Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

page: 28
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Here is a link to a few examples. Google is your friend. There are numerous examples of where this is going.

www.hawaiifreepress.com... .aspx




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





In the end, I believe that any CONSENTING adults should be able to get married


Thank goodness we don't do forced arranged marriages the way it was done in the middle ages. Even then, traditional marriage still consisted of one man and one woman and usually blessed by a man of the cloth. Care to redefine the meaning of consent? In India, betrothals were often made with underage girls, though the consummation was not allowed till later.


Child marriage and child betrothal customs occur in various times and places, whereby children are given in matrimony - before marriageable age as defined by the commentator and often before puberty. Today such customs are fairly widespread in parts of Africa, Asia, Oceania and South America: in former times it occurred also in Europe. It is frequently associated with arranged marriage. In some cases only one marriage-partner is a child, usually the female,


en.wikipedia.org...

So, indeed, how far-fetched is the concept that some would advocate the same in same-sex marriage? Except the traditional reasons for it were far different than the selfish desires of people today.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


I'm curious. I know that there have been a few lawsuits against churches for not performing gay marriages. There have also been lawsuits against churches FOR performing gay marriages. But the real question is, have any of these lawsuits been successful? Because I sure cant find ANY proof that they have.

People sue for anything and everything in america. If that lawsuit is thrown out, it doesnt really prove a whole lot, does it?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





In the end, I believe that any CONSENTING adults should be able to get married


Thank goodness we don't do forced arranged marriages the way it was done in the middle ages. Even then, traditional marriage still consisted of one man and one woman and usually blessed by a man of the cloth. Care to redefine the meaning of consent? In India, betrothals were often made with underage girls, though the consummation was not allowed till later.


You're now using Indian traditions in an example here? Really, really reaching.

In america, arranged marriage still has to be agreed on by the two getting marriage. If they do it based on family pressure, that has NOTHING to do with law, as they are still CONSENTING to marry the individual they are marrying.

These counter arguments are getting more and more desperate.
Seriously, desperation is a stinky cologne.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by jimmiec
 


I'm curious. I know that there have been a few lawsuits against churches for not performing gay marriages. There have also been lawsuits against churches FOR performing gay marriages. But the real question is, have any of these lawsuits been successful? Because I sure cant find ANY proof that they have.

People sue for anything and everything in america. If that lawsuit is thrown out, it doesnt really prove a whole lot, does it?


Well, why not just take out the context of same-sex marriage and priests and insert drivers of cars and auto insurance companies. It is legal to drive yet some ins companies will deny you based on if you had an accident or lots of speeding tickets. And yet we cannot drive without insurance due to legislation.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





You're now using Indian traditions in an example here? Really, really reaching


Exactly why is it reaching? Because it isn't done in America? I guess Africans aren't important either. Mostly I don't think we do arranged marriages anymore in the US, but I was questioning your definition of consent, since in times past, a girl could have her marriage arranged and she would grudgingly give consent because it was the only way....she really would have no real choice in the matter. But of course, as you are a man, you apparently do not see this aspect of the victory of the feminist movement.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





You're now using Indian traditions in an example here? Really, really reaching


Exactly why is it reaching? Because it isn't done in America? I guess Africans aren't important either.


Does this debate have ANYTHING to do with the laws of other countries. IT ABOUT THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

Stinky, stinky cologne.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


Well, why not just take out the context of same-sex marriage and priests and insert drivers of cars and auto insurance companies. It is legal to drive yet some ins companies will deny you based on if you had an accident or lots of speeding tickets. And yet we cannot drive without insurance due to legislation.


Your arms have to be getting tired.

I believe in a churches right to deny performing a marriage. So what are you getting at?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





You're now using Indian traditions in an example here? Really, really reaching


Exactly why is it reaching? Because it isn't done in America? I guess Africans aren't important either.


Does this debate have ANYTHING to do with the laws of other countries. IT ABOUT THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

Stinky, stinky cologne.


Why yes it does in the context of CONSENTUAL marriage. Does the Constitution say any more about CONSENTUAL marriage than it does SAME-SEX marriage? Why no it does not. Therefore it is up to the States to legislate according to the individual state, as I already posted somewhere in this forum. Plus you were the one on the rampage about consent. I just proved that consent is not always what one says it is. But liberals always have a pressing need to impose their agendas and ideologies on everyone at the Federal level. Interestingly, the way the court system works, is it goes according to cases and precedents on the local and State level before it gets to the Supreme Court. People know that to get something done, one must work through the lower courts first.
This is also how Local Agenda 21 works. They work in local areas to do stuff. The difference is that the Agenda 21 really is initiatives which come from elites in the UN and not individuals in the various States.

Let's talk about liberals and consent shall we? For instance, does Mayor Bloomberg have my consent to force me to not have a Big Gulp because he thinks it is bad for me? Is my silence on the issue considered consent by legal entities? Did Nancy Pelosi have my consent when she told everyone they would have to pass Obamacare before we'd get to see what's in it? NO she did NOT have my consent, nor am I silent on the issue.
Oh by the way, speaking about consent and liberals, the educational curriculum of CScope locks parents out of the process. Parents cannot view content on the CScope pages. Consent INDEED! Liberals eternally think their ideas are automatically the best ones and that no one else's opinions matter.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 






Your arms have to be getting tired.


Cheap shot! Grasping at straws. Nothing to to do with the subject.

You brought up the subject of lawsuits against churches, did you not?

I have been discussing State's rights, which are accorded to them by the Constitution.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 






Your arms have to be getting tired.


Cheap shot! Grasping at straws. Nothing to to do with the subject.

You brought up the subject of lawsuits against churches, did you not?

I have been discussing State's rights, which are accorded to them by the Constitution.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Nope, I sure didnt. I responded to someone else who brought it up. Nice try though


You are talking about India, and Africa, and car insurance....anything EXCEPT the actual topic.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 






Your arms have to be getting tired.


Cheap shot! Grasping at straws. Nothing to to do with the subject.

You brought up the subject of lawsuits against churches, did you not?

I have been discussing State's rights, which are accorded to them by the Constitution.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Nope, I sure didnt. I responded to someone else who brought it up. Nice try though


You are talking about India, and Africa, and car insurance....anything EXCEPT the actual topic.


Again, I was talking about the nature of consent. Liberals have the propensity to change the definitions of things to suit their agendas. For instance, the definition of a valid marriage normally in a traditional sense is one man and one woman, though in past times in various places, that definition may or may not have been such, but it is now in the US. Since the 60's, liberals have been trying to redefine the definition of marriage and the bonds it holds. For instance, in the 70's there was a funny idea of "swinging", that is couples exchanging partners just for fun and to get rid of boredom. For liberals, as long as it is accepted by society then it's ok. If it is not accepted by society, then they push for it to be. This is also why liberals push for indoctrination of youth into their ideals, because they know that once the youth are convinced, a whole generation will come to accept what it is they want. This is the SOLE purpose of VALUES CLARIFICATION techniques:to rid children of their parent's traditional values and mores and insert those which the STATE wish to have. And face it, Progressives by far have control over the curriculum of the federal education system.

In terms of legality and lawsuits, the validity of same-sex marriage is pretty much the same as purchasing auto insurance. Churches still have the right to decide, as do auto insurance companies. Do you not see the comparison? The Catholic Church still has the right NOT to perform marriages for NON Catholics. Am I right? It will be a sorry state of affairs when the Federal Government decides to step in, as they tried to do regarding health insurance companies and the Catholic Church. It is not far fetched as the Obama admin did it to the Catholic Church with Obamacare.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




but I was questioning your definition of consent, since in times past, a girl could have her marriage arranged and she would grudgingly give consent because it was the only way....she really would have no real choice in the matter. But of course, as you are a man, you apparently do not see this aspect of the victory of the feminist movement.

And I refuted that completely. Pressure from a family has NOTHING to do with law. She could walk away from her family if thats what she chose.

Nice strawman, though.




Why yes it does in the context of CONSENTUAL marriage. Does the Constitution say any more about CONSENTUAL marriage than it does SAME-SEX marriage? Why no it does not. Therefore it is up to the States to legislate according to the individual state, as I already posted somewhere in this forum.


The simple answer to this is that consent reaches much further than one singular topic, and is one of the main building blocks in a free society.

The long answer would involve a lecture about the undesirable tactic of marginalizing a topic to remove assumed rights, such as consent, from the picture.




Plus you were the one on the rampage about consent. I just proved that consent is not always what one says it is.


You have done nothing of the sort. If anythining, you have helped solidify the argument that consent is the main factor that destroys the 'bestiality, pedophilia' nonsense.




But liberals always have a pressing need to impose their agendas and ideologies on everyone at the Federal level.


So now I'm a liberal? You know what they say about assumptions....





Interestingly, the way the court system works, is it goes according to cases and precedents on the local and State level before it gets to the Supreme Court. People know that to get something done, one must work through the lower courts first


And?




This is also how Local Agenda 21 works. They work in local areas to do stuff. The difference is that the Agenda 21 really is initiatives which come from elites in the UN and not individuals in the various States.


So now, equal rights for homosexuals is part of agenda 21? Or just comparable? REALLY





Let's talk about liberals and consent shall we? For instance, does Mayor Bloomberg have my consent to force me to not have a Big Gulp because he thinks it is bad for me? Is my silence on the issue considered consent by legal entities? Did Nancy Pelosi have my consent when she told everyone they would have to pass Obamacare before we'd get to see what's in it? NO she did NOT have my consent, nor am I silent on the issue. Oh by the way, speaking about consent and liberals, the educational curriculum of CScope locks parents out of the process. Parents cannot view content on the CScope pages. Consent INDEED! Liberals eternally think their ideas are automatically the best ones and that no one else's opinions matter.


Your attempt at political baiting is moot, as I am not a liberal, and do not support the things you have listed. Nice attempt to take this off topic though.

edit on 28-3-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
In many states, sodomy is against the law. That would make it very difficult to justify a marriage between two men in that state, wouldn't it? Those laws would need to be repealed before same sex marriage can even be considired.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by borracho
 


Nope wrong the supreme court ruled (Lawrence v. Texas) against the state of Texas and declared any and all state laws against sodomy unconstitutional.
They may have the law in their books but they can not do anything about people doing it.
edit on 28-3-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





And I refuted that completely. Pressure from a family has NOTHING to do with law. She could walk away from her family if thats what she chose.


Again, does the Constitution define for us what consent means, or age of consent? No, it does not, but legislation in the several States DO define a legal age of CONSENT.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by borracho
 


Nope wrong the supreme court ruled (Lawrence v. Texas) against the state of Texas and declared any and all state laws against sodomy unconstitutional.
They may have the law in their books but they can not do anything about people doing it.
edit on 28-3-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


Like, I said, liberals don't like something they just take it to the Supreme Court and let the Feds decide for everybody.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Oh you're right Agenda 21 just goes around the court system and implements stuff without Congress or the courts, but they do start on the local level the way the court system does. And now I have just made my point about the unconstitutionality of Agenda 21.

Every post I've seen you make has a Progressive tinge to it. Even someone calling themselves Republican can be really Progressive, for instance Olypmpia Snowe or Susan Collins.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by kthxbai
 


Just my opinion.

I believe it's an illness, a maladjustment.

I believe that science will soon discover what causes it and then a cure will be just around the corner.

I can't agree that a condition which causes men to engage frequently in anal intercourse is 'natural', healthy or desirable.

A cure will become available; and frankly it deserves to be cured.


Let me know when they find a cure for bigotry.


It has got to be the high point of hubris here to call someone a bigot that finds no meaning in anal intercourse.




Really. Well, considering that:

1. There are heterosexuals who enjoy anal sex

2. There are homosexuals who do not engage in anal sex

3. It is possible to have safe anal sex

And probably most importantly,

4. It is nobody's business what kind of sex anyone has, as long as it's consenting adults.

I think bigot is the perfect word.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Oh you're right Agenda 21 just goes around the court system and implements stuff without Congress or the courts, but they do start on the local level the way the court system does. And now I have just made my point about the unconstitutionality of Agenda 21.

Every post I've seen you make has a Progressive tinge to it. Even someone calling themselves Republican can be really Progressive, for instance Olypmpia Snowe or Susan Collins.
edit on 28-3-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


You can prove whatever points you wish about agenda 21, but you arent proving what its got to do with this conversation.

Its funny. You say most of my posts have a progressive tinge. Many people on here have called me a conservative shill. The thing is, I dont buy into political trolling. I dont affiliate with any party or movement, nor will I ever. Partisan politics is a plague on this country. So I hope you relish in the fact that you are advocating for it.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join