Voters Approve Same-sex Marriage for the First Time, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times


reply posted on 8-11-2012 @ 11:13 PM by Phoenix
Originally posted by queenofswords
Originally posted by Phoenix
Originally posted by amatrine
Another issue this opens up, is what does marriage constitute? Will polygamy be the next one on the list?
What about a guy that wants to marry his horse. ( I remember that story on the news years ago)


And what harm or business may be that of yours? besides moral shock value? actually how does that harm or impact you personally?

Forcing your values upon another is not in the Constitution, if the man wants to marry a horse let him suffer the consequence - its not really your affair.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)


Will he be able to count the filly as a dependent on his income tax?

Does society have a right to set certain parameters as to what it will and will not accept? I remember a few years ago, there was a case where a widowed father and his young adult daughter wanted to marry. Should we set certain taboos in a civil society?


NO! not if its not treated in the Constitutions language remember the parts "congress shall make no laws" you may socially ostrasize those who do such things and you have the freedom to do so along with your peers but IMHO you have no Constitutional right to legislate behavior.

When its been tried it backfires and the liberals shove it down your throat via courts - right? By trying to legislate behavior all you do is open an opossite door that allows uncostitutional lawmaking to produce rights that do not exist via the Constitution.

I don't know how to say it better but its hypocracy to tell others how to live their lives while at the same time bandying certain rights such as 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th rights while saying you cant do such and such or so and so because it violates my morals.


reply posted on 8-11-2012 @ 11:22 PM by Myomistress
reply to post by amatrine


I believe I used this explanation a while ago whenever someone mentioned marrying children. Horses can't consent to sexual activity and since marriage is a contract that many thing entitles a couple to sex, well.. Sex being between two consenting adults to be legal. That's why gay marriage can and should be legal everywhere and not marrying horses or other domesticated animals.


reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 04:26 AM by IntoxicatingMadness
reply to post by Phoenix


I feel quite the same way, someones love for another being should be the concern of only the two who are in love. If a man loves a horse, assuming he treats it respectfully should be okay. His interactions with the horse should not harm you in any way or form so why do people find it a problem (Weird as the situation stands.)


reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 04:52 AM by Hawking
Originally posted by IntoxicatingMadness
reply to post by Phoenix


I feel quite the same way, someones love for another being should be the concern of only the two who are in love. If a man loves a horse, assuming he treats it respectfully should be okay. His interactions with the horse should not harm you in any way or form so why do people find it a problem (Weird as the situation stands.)


Because a horse cannot give consent to sexual interaction.

Non consensual sex is abuse no matter who or what is involved. This is why sex with children will never be ok...they are unable to give consent


CONSENTING...ADULTS can do whatever they want


reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 05:20 AM by IntoxicatingMadness
reply to post by Hawking


Whoa I never said sex. Love is a bit different. But sex is out of the question because that horse could potentially kill him in such an act. Though feeling love to the horse is ok as far as i can see it. If the horse is the thing that lights up his day so be it. The horse probably doesn't understand the man's feeling on a species gap but the fact it can make a person happy is a good thing. But yeah Lovey Dovey feeling - Ok. Sexual Intercourse - Not ok.


reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 05:43 AM by wiser3
reply to post by amatrine


If he asks the horse and the horse says yes who am I to stand in his way?


reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 07:46 AM by CAMale
Originally posted by Trustfund
CNN) -- In a historic turnaround, the ballot box is showing America's shifting attitudes about same-sex marriage. After gay marriage rights died at the polls dozens of times in the past, on Tuesday they passed in at least two states.

Rarely do popular votes reflect such dramatic social changes.

The result: Maryland and Maine will now allow couples like Chyrino Patane and James Trinidad to tie the knot.

The Maryland couple has been together for seven years, and now, after the historic vote, they plan to marry in the next six months to a year.

In Maryland, where just 51.9% of voters approved gay marriage rights, "It was a little bit pins and needles," said Human Rights Campaign's Kevin Nix. "It was going to be a close call all along."

A similar ballot measure in Washington state is pending. And in Minnesota, voters rejected a measure that would have banned same-sex marriage.

Pollsters got a hint of the coming change. Recent national surveys have shown shifting attitudes toward same-sex marriage, with a majority of Americans now approving of marriages between two men or two women. A June CNN/ORC poll, for example, reflected such a shift in opinion in the U.S.

Election Day brought two additional gains for proponents of same-sex marriage: Wisconsin elected America's first openly lesbian senator, Democrat Tammy Baldwin, and President Obama became the first president to openly support same-sex marriage and get re-elected.

In the six states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York -- and the District of Columbia where gays and lesbians have previously won marriage rights, it was because of actions taken by judges or legislators, not voters.


www.cnn.com...

So much societal progression this election, it is a good sign.. The legalization of MJ in two states, Same sex marriage winning popular votes, and a record amount of women elected to the Senate.

Social conservatism is dead.


This is wonderful news and a huge victory for civil right and civil liberties in the United States!

This is also a great victory which means a huge defeat for discrimination here at home!

While I am sad that a similarly strategic prop 8 succeeded in California which was to ban an already approved same sex marriage!!!

But what really bugs me and irks me deep down and down right pisses me off is that in a state where minorities collectively are almost if not are the majority, CA voters passed Prop 8!!!

This tells me that Hispanics/Latinos and Blacks and Asians, after facing and being forced to swallow discrimination for decades, given their first opportunity to show they side with equality and civil rights, these sick bastards turn right around and discriminate against gay people!!!!!

As a Hispanic who has faced discrimination, it made me sick to my stomach and disgusted me when my own brother who looks 100% Hispanic and has faced more discrimination than me (I look white and rarely am asked if I am even mixed) went ahead and voted Yes on 8!!!!!
I couldn't even look at him for a month and kept calling him a "wetback and slick" for that whole month to remind him of all the times he was called those names as we grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood is the early 1980's... (No offense intended, just said that to prove a point)


reply posted on 9-11-2012 @ 04:28 PM by SaturnFX
Originally posted by pngxp
yeah, this is great!

and next on the list of to do's is legalize pedophilia.

just like being born gay, pedophiles are born that way and they are people who should receive the exact same rights as every other human being!

hooray for social justice, lets see just how progressive we can get!



we wouldnt want to hurt a minority groups feelings after all right?

Pedophilia actions are illegal.
And no, pedophiles are not born that way. biologically speaking, homo-sapians are not sexually attracted to pre-pubescent females.
This is a learned behavior from a underlying issue. it is a symptom.

Now, this argument can also be made for gay people, however, there have been measured neurological and chemical differences between a gay and straight person, making that seemingly more biological and environmental
Source
Some scientists say the new findings are part of an increasingly convincing body of evidence that suggests sexual orientation results from fundamental developmental differences that are probably caused by hormonal exposures in the womb.

"This research is pointing to basic differences in the brain between homosexual and heterosexual people that are likely there right from the beginning," said Sandra F. Witelson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences at McMaster University in Ontario. "These could be reflecting some genetic or hormonal factors that predetermine your sexual orientation."


This argument you are presenting is not only scientifically inaccurate, but perhaps one of the least intelligent strawmen arguments you can make. I would encourage you to perhaps read up on subjects before weighing in on it using such strong language. You are fulfilling the desires of someone by pushing forward a fully debunked viewpoint as somehow relevant. aka, your being a tool for someone else..and not a very useful tool at that.

So, go back to the church of ignorance, or walk away from said church and start using your brain for processing verses just storage of garbage.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^