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.

 

Simple question re: homosexuality

page: 20
41
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by setibuddies
 



No. "Marital" Status in incorporated in federal and state tax law, and other law such as inheritance laws. It's engrained in our society, in contracts with insurance and finance companies, and in retirement and property laws.

This is a case where there is no "Separate but equal", which by the way was decided unconstitutional a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away during the civil rights struggle.

Marriage AIN'T just a religious matter, and hasn't been for more than a century or so.


The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land and has been for a LONG TIME!

Deal with it!




posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Oh for crying out loud!

*saying this in a southern accent*

Thems gaymosexshumals ain't gonna git me or my family!

I can't believe I'm one of the few conservatives on this site who just don't care about sexual orientation! Let 'em marry! Let 'em adopt! PLEASE let them adopt! (Maybe fewer will die under the knife of an abortionist!)

Gays aren't Darth Vader. They aren't evil blood-sucking parasites! (those are lawyers)

They are men and women that are just attracted to folks of the same gender. They work, pay taxes, pay bills, go bowling, drink beer. . . just like us straighties do!

Almost 20 pages! OMG! I'm going to just throw my hands up in the air and prance off this stage *jazz hands* because I will not judge people based soley on one characteristic!


Obliged, you have demonstrated that 'Conservative' 'Liberal' 'Democrat' 'Insert ideology' doesn't have to exist within the 'holds' that are placed upon them, you made sense, in an honorable measure


Gays aren't Darth Vader.


*Looks at name*



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





Of course you can, lets say you have a food forest in your back yard, at the end of harvest there is a surplus of valuable goods, that can be given to charity or other's without taking anything away from someone else, or is there just one way to live on this planet?


I wasn't even going to post on this thread, but I found your food forest in the back yard idea much too intriguing not to respond.
I really just wanted to point out that although I like your idea of abundance, the whole cornucopia thing, we currently do not have food forests in the back yard. Do you know what 5 T worth of debt looks like?


edit on 28-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Actually there are thousands of people across the globe that created food forests on all scales. One of my favourite one's was created by a man named Sepp Holzer's.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


To be honest Seabag, Defense Of Marriage act is unconstitutional because it's non-secular.

You can't use a piece of legislation that 80% of elected officials are ready to throw out ( and that is not recognized at the state level) as an argument against gay marriage.

There is no actual legal, or logical explanation to prevent homosexuals from marrying each other.

Not one person has provided an argument that I can't refute in 10 thousand characters or less.

~Tenth



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamschist
 


That's cool. I was agreeing with you, girl.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



I can't believe I'm one of the few conservatives on this site who just don't care about sexual orientation!


Ummmm….you're not. Almost nobody cares what two adults do! However, many believe in the Defense of Marriage Act and support the sanctity of the institution of marriage. This isn’t a conservative thing, friend. The Defense of Marriage Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.


The bill moved through Congress on a legislative fast track and met with overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled Congress, passing by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


It's funny how people try to protect something that they didn't birth, invent or even come up with, actually they have nothing to do with it at all.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





First off, Jesus is not a real person, you do know that right?


We may not know that for certain till they authenticate a tomb, but I wonder if you think the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Or the Spear of Destiny?
You don't know that he never existed any more than I believe he did, but there are no accounts placing him as homosexual, and that is the crux of this argument. The other crux is that Jesus did not "write" the bible, so an argument that he did is not going to work. Many people contributed to the works we know as the bible. Then there is the Book of Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



To be honest Seabag, Defense Of Marriage act is unconstitutional because it's non-secular.


I guess we'll find out if it's unconstitutional next month when the SCOTUS gets through picking through it.

As far as no good arguments being made, that's your opinion (shared by many apparently
). In the end, gays will get what they want. 5% of the population will impose it's will on the 95%. That seems to be the way things go anymore.

I'm over it!



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
The Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land and has been for a LONG TIME!


Seventeen years isn't really that long. And it's before the Supreme Court right now. They are likely to rule that it's unconstitutional.

Majority of Supreme Court justices question constitutionality of Defense of Marriage Act



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


In 1996.

Furthermore:


Clinton and key legislators have changed their positions and advocated DOMA's repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives instructed the House General Counsel to defend the law in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ).[1]

Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration.[n 1] The U.S. Supreme Court has heard an appeal in one of those cases, United States v. Windsor, with oral arguments on March 27, 2013.


Source

8 federal courts have advised that some of it is unconstitutional. Even George W among other prominent conservatives have said they would support a repeal of the legislation.

Are you really going to defend something that is now not supported by the original creators of the legislation?

~Tenth



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
reply to post by seabag
 


It's funny how people try to protect something that they didn't birth, invent or even come up with, actually they have nothing to do with it at all.


You mean like the Constitution?

I wasn't there either. Should I not defend that?



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


ok, so a few people in the world have "food forests" in the back yard. That is interestingly, NOT the majority, although during WWII people often had "Victory Gardens", but I was hoping you would get the reference to the incredible debt we have now, and that even were someone to have a "food forest" in their back yard, they still owe Uncle Sam a mighty debt they themselves did not personally create.

Anyway, the federal govt is cracking down on private food forests in the back yard as part of the Agenda 21 plan to control all resources and keep people dependent on the State for everything, including housing, food, water.
edit on 28-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



As far as no good arguments being made, that's your opinion (shared by many apparently ).


That's the difference Seabag, I don't use my opinion, I use facts.

Facts have clearly shown there is no proper argument. Not even you have provided one and I'd be happy to debate you in the debate forum to prove it
.

The argument against it is emotional, religious and cultural, when the argument for it stems from an actual legal challenge that has merit within the system of laws developed to govern the country.

~Tenth
edit on 5/28/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Originally posted by seabag
You mean like the Constitution?

I wasn't there either. Should I not defend that?


You clearly DON'T defend it. The 14th amendment protects all citizens' equal treatment under the law.



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Are you really going to defend something that is now not supported by the original creators of the legislation?


Of course I will. I don't need someone to agree with me.

I support the intent of that bill; to protect the sanctity of marriage as I understand it. The legality is for the SCOTUS to decide. I'm not running for office!



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 





First off, Jesus is not a real person, you do know that right?


We may not know that for certain till they authenticate a tomb, but I wonder if you think the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Or the Spear of Destiny?
You don't know that he never existed any more than I believe he did, but there are no accounts placing him as homosexual, and that is the crux of this argument. The other crux is that Jesus did not "write" the bible, so an argument that he did is not going to work. Many people contributed to the works we know as the bible. Then there is the Book of Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.


I never said Jesus was gay or that he wrote the Bible, his a fake character!! done okay.

Those are archaeological findings that don't even point towards Jesus, people just made those assumptions automatically, and it can't be Jesus because again, his just a character in a metaphorical story, a kids fairy tale that's it.




edit on 28-5-2013 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Are you really going to defend something that is now not supported by the original creators of the legislation?


Of course I will. I don't need someone to agree with me.

I support the intent of that bill; to protect the sanctity of marriage as I understand it. The legality is for the SCOTUS to decide. I'm not running for office!




In the end, it all comes down to what happens under the law, as Roe v Wade provided the precedent for murdering the unborn and considering the unborn under a technicality to not have Constitutional personhood. Were it not for the lie that went under the name of a woman who perjured herself in a court of law under the tutelage of activist lawyers, as well as an activist Supreme Court Justice who was sympathetic to the cause of eugenics and depopulation, that would not have come to pass and Pro-Life would have prevailed, at least until the next case.
edit on 28-5-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



That's the difference Seabag, I don't use my opinion, I use facts.

Facts have clearly shown there is no proper argument. Not even you have provided one and I'd be happy to debate you in the debate forum to prove it


Not interested!


I really don’t care that much - I just like to argue. I’m entitled to support whatever I chose for whatever reason I chose, right?

The 5% of this country who will benefit from DOMA being overturned will have no absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever just as they don’t now.



edit on 28-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



The 5% of this country who will benefit from DOMA being overturned will have no absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever just as they don’t know.


Yet you would choose to deny those people those benefits based on a personal, and religious understanding of a 3000 year old text?

Gotcha!

~Tenth



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join