based on your belief.

And me and my husband have had 4 kids just fine.

~Tenth

reply to post by PageAlaCearl


So by your statement, couples that can't have children shouldn't immediately have to get a divorce.

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Wow, my bad didn't know there was such a gay community on ATS

Wow. I didn't realize there were open homophobes on ATS.

I am neither gay, nor a part of any pro-gay ATS "community", but I am pro-human rights, and as such I cannot support Prop 8; a vote that was cast by a majority that strips rights away from a minority. What don't you get about that?
It's not about procreation. We can procreate without marriage. It's about marital rights given to a couple who decide to spend their lives together. What ever happened to live and let live?

I assure you, the human race will be fine. Watch Maury sometime, there's no shortage of babies being cranked out in the world. Personally, I think we should take the children away from those Maury guests and give them to willing gay couples.

So if gay people are allowed to marry should bisexuals marry as well including polygamy? It is their constitutional right after all (not really but if people think the constitution defends gay marriage why not polygamy?)

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by PageAlaCearl

 

So by your statement, couples that can't have children shouldn't immediately have to get a divorce.

I think I was pretty clear but after all this is ATS so again as I said in like 3 posts now I don't have an opinion on gay marriage other that homosexuality goes against the design of life in being that the a man and women were made to reproduce. I don't care if your gay, I've had gay friends, too each there own. The point I was making is the a peoples vote was overturned and funny thing is when they do it with the President and put the electoral vote above the people popular vote you get a hundred threads complaining about the system and the popular vote means nothing, here the popular vote gets overturned and everyone supports it. The government has no consistency in the system but here's a great example of how the people are just as in-constant. Changing the popular vote when it fits your personal ideals, is exactly what the powers that be do to fit there ideals.

reply to post by filosophia


That's such an obsolete argument.

Government has no business regulating the personal affairs of adults.

If an entire city block of homos, heteros, bi's whatever all wanted to be united under some symbolic title or incorporated as a cohabitating entity then so be it.

What is with this obsession people have over what others are doing with their own lives? Is this why reality TV is popular? A popular propensity to voyeurism and judgmental self-righteousness?

reply to post by filosophia


Because the marriage amendment can't be tweaked to include polygamy. It is illegal, period. And to answer any others that these discussions usually bring up, you can't legalize beastiality because you have to have two consenting adults, an animal is not. Now there are no laws banning incest. But an amendment can always be created to ban that if that is a concern.

reply to post by filosophia


I have no problem with polygamy. I do have a problem with those polygamy communities that advocate sex and marriage with minors, but if consenting adults want to openly marry multiple people... why not?

Just amend the rules to only give tax cuts for the first wife, and no marriage should receive benefits for more than 4 children, polygamy or not. After 4, the state should not dish out anymore aid for the new kids in the household. This might stay off the desire to keep pumping out children like a puppy mill. Like that lady who keeps cranking out babies. What's she on now, number 20? At some point you have to realize you're just being part of the problem as far as over-population is concerned.

But no, I see no issue with proper polygamy.

reply to post by filosophia


Polygamy should be legal.

In fact the first ever violation of the freedom of religion was committed when the fed banned polygamy as a way of getting to the Mormons who occupied a vast expanse of land that they wanted to control.

A government has no right to dictate what goes on between me and the person/people I love as long as I am not hurting anyone.

The only people who have a problem with things like that are morally superior nut jobs who fail to understand the concept of "Spiritual Marriage". Spiritual being the key word here, marriage is a spiritual union not a government sanctioned one.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
You can't have a majority passing legislation that only affects a minority. That's the issue here.
It would be like having a Christian population of 76% voting on whether or not the remaining 24% of non-Christians can get abortions. Oh wait... they already do that.

Just curious, since you brought this up...where is it in America that non Christians (or anyone else for that matter) can't get abortions? I was under the impression that anyone could get an abortion on demand in this country - regardless of who thinks it's a good thing or a bad thing. Please let us know where in this country abortion is illegal.

And on the topic of gay marriage, I am a Christian and I have gay friends. I never have understood how or why gay marriage affects a Christian's beliefs in any way. After all, didn't Jesus Himself hang out with the so called "sinners"?

Please contribute to the existing thread - HERE -

closed.