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.

 

Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Let me put this a different way
They don't want or care for your respect.
neither does anyone whom has an opposing viewpoint
What they want is equality, not respect.


Thank you for a well expressed reply.

In the UK gays already have legal equality via civil unions.

Nonetheless, the UK gay movement is pressing for the legal definition of marriage to be changed to include gay civil unions.

They are no longer pressing for legal rights (they already have those) but rather for moral support from the majority.

If the majority choose to withhold that moral support, then that is their right.

While I imagine the majority of British people are indifferent or support gay civil unions, only 34% of British people support gay marriage.

ComRes Poll




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You already know my position on this as I have stated I want everyone to have the same rights. My concern is not about equal rights for all. My concern is about passing legislation that will give rights to one group at the expense of another.

I believe in live and let live, a civil society.

I want fewer laws and rules and I don't believe that reasonable freedom creates an uncivil society.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by libertytoall
I brought up Ron Paul because he believes it's unconstitutional for the government to give out marriage certificates in the first place. It's unconstitutional for the government to define marriage. It's unconstitutional to disallow two individuals from pursuing happiness if it doesn't harm anyone else. Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly believes in personal freedom across the board. Freedom for everyone.
edit on 23-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


Well, it appears I am on RP's side here.


Why are you on RPs side? He will let states decide. He doesn't flip flop because he will put that pressure on the states. You will end up with the Gay States, the Abortion States, the Drug Free States..... you will end up with an absolute mess.

Obama will also actually
Romney is the only dude here wanting to make this a federal issue.
But, RP's ideals are to stop with the marriage stuff all together..the only candidate that is saying that (aka, putting thought into it).

Not saying vote for Ron..just saying that is the right way to start thinking overall on this issue.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


My point here is that Progressives say they want direct democracy until the majority is against them.


Famed political trend forecaster Gerald Celente believes that direct democracy – where people cut out the corrupt “middle man” and vote on issues themselves – is the only way to save America.


www.washingtonsblog.com...

Apparently it only saves America when the majority is on their side of an opinion....that's all I'm saying. But then, that is why they have to use dirty, low down tricks to convince people at the earliest age to agree with them.
edit on 23-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Direct democracy has never worked. It would destroy this country.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Its important to investigate the differences between unions and marriages to begin with
here in the states, there is a significant difference (such as insurance recognition of spouse, hospital visitation, lots of legal stuff).
This is the biggest issue I hear from the gay community, and it demonstrates that they are not equal..its preferential treatment, state sanctions, against a group for purposes of a specific religion...which is unconstitutional.

Before you go suggesting marriage and unions are equal, check in closely. I used to be totally uncaring about this issue when I thought unions and marriages were completely equal. Then I got schooled on the issue by a gay friend whom pointed out a vast difference between the two.
Then my stance went from neutral to pro-equality for marriage

then it went from that to..wait, why are we even recognizing religion on a offical level anyhow? I was baptised when I was young..do I get benefits from that also?

If their is no difference whatsoever between unions and marriage in the UK...point for point, absolutely no distinction, then I would venture to say the gays wanting marriage don't have a case overall in regards to equality.
Then its about just being respected.

and good luck with that...can't think of any group anywhere on earth that is universally respected...but who cares about majority respect for who you are.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Direct democracy has never worked. It would destroy this country.



I agree with you, truly. I'd rather stick with the representative republic.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee
 


My point here is that Progressives say they want direct democracy until the majority is against them.


Famed political trend forecaster Gerald Celente believes that direct democracy – where people cut out the corrupt “middle man” and vote on issues themselves – is the only way to save America.


www.washingtonsblog.com...

Apparently it only saves America when the majority is on their side of an opinion....that's all I'm saying. But then, that is why they have to use dirty, low down tricks to convince people at the earliest age to agree with them.


Hmmmm - - - I was "fortunate" to go through 2 major corporate takeovers - - even having to re-apply for my job.

All the BIG TALK - - - they're going to change how things are run - - - everything's going to be better - - - Blah Blah Blah.

Within a year - - EVERYTHING went right back to the way it was before the takeover.

That's because there is a reason a system runs like it does.

Nothing is going to change how our political system runs. The only thing we can do is try to raise a generation with "integrity for the people". Its the people running the system - - not the system itself.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by libertytoall
I brought up Ron Paul because he believes it's unconstitutional for the government to give out marriage certificates in the first place. It's unconstitutional for the government to define marriage. It's unconstitutional to disallow two individuals from pursuing happiness if it doesn't harm anyone else. Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly believes in personal freedom across the board. Freedom for everyone.
edit on 23-5-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


Well, it appears I am on RP's side here.


Why are you on RPs side? He will let states decide. He doesn't flip flop because he will put that pressure on the states. You will end up with the Gay States, the Abortion States, the Drug Free States..... you will end up with an absolute mess.

Obama will also actually
Romney is the only dude here wanting to make this a federal issue.
But, RP's ideals are to stop with the marriage stuff all together..the only candidate that is saying that (aka, putting thought into it).

Not saying vote for Ron..just saying that is the right way to start thinking overall on this issue.



mmmm, respectfully disagree, marriage is a contract. You either agree with that or you don't. I do and think that it helps seal a marriage and if the worse comes to the worse give closure to a marriage. I also believe that shouldn't be done on a faith basis but a state (as in government) basis.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked


mmmm, respectfully disagree, marriage is a contract. You either agree with that or you don't. I do and think that it helps seal a marriage and if the worse comes to the worse give closure to a marriage. I also believe that shouldn't be done on a faith basis but a state (as in government) basis.


Me too.

Legal Marriage is a contract of protection.

That is all it is - - - and it works just fine - - - and should be available to everyone.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Let me put this a different way
They don't want or care for your respect.
neither does anyone whom has an opposing viewpoint
What they want is equality, not respect.


Thank you for a well expressed reply.

In the UK gays already have legal equality via civil unions.

Nonetheless, the UK gay movement is pressing for the legal definition of marriage to be changed to include gay civil unions.

They are no longer pressing for legal rights (they already have those) but rather for moral support from the majority.

If the majority choose to withhold that moral support, then that is their right.

While I imagine the majority of British people are indifferent or support gay civil unions, only 34% of British people support gay marriage.

ComRes Poll


You still don't get it. Gays don't want your moral support. They want equality. All things equal. Civil Union does not equal marriage. Marriage does not equal civil union. This is not equality. They want equality. Either everyone gets a civil union, or everyone gets a marriage license. Then, you have equality.
edit on 23-5-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


So you wouldn't have held respect for black people during the civil rights movement because they went against democracy?

The USA isn't a democracy. The founding fathers loathed democracies because it equates to mob rule.


edit on 23-5-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





then it went from that to..wait, why are we even recognizing religion on a offical level anyhow? I was baptised when I was young..do I get benefits from that also?


Not really, unless you happen to be applying for DAR membership, in which case baptismal records of an ancestor can establish whether they lived in a certain county for geneological purposes.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee
 


My point here is that Progressives say they want direct democracy until the majority is against them.


Famed political trend forecaster Gerald Celente believes that direct democracy – where people cut out the corrupt “middle man” and vote on issues themselves – is the only way to save America.


www.washingtonsblog.com...

Apparently it only saves America when the majority is on their side of an opinion....that's all I'm saying. But then, that is why they have to use dirty, low down tricks to convince people at the earliest age to agree with them.
edit on 23-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


This is not a progressive issue...nor stance.
Lots of idiots on both sides of the fence.
Hell, look at this thread with your pet going on and on about 31 states and all that.
both sides think that if the majority agrees with them, it needs to be followed.

This is why we elect representitives...because people are easily swayed based on whats popular today.

I do worry that its easier to pay off a single politician than it is a state mind you, but its the best form of crap governments we have today.

I personally would like majority vote on many things, to include stuff you smoke, reasons for being with a woman, etc...but my views are based on constitutional understanding and the right to persue happiness for myself verses a religious ideal.
if everyone in the US wanted to ban the catholic church...and I am not a fan of them. I would disagree totally..because that is protected.
the right wants to shut people up like the westboro baptist church whom protest military funerals...they want to enact legislation based on popular view to curtail their freedom of speech (for good reason mind you, but still).
I oppose that simply on grounds that its their retarded words, and they are allowed to freely speak them.

So, don't pretend this is some crazy liberals trying to make a democracy...that is evenly split there...
edit on 23-5-2012 by SaturnFX because: removed this: people you want to marry (nothing like saying the exact opposite if how I feel on a issue. time to take a break and do some work)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

The only problem that part (in the eyes of their God part) is that sometimes they want to be married against what their God wants. Yes, yes, I know, you don't believe in Him. The problem is that the rest of the congregation (people of mostly like-minded beliefs) may have a problem with it, due to their understanding of what He wants from them. And this is where both have rights that are crushed.

Relevant at 1:16:



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


So you generalize a whole group of people who you label "progressive" from the words of Gerald Celente?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
So you wouldn't have held respect for black people during the civil rights movement because they went against democracy?


Was Black people being discriminated in the South supported by the majority of American people?

I don't believe it was.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





Hell, look at this thread with your pet going on and on about 31 states


My "pet"? May I ask what the heck you are talking about? I represent myself not other posters here. I was suggesting that had the tables been turned and 31 states voted on a referendum to SUPPORT gay marriage they would have all been more than happy to accept it. And you KNOW it's true!



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join