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.

 

"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

page: 25
16
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Years from now we will look back on people like you


Here we go again,


The holier than thou attitude,


Disgusting


Maybe you're right and years from now everyone will be gay and the human race will cease to exist or procreation will all be done in test tubes.

OR

Perhaps, years from now parents will select the genes and traits of their offspring and the homosexual gene will be treated like a birth defect.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I found a poll from Pew Research Center for 2011 that says it's pretty much a dead heat, but opposition to gay marriage keeps getting less and less each year.


Shifting Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage

The new poll finds that about as many adults now favor (45%) as oppose (46%) allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. Last year opponents outnumbered supporters 48% to 42%. Opposition to same-sex marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed gay marriage and only 27% were in favor.

www.people-press.org...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Annee
 





Years from now we will look back on people like you


Here we go again,


Here we go with the childish again.


The holier than thou attitude,


In what way?

Perhaps you should look in a mirror in referring to those with attitude.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
How about the GALLUP pole:

Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold




May 25, 2010 Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold Increased acceptance by men driving the change by Lydia Saad PRINCETON, NJ - Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend. Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, documents a gradual increase in public acceptance of gay relations since about 2006. However, the change is seen almost exclusively among men, and particularly men younger than 50. www.gallup.com...



edit on 14-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Nothing wrong with wishful thinking. But here is how it stands right now.


Defense of Marriage Act


The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
Under the law, no U.S. state or other political subdivision of the U.S. may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case, all of which are under appeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the House of Representatives undertook the defense of the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
When the DOJ later argued that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, New York archbishop Timothy Dolan, wrote that it would "precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions".[1]



Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.



Section 3. Definition of marriage
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.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 







Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold


You're really going to use the same poll as that other guy?

914 people represents all Americans? Really ?



OK I see you changed the link

From your new link


Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,029 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 3-6, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


1,029 people
edit on 14-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Nothing wrong with wishful thinking. But here is how it stands right now.


The wishful thinking is that things will stay as they are today.

That's not going to happen.

Gay rights is progressing in most places in the world - - not just in America.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Gay rights is progressing in most places in the world - - not just in America.


If you're right I predict a disaster in the making.

Whether it be 20 - 30 years from now or 100 years

Society will look back on "people like you" and realize the error in their ways.

All laws allowing gay marriage will be reversed and society will try to heal all the damage that was done due to all this politically correct poppycock.

edit on 14-2-2012 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
You're really going to use the same poll as that other guy?


I wasn't really sure - - although they both did say New Jersey.

Am I going to accept the well established GALLUP pole?

YES - - I am.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I realize you dont actually care about reality-shown by the idea that polls are conducted in the millions or similar. Here is a collection of polls-an entire page full of many different companies running the polls all over the nation:

Times, they are a changin

Compare polls this year to last year and it to the year before. Every year support for equal rights are growing. This change is inevitable.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Annee
 





Gay rights is progressing in most places in the world - - not just in America.


If you're right I predict a disaster in the making.

Whether it be 20 - 30 years from now or 100 years

Society will look back on "people like you" and realize the error in their ways.

All laws allowing gay marriage will be reversed and society will try to heal all the damage that was done due to all this politically correct poppycock.


You mean like they did with allowing interracial marriage? Or with giving women the vote? Or the civil rights movement?

It's all about discrimination. People realize it can't be tolerated.
edit on 14-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
These types of issues are not new to society. It may be somewhat knew to our current Western civilization. But the fact is that these issues have been a part if life all throughout human history. It always ends the same. The homosexuals will reach a certain peak of acceptance in society and finally society rebels due to the serious problems that occurred.

It's a cycle of acceptance and it promotes apathy. Therefore degradation of society and an out pouring of growing problems which demand a strict policy to fix them. You want to talk about childish ..... well yes, homosexuals eventually become the rebellious children of society, demanding they get what they want when they want it. Finally , it becomes too much and the parents must take back the responsibility for the better good of the family.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

These types of issues are not new to society. It may be somewhat knew to our current Western civilization. But the fact is that these issues have been a part if life all throughout human history. It always ends the same. The homosexuals will reach a certain peak of acceptance in society and finally society rebels due to the serious problems that occurred.

It's a cycle of acceptance and it promotes apathy. Therefore degradation of society and an out pouring of growing problems which demand a strict policy to fix them. You want to talk about childish ..... well yes, homosexuals eventually become the rebellious children of society, demanding they get what they want when they want it. Finally , it becomes too much and the parents must take back the responsibility for the better good of the family.


You are flat out wrong on every point you tried to make here. Can you find even one source outside of a skinhead website to backup your claims?

Simple fact is no society had issues with gays until the crusades when the churches tried to find reasons to invade the middle east.

Check your history before making claims, might help with the image a bit.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





Check your history before making claims, might help with the image a bit.


Check "your" history....... who's story ?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by lordtyp0
 





Check your history before making claims, might help with the image a bit.


Check "your" history....... who's story ?


The books, without them you are just making crap up. I suspect you also cherry pick the bible. Gays = bad, but ignore the 366 other laws of moses in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Where do you get your information if you don't trust the history books?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

These types of issues are not new to society. It may be somewhat knew to our current Western civilization. But the fact is that these issues have been a part if life all throughout human history. It always ends the same. The homosexuals will reach a certain peak of acceptance in society and finally society rebels due to the serious problems that occurred.

It's a cycle of acceptance and it promotes apathy. Therefore degradation of society and an out pouring of growing problems which demand a strict policy to fix them. You want to talk about childish ..... well yes, homosexuals eventually become the rebellious children of society, demanding they get what they want when they want it. Finally , it becomes too much and the parents must take back the responsibility for the better good of the family.


Substitute "religious extremists" in place of "homosexuals", and then your statement is more accurate.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
As far as known history goes - - we have never before been where we are today.

There has never been the "open world" communication we have today.

We are globally waking up to the fact People are just People.

We are progressing.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I would like to just ask two questions......in regards to the current Federal laws of the United States


en.wikipedia.org...

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


Do you agree that it should be left up to individual States to decide?

Should it be Federal law and all States be required to acknowledge same-sex marriage without that States decision?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I would like to just ask two questions......in regards to the current Federal laws of the United States


en.wikipedia.org...

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.


Do you agree that it should be left up to individual States to decide?

Should it be Federal law and all States be required to acknowledge same-sex marriage without that States decision?


Seeing as how it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, yes it should be Federal law. Same thing happened with states outlawing interracial marriage. It was found unconstitutional, so all states were forced to allow interracial marriage.

You cannot withhold someone's rights based on the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.
edit on 14-2-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Substitute "religious extremists" in place of "homosexuals", and then your statement is more accurate.


That's good.

If you research those who came here originally for religious freedom - - you find they were so extreme their home country said: "Don't Let the Door Smack You on the Ass On Your Way Out"




top topics



 
16
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join