This May Be A Very Important Day For Gay Rights

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by kthxbai
Marriage, however, is NOT illegal, it's a legal agreement and is open to all people who are of the age to consent and aren't already in a legal agreement with someone else. Children can't get married, they can't give consent. Animals can't get married, they can't give consent. You can't be married to more than one person because it's a singular agreement. There is absolutely no reason to withhold that from two people of the same gender. It breaks no laws, it produces no illegal acts.


Why is it a "singular agreement"? Why should same-sex couples enjoy the benefit of recognition, while polygamist should continue to be denied? So long as it is consenting adults and it is how they operate, they too should receive the same ardent support as does same-sex couples are seeking.

Partnerships are not always singular.


OK, as long as all parties involved are consenting, go for it. I actually mentioned that because I know of someone who was married to two different women and neither of them knew about the other. If they go into it of their own free will and all three (or four or five or whatever) sign the papers agreeing to it, that's fine.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
When I was living in Utah, we made friends within the Mormon community.

Some were secretly polygamists.

Others, like a friends sister said, "Polygamy my ass! You just want her!"

(she got the house in the divorce.)

Consenting adults. Gotta love it!



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by XXX777
reply to post by supertrot
 


I figure most people reading ATS have studied philosophy, religion, the mystery schools, the secret societies, etc.

So how could you think homosexual marriage is good for the human race?

My mind is officially blown. I can't understand how anybody would imagine that ''marriage'' was something other than a sacred ceremony honoring procreative power. The word is not a generic term like ''automobile''. My two-door convertible is an automobile. My neighbor's SUV is an automobile. I see automobiles everyday in the form of sedans, trucks, sports cars, two-door, four-door, extended cab, electric, gas, diesel, hybrid, etc. The word ''automobile'' covers them all. On the other hand, ''marriage'' is a word used to describe the bonding of a man and a woman. Period. It is not something that any two people do. You don't get married because you live next to each other, or you enjoy playing chess, or you are best friends or co-workers. You don't get your whole neighborhood together and get married. You don't marry your father. You don't marry your cat or dog. You don't marry an infant, a goldfish, three women and five men, a tree, a rock, a mathematical equation, a wristwatch or a golf club. You don't marry for tax breaks or practical jokes. What has happened to intelligence and values?!!


You marry the other adult that you live with and have consensual sex with. If two homosexual men live together and have sexual relations, how is that any different from a man and a woman living together and having sexual relations? Their relationship is the same, they are joined as one, they are partners in life and should have the same legal rights and responsibilities.

Tell us, what is it that makes a marriage a marriage other than the gender of the two participants? It's not producing children, many married people don't have children. It's not the missionary position, many married couples use other positions as well, even the position they claim they are so much against for homosexual males to use, and the female one too. It's not religious based because atheists get married too.

What is the "magic marriage formula" you have here?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
If Gay marriage is made legal on a Federal level it will destroy the church. The agenda is not to give gay couples equal rights. The agenda is to destroy the church. Once it is made legal on a federal level, church's that refuse to marry gay couples will be sued out of existance. There is far more to this than it seems. Civil Unions will give gay couples the same rights as married couples. This is a war on Christianity. No ifs, ands or buts.


Seriously??? Come on already.
Churches can refuse to perform ceremonies at any time for any reason. They are not governed by the state, they are not the courthouse. They refuse many heterosexual couples for whatever reason they want. They are NOT required to perform any ceremony they don't want to perform and never will be.

If ANYTHING is destroying "the church", it's the church itself. Not the Catholic Church, not the Baptist Church, not the Lutheran Church, not the Methodist Church, not the Mormon Church but all those little non-denominational churches with the toothless pastors who didn't even graduate high school let alone attend seminary. Those churches aren't churches at all, they're just little social groups who don't even comprehend the bible that they claim to have read but really haven't. THOSE groups are what are harming Christianity and THOSE groups are NOT NOT NOT Christian in any way, shape or form.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 

You say a Methodist church was sued, can we get the case and link to review said case of where a church was sued for failing to perform a wedding ceremony between a same sex couple?

churches have been sued before, and often, and not just for not marrying people. And from all accounts and records the courts usually give the Churches a slap on the hand. If the courts were going to be so punitive on churches, then why are there Catholic churchs still in operation in the USA?

Many dance around the issue on how a minority is asking for equal rights, yet there have been cases in the past, where those who are minorities asked for and demanded equal rights, and by all accounts got them. After all the handicapped people were asked and demanded such, and they are not the majority, but many businesses were forced to change to accomidate such. At one time, there were were professions where it was common practice to either exclude or deny hiring of some due to the fact that that they did not fit a particular profile or look, yet society changed and did not crash or go wrong for such.

Is this going to be any different, that one group is asking for equality under the law to have the same rights and priviledges under the laws of the country? After all, you would ask that gay people pay taxes, that support schools, and other social programs, to follow the laws of the country, even if necessary to pick up a weapon and defend it with their very lives, yet would deny them the benefit of the very society that they are asked to live in. That is the very essence of discrimination and ultimately can not be allowed to continue on.

Gay marriage, this very concept, is a new one, it has not gone through the courts, has not had any major precidence set on to determine if is correct or not. And that is what exactly all of these court cases are doing. All of the various religious groups that are protesting such, are doing more harm than good, by using religion as a weapon, instead of being inclusive. We bulk at the very thought of say Sharia being implimented in the USA, yet would invoke the very same from Christianity. And when the gay people are no longer asking for equality, does it mean that another group, who some may find offensive become the next target? After all if you are going to use that such is against the Christian ideology, does that mean say a Buddist couple or say a Hindu couple who are wed, does it mean that their marriage is invalidated, all cause it was not done in say a Christian fasion?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


That is just one state. A Methodist church has already been sued. It will be the end result.


Then I'm sure you would be happy to link to it and give the results of the suit. I can't imagine any court siding against any church's right to refuse a service based on the law.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is from the Jefferson Memorial:

I'm not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances. Institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

GOD MADE LGBT JUST LIKE HE MADE HETEROSEXUALS!!!



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Here's a link, is this the suit you're talking about?
religion.blogs.cnn.com...

It seems a heterosexual woman sued her church for performing a commitment ceremony. She sued them wanting them to refund the money she gave in tithing and donations over her lifetime because they had "the nerve" to perform a ceremony for a same sex couple. The suit was dropped.

Funny how the details were left out by the other poster huh?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by supertrot
 


You're right... it shouldn't be a government matter, but since it is, it should be at the state level and not the Federal level. The voters of California voted to not have same sex marriage in their state. That should be the end of it right there. The SCOTUS has no Constitutional authority to over rule the voters of a state on a state issue. I would make the same argument if the roles were reversed... if California voted FOR same sex marriage, and the SCOTUS were entertaining the idea of over ruling that.


So would you have this same opinion if, hypothetically speaking, the State of Utah voted to reinstate Slavery?

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of issues, weather at a State level or Federal Level. The Supreme Court has every right to decide this case. From scholastic.com in reference to the role of the Supreme Court:

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.


And let us be honest, this is a Constitutional issue.


Slavery is forcing people to do something and restricting rights.
Hypothetically speaking, what is forced on a people and what rights are restricted regarding gay marriage?
Seems a bit of apples v. oranges



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai
Here's a link, is this the suit you're talking about?
religion.blogs.cnn.com...

It seems a heterosexual woman sued her church for performing a commitment ceremony. She sued them wanting them to refund the money she gave in tithing and donations over her lifetime because they had "the nerve" to perform a ceremony for a same sex couple. The suit was dropped.

Funny how the details were left out by the other poster huh?



Burn
2nd



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix267
I have a quick question relating to the topic. Is the Supreme Court doing something with Prop 8 and something else with gay marriage. Also will they vote on it today? Just curious.


It is an oral argument session in which both sides present their cases while fielding questions from the Justices; there will be no decision on this for at least a couple of months. The other case is the Defense of Marriage Act case.

Prop 8 case is specific to California while the DOMA case deals with discrimination in the work force based on public law defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman".



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thanks for answering my question. I didn't see a reply to my question and clicked the thread when I felt someone replied to my comment. Weird. But thanks again.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


There will be unintended consequences just like Row vs Wade. SCOTUS would not have ruled to allow abortion had they forseen the unintended consequences of it. Married couples aborting a baby because it was not the gender they wanted, partial birth abortions, etc. This will be no different, it will evolve into a monster and yet another issue to divide the country. Community church's help needy people by paying their utility bills,rent,food,medical. Church's will be and have been sued over same sex marriage issues already. Will the gay community step up and fill the void left when church's disapear? No, they won't. This is an attack on the church. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


There will be unintended consequences just like Row vs Wade. SCOTUS would not have ruled to allow abortion had they forseen the unintended consequences of it. Married couples aborting a baby because it was not the gender they wanted, partial birth abortions, etc. This will be no different, it will evolve into a monster and yet another issue to divide the country. Community church's help needy people by paying their utility bills,rent,food,medical. Church's will be and have been sued over same sex marriage issues already. Will the gay community step up and fill the void left when church's disapear? No, they won't. This is an attack on the church. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
Try providing proof for these claims. We aren't gullible, unlike the anti-marriage equality crowd you associate yourself with. Marriage Equality deals with legal marriage, not religious marriage. It's been said to you before in this thread. Stop playing dumb.

As for your other comment, unlike marriage equality, both sides have a valid point in the Abortion debate. If we allow abortion then we (arguably) allow the killing of innocent life. If we ban abortion however, we're denying women the rights to their own bodies. Both valid points.

The only consequence of allowing marriage equality is that stupid people will have slightly less power in this country as a result, which really isn't a consequence execpt to the aformentioned stupid people.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


There will be unintended consequences just like Row vs Wade. SCOTUS would not have ruled to allow abortion had they forseen the unintended consequences of it. Married couples aborting a baby because it was not the gender they wanted, partial birth abortions, etc. This will be no different, it will evolve into a monster and yet another issue to divide the country. Community church's help needy people by paying their utility bills,rent,food,medical. Church's will be and have been sued over same sex marriage issues already. Will the gay community step up and fill the void left when church's disapear? No, they won't. This is an attack on the church. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.


If we didn't allow women the right to abortions than it would just go back to women doing it themselves or by back door doctors and that is just not good all around. I dislike that some women take advantage of having abortions but there are cases were abortion is a good thing, like if the woman was raped or if it would possibly kill her or the baby will be born with really bad defects.

If there are church's that disapear because some people got their panties in a knot over something that has nothing to do with them and does not effect them than so be it. Just because there is a risk of some church's dispearing doesn't mean that we shouldn't allow for a group of humans to have the same rights as every other human.

God created LGBT just like he created heterosexuals, Africian Americans and every other human being. If the church can't accept that than they should disappear.

I do not agree with the current bibles that say that the act of homosexuality is a sin. I'm pretty 100% sure that God does not have a problem with it and that he does, however, have a problem with people who hate on another group of people, beat and kill other people. Seeing how heterosexuals do that to homosexuals than I see that as being the sin.

As long as what you do does not harm another person or yourself than it is ok. If you harm another person or yourself than it is not ok. Kind of common sense don't you think.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by knoledgeispower
 

My arrogance is not a problem for me, and I completly disagree with your view. Maybe some are born gay, but not all, and you are lame to think there will be no indoc in the rasing of a child whom has no say whatsoever. Understanding all of the variables in all cases and situations, and all adoptions are not perfect, regardless of the parents. You can spin this anyway you want, and agenda till you fall to your knees, But to give a child this enviornment is just a conditioning of the mind that you would see if you really look at the complete picture and not thru your forced driven mind. I do not give a rats tail of your opinion of me or my thoughts, and could only hope your offspring has a better shot at the IQ pool. But, sorry, I have a college tuition payment for my kid, and guess what, this is where my view on this issue is based, from a grass roots study due out in 2016.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by knoledgeispower
If we didn't allow women the right to abortions than it would just go back to women doing it themselves or by back door doctors and that is just not good all around. I dislike that some women take advantage of having abortions but there are cases were abortion is a good thing, like if the woman was raped or if it would possibly kill her or the baby will be born with really bad defects.


Seriously a topic for a different thread; but can you provide the statistics that women sought such dangerous methods pre Roe. v. Wade? If we take statistics in account: 1 in 5 are due to "back-room" abortions; according to the numbers presented in the Roe v. Wade arguments. It doesn't add up since it would propel the leading cause of women is botched abortions. I digress though, since it is a completely separate topic at hand.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by teslahowitzer
reply to post by knoledgeispower
 

My arrogance is not a problem for me, and I completly disagree with your view. Maybe some are born gay, but not all, and you are lame to think there will be no indoc in the rasing of a child whom has no say whatsoever. Understanding all of the variables in all cases and situations, and all adoptions are not perfect, regardless of the parents. You can spin this anyway you want, and agenda till you fall to your knees, But to give a child this enviornment is just a conditioning of the mind that you would see if you really look at the complete picture and not thru your forced driven mind. I do not give a rats tail of your opinion of me or my thoughts, and could only hope your offspring has a better shot at the IQ pool. But, sorry, I have a college tuition payment for my kid, and guess what, this is where my view on this issue is based, from a grass roots study due out in 2016.


Everyone who is gay was born that way. You don't just wake up one day and decide "I'm going to be gay, I want people to hate me, I want to have less human rights than when I was heterosexual" yea right. No one wants to be abandonded by their family, rejected by society and in a lot of countries beat or killed.

A child has just as much of a chance to be raised in an indoc household by heterosexuals so saying that it is a guarantee that that will happen in a homosexual household is stupid. I have no idea where you get your twisted negative views from but that is not the case with a majority of homosexual couples.
I have read many articles from adults who were raised by homosexual parents and they grew up in loving household and have a tolerance for everyone.

If having a low IQ means that I am capable of knowing that every human being is entitled to the same human rights as every other human being than I hope my kids have a low IQ like you are claiming I have. Apparently people like you, who obviously you are claiming to be, who have a higher IQ don't want some people to have the same human rights that they have.
I also don't see why you think me having a low IQ would not mean that I would have a college tution set up for my kids? I, as of yet, don't have kids so I don't have to worry about that but my IQ level doesn't mean that my kids won't have a college tution set up. You may have a high IQ but your logic is very much retarded and arrogant.

If homosexuals should not adopt children because they are not capable of reproducing on their own, does that mean that heterosexual couples who can not reproduce should not be allowed to adopt children either? Where is the line??



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Someone tell me - What was the outcome of this hearing?

All i can find is they had discussions for two days and nothing after that.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by knoledgeispower
If we didn't allow women the right to abortions than it would just go back to women doing it themselves or by back door doctors and that is just not good all around. I dislike that some women take advantage of having abortions but there are cases were abortion is a good thing, like if the woman was raped or if it would possibly kill her or the baby will be born with really bad defects.


Seriously a topic for a different thread; but can you provide the statistics that women sought such dangerous methods pre Roe. v. Wade? If we take statistics in account: 1 in 5 are due to "back-room" abortions; according to the numbers presented in the Roe v. Wade arguments. It doesn't add up since it would propel the leading cause of women is botched abortions. I digress though, since it is a completely separate topic at hand.


I only brought it up because I was quoting someone who talked about abortion and then had continued talking about gay marriage. I gave my two cents to his entire post, including both abortion and gay marriage.

I do not have statistics as this is something I learned back in a grade 11 (2005) social studies open class debate. My teacher would write the topics on the board and then anyone in the class could debate it. Our teacher brought up the fact that back in the day when it was illegal for women to abort that those women who did want to abort, for whatever reason, would seek it out in whatever manner possible. Somtimes that meant back-room abortions and sometimes that meant using a coat hanger or falling down the stairs.





top topics
 
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join