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.

 

The Same-Sex Marriage line is drawn. What do you think?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
Our sad country could prolly learn a few things from you Nucks.

We are running out of control here.



Originally posted by Jomina
Yeah, seriously, if it wasn't for the cold weather I would be Canadian in a heartbeat.


Take heart, folks. The USA is still my second favourite place, if I may be allowed that sentiment.




posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Be careful in encouraging me to throw my hat in the ring, friend. I very well might choose OutKast as my running mate. OutKast and I agree on little, but are both friends because we admire the others temerity and willingness to stand firm on our positions. Indeed, I think the smartest thing Obama could ever do is ask Ron Paul to be his running mate, Biden be damned! I doubt Dr. Paul would accept, and of course, I sincerely doubt Obama would ever take my suggestion.

I doubt Obama would ever take my suggestion because I don't believe for a single second that man has ever had any interest in healing the political divide in this nation. This is why your thread is worth notice, because as you've stated, Obama has played a political strip tease with this gay marriage, finally revealing his boobies just now to further drive a wedge between Americans in a political calculation that there are more for gay marriage than against it.

If Romney becomes the Republican nominee he would be wise to remind all that this is a states rights issue and has nothing at all to do with the POTUS until the SCOTUS renders a ruling that would force the POTUS to enforce that ruling. Of course, in my not so humble opinion, Romney would be smarter still to take the position that no one should be required to get licensed in order to be married. That argument would re-frame the issue and rob Obama of any political win on this matter.

Myself? I would never run for any political office. As Jefferson pointed out, ironically while holding office himself, there is certain rottenness that enters into a man who casts a longing eye on political office. Lord knows I am not all that pure of heart, but I am hopeful the Good Lord also knows I am not that rotten.




edit on 9-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
Our dear President went on the record today endorsing Same-Sex marriages. I was watching the news and the implications hit me.

Mittens, later on in the news article, stated his definition of marriage was a man and a woman. Totally expected for a sound byte. That's one of the only things I think Mittens WON'T flip-flop on.

Obama, in the grandest display of his liberal views, made the mistake of taking a stance. He just sent voters to Romney's camp. All the old-fashioned folk.

In return, the Obama campaign got every gay to vote for him. He's taking a hard line here. He's pitching the "human rights" stance against Romney's "set in stone" position. Sneaky.

Personally, I believe the constitution dictates the decision of how to define marriage belongs to the states, and each state has the right to enact laws accordingly. It shouldn't be a federal issue at all, but a state issue, and my personal opinion means naught.

Personally, I also think that the right to "marry", regardless of gender, still produces a legal contract between two parties. The legal contract is binding, and accordingly, gender has no bearing on the legality of a notarized document.

There is an unbalanced population of hetero and homo sexuals here on ATS, but I'm still curious of the stance that ATS as a whole has on "gay marriage". Did Barack do a service to Mitt, or is this another ploy?

Your thoughts are welcomed.....



well, I'm highly skeptical of a President who's 4 years is nearly up...that suddenly is "pro" gay marriage....he's grasping at straws....I don't get why homosexual's, Bisexuals, and Liberals would trust him?? My next point is, despite Hollywood's agenda to put a gay person in every show and movie....they are only 1/% of the population....it's really not going to make a huge impact by Obama's sudden pro-gay marriage ploy.....Finally, as a Christian, I have to say that marriage is a relationship created by God...and our relationship to the opposite gender is representative to that of our relationship to Christ....we are to pro-create. -This is my beliefs, however, I do have 4 gay friends that are married or co-habbitate....Also, my favorite Uncle was gay and co-habbitated in a monogamous relationship....however, his wildness in the 70's caught up with him and he did die of AIDS....but I truly love him....and I accept and love my friends where they are at....Good thread....thanks for posing this question and allowing anyone to respond. :-)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


I don't think it was necessarily a ploy by Obama, and I'm not sure how much it will help Romney... although I can say Obama probably already had the gay vote. One thing I'm pretty sure about is that gay marriage is going to be accepted in the coming decades (assuming we survive that long).

I like the idea of state rights, actually. Think of it this way - it allows for a more diverse set of laws, therefore making the nation as a whole more resistant to social turmoil, and people can move to the state that supports their viewpoints the best.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Why on God's green Earth would I be against letting people sign a contract? That's all governmental marriage is: a contract.

Governmental marriage and spiritual marriage are different, and legalizing gay marriage only changes one. For those of you who need further explanation: governmental marriage is not the one that includes the sacred covenant.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
Our dear President went on the record today endorsing Same-Sex marriages. I was watching the news and the implications hit me.

Mittens, later on in the news article, stated his definition of marriage was a man and a woman. Totally expected for a sound byte. That's one of the only things I think Mittens WON'T flip-flop on.

Obama, in the grandest display of his liberal views, made the mistake of taking a stance. He just sent voters to Romney's camp. All the old-fashioned folk.

In return, the Obama campaign got every gay to vote for him. He's taking a hard line here. He's pitching the "human rights" stance against Romney's "set in stone" position. Sneaky.

Personally, I believe the constitution dictates the decision of how to define marriage belongs to the states, and each state has the right to enact laws accordingly. It shouldn't be a federal issue at all, but a state issue, and my personal opinion means naught.

Personally, I also think that the right to "marry", regardless of gender, still produces a legal contract between two parties. The legal contract is binding, and accordingly, gender has no bearing on the legality of a notarized document.

There is an unbalanced population of hetero and homo sexuals here on ATS, but I'm still curious of the stance that ATS as a whole has on "gay marriage". Did Barack do a service to Mitt, or is this another ploy?

Your thoughts are welcomed.....




Romney.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Excellent. We've had it in Canada as a Federal law for some time.

If only Cameron would get off his eighteenth century behind and implement in the UK we'd be all set.

I'm betting that this would be a cold day in hell before it gets done in UK, likely that Brussels will force this on Cameron before he comes into the 21st century.

And I'm speaking as a heterosexual male.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
For anyone who's saying that Obama sent voters to Mittens' camp, consider this.

"Old fashioned" voters are probably voting GOP at this stage anyway. If being anti gay marriage was an issue for them, they were likely already in the GOP "family values" camp, rather than on the side of liberals.

The biggest portion of voters who would be against this are the far right religious crowd, who wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway.

Obama will pick up whatever part of the LBGT community was going to vote Romney with this move, however small a block that will be.

Please explain to me why this was a risk,
edit on 10-5-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Why on God's green Earth would I be against letting people sign a contract? That's all governmental marriage is: a contract.

Governmental marriage and spiritual marriage are different, and legalizing gay marriage only changes one. For those of you who need further explanation: governmental marriage is not the one that includes the sacred covenant.


Breaking News (not really) - all that a Church marriage is is a contract, as well.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

When will Americans wake up.

Every 4 years , politicans drag out the Gay issue to keep the masses occupied.

Your leaders dont care if you marry a sheep, just dont bring up the real issues.

Illegal interference in other countries, exploding defecits, ballooning poorer class, corrupt banking.....

But no, lets all argue over who sleeps with who.


Agreed. Divide and conquer, anyone?

I don't know the statistics on GM acceptance on a wide level, but it seems most are accepting of it.

Regardless of which candidate gets the most support, I think we can count on things continuing on course - whatever that is.

This marriage thing, to me, is like supermarket tabloid material...who's doing who etc gossip gossip gossip.

Are we next going to go after all the hetero couples living outside of marriage and castigate them as well?

A shame civil unions can't be recognized, yet corporations are people.

edit on 10-5-2012 by explorer14 because: sp



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 





Personally, I believe the constitution dictates the decision of how to define marriage belongs to the states, and each state has the right to enact laws accordingly.


I don't believe the constitution allows for states to enact discriminatory laws. In fact, I'm pretty sure the constitution ensures that no one can enact discriminatory laws.




Personally, I also think that the right to "marry", regardless of gender, still produces a legal contract between two parties. The legal contract is binding, and accordingly, gender has no bearing on the legality of a notarized document.


Phew, we can agree 100% on that.

I think Obama did the right thing, but probably sent a bunch of old men flying over to Romney, but I don't care honestly, at least he took a stand and I happen to agree with him on this .



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
Why on God's green Earth would I be against letting people sign a contract? That's all governmental marriage is: a contract.

Governmental marriage and spiritual marriage are different, and legalizing gay marriage only changes one. For those of you who need further explanation: governmental marriage is not the one that includes the sacred covenant.


Indeed. As long as both parties are intelligent, coherent, and consenting enough to read and sign said contract, then there is no reason to stop them from doing so.

By that I mean, you can't really marry a building, hostage, child, or animal, since they can't consent, read, or provide a signature to anything, especially in legalese.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I agree 100% with Obama's political stance on the issue, that states should be able to decide this for themselves. If gay marriage is the right thing to allow then it will slowly become the majority opinion regardless of how many millions of dollars are spent against it. Either way, it seems inevitable to be law of the land in almost every state as the current generations age.

My personal view is that a government that has the power to regulate personal life in a way you like also has the power to regulate it in a way you DON'T like. Why is it so hard to see that this invites one of best known tyrannical forces of history deeper into our lives. For people that dislike the government so much I too often see this mistake of allowing their own versions of tyranny. The door is easier to open than close.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I've said it before, and I'll use this thread to say it again, because it bears repeating. This same sex marriage debate has tragically obfuscated the real question here, which is why should anyone obtain a license to be married? A license, by definition is a grant of privilege that would otherwise be illegal. How is it that anyone has reasonably determined that marriage, regardless of the sex involved, is illegal?

All people have the unalienable and sacred right to marry. No one needs any license to sanctify this marriage.



Hilarious...makes me ask how we got to the position of needing Government to approve of marriage in the first place.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I think it's retarded that we are still stuck on these kind of issues as a world/country.

We have bigger fish to fry - really big mean friggin fish that are eating us as we speak.

It's like we all want to do anything but focus on the actual challenges facing this world/country.

It makes me think of collective humanity as a child with their fingers in their ears with shut eyes saying "Nonononononononononono!!!".



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
If Romney falls for the bait he is going to waste his focus on this issue instead of continuing to pound the economy-issue. The only way Romney stands a chance is by focusing on the economy and away from social issues. This was a wise maneuver by Obama.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
Our sad country could prolly learn a few things from you Nucks.

We are running out of control here.



Originally posted by Jomina
Yeah, seriously, if it wasn't for the cold weather I would be Canadian in a heartbeat.


Take heart, folks. The USA is still my second favourite place, if I may be allowed that sentiment.


well,. it sounds like you know enough of us to realize we ALL not a bunch of a**holes. only been to vancouver, but all the people i met there were nice to me, i wish more americans had a little more canadian in them, instead of some people here that act like neanderthals...but i agree with how cold it gets up there, your winters can be brutal.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
This whole debate is stupid and a complete waste of time and energy.

For starters... the State has no business being involved in marriage. The only reason why the State is involved is to make money! You need a marriage license. Of course once married, you get tax breaks for being married that you would not get if you were single.

Aside from that aspect of the argument, is practice you can not enforce or dictate who gets married and who does not. I live in Louisiana. There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" in my State... but that has not stopped gay and lesbian couples from having a ceremony and getting "married" anyway. It may not be a legal marriage in the eyes of the State, but it works for them. So really... what is anyone solving anyway? You can not legislate behavior no matter how hard you try.



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


The fact remains that your friends are not "legally" recognized as being married. They cannot file a joint tax return. That is the nubbin.

A legally recognized spouse is entitled automatically to the whole of your estate. Your life insurance policy, the house you live in, and any of the minor assets you've acquired.

A "domestic couple" doesn't have that entitlement, and any non-spousal agreements, meaning "not married", is the current sham. Unless a specific will is drawn and notarized, the domestic partner loses everything, and it goes into probate of the state. With a "legal" marriage certificate, the partner becomes the default "spouse", no questions asked.

That's the way it currently is. States deciding. Or not. Most are playing around the issue, as it's not a popular issue to be solved anytime soon.

Obama just gave a huge thumbs up to the States.




posted on May, 10 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I agree, wise on his behalf. An excellent move to make as an incumbent. He polarizes everyone on this issue BEFORE the economic debate even comes out. People will forget his gay marriage stance, because honestly, it IS a side issue. If Romney makes an attack on Obama for his stance on SS marriage, he's doomed.

Obama is loading the clip for the assault rifle. He knows it. Will it be used?




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join