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.

 

Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 



So would you say the definition of marriage was changed when black people fought to be allowed to get married to white people?

Absolutely not. The fundamental definition of marriage remained intact before and after the civil rights movement. In fact, the key element that brought the laws against inter-racial marriage down hinged upon it. Because marriage, as it was well understood then, by nature is a fundamental institution between a man and a woman, the laws prohibiting mixed race heterosexual relationships to be joined in marriage could not be enforced. Others have tried to dredge up this point and other facets of the civil rights movement, but clearly these comparisons really only do the opposite of what you would like to imply.




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 



By way of an oversimplified synopsis, I'd say you've just about got it.


I see. Well I will just base the XYZ on what you have said thus far and assume that's the theory. In which case I emphatically say it's not self-evident. Gay marriage directly resulting in people marrying hamsters is divorced from reason.

You seem to be very serious about not changing the 'definition of marriage'. Okay
Yet you don't really elaborate much on WHY exactly. Which is the reason I talked about 'tradition for the sake of tradition'. After I said that you took a crack at me for saying it. So please explain further why exactly this definition is so infallible?? As apparently it's more than just 'tradition'! Right?
Additionally, if the reason IS more about upholding 'traditional values', why then are you not troubled by the juxtaposition of denying gay marriage based on orientation and the Declaration of Independence which espouses:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

One is valued higher than the other? Why? Is the answer not religiously based then? ...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


The point is that when interracial marriages were being fought for, people were saying "WHAT'S NEXT? PEOPLE MARRYING THEIR DOGS?!"

The symmetry is obvious.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


The point is that when interracial marriages were being fought for, people were saying "WHAT'S NEXT? PEOPLE MARRYING THEIR DOGS?!"

The symmetry is obvious.


Oh. Was that your point? I'd like to see something documenting this.

Even if what was the case, as I see it, this argument is a non sequitur. Again, you're talking about a group who demands their implicit right to marry whom they choose within the definition of marriage, versus a group's attempt to redefine marriage in order to claim this right.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



Gay marriage directly resulting in people marrying hamsters is divorced from reason.

These are your words, not mine. You're intent is quite clear. To paint my view into something that sounds illogical, without even granting the grace to give a thought to the crux of my argument. Based on your following inquiries, I have reason to believe you either 1.) haven't even been following the discussion, or 2.) are simply being facetious, and trying to waste my time by having me explain myself to death as I've already carefully elaborated on everything you have just brought to my attention.


You seem to be very serious about not changing the 'definition of marriage'. Okay Yet you don't really elaborate much on WHY exactly.

Yes, I have...voluminously. Here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here,[url =http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread956025/pg7#pid16596540]here[/url],her e,here,here,here,here,here,here,here, and here.



Which is the reason I talked about 'tradition for the sake of tradition'. After I said that you took a crack at me for saying it. So please explain further why exactly this definition is so infallible?? As apparently it's more than just 'tradition'! Right?

Where, exactly, did I take a crack at you? Here is the post in which I responded to this statement. Marriage existed before the society that described it existed. Therefore, it is not simply a social construct or tradition, but more of an intangible reality that simply is what it is. I answered this one already. If you'd like a refresher you can find it here.


why then are you not troubled by the juxtaposition of denying gay marriage based on orientation and the Declaration of Independence which espouses:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I've answered this one as well. What you want to call a matter of equality is rather a matter of qualification. I have shown this to be true at least a dozen times throughout this thread. This post , this post, and this post should suffice for an answer, however...oh, and this.

Now, as I have just made clear the absurdity of your claims of my absence of explanation, maybe you can just cut to the chase and offer some legitimately genuine questions, and or comments.
edit on 8-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


Right I haven't offered any legitimate comments or questions. Your theory is sound and a tangible reality. My mistake, sorry for wasting your time.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Can you answer why this is a solid argument though? has a pedophile or someone into bestiality been trying to marry a child or an animal? has it been struck down? why would than allowing two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex to marry give them more credence?

if this is your personal belief, fine, i'll defend your right to believe what you want, but for the sake of this topic, why is Gay marriage a slippery slope?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Again, you're talking about a group who demands their implicit right to marry whom they choose within the definition of marriage, versus a group's attempt to redefine marriage in order to claim this right.


I suppose it's a good thing I have a brain, then, and can recognize that equal opportunity in the "Land of the Free" is more important than the semantics of a word that has been redfinied tens of thousands of times over the course of history; INCLUDING the times when it was changed to take homosexuality OUT of marriage.

Why don't you try coming up with your own opinion instead of parroting moot ones from 35 years ago.
edit on 9-7-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Loveaduck
 



There was a time when the institute of marriage did not allow for divorce.

Popular opinion had it that if you allow divorces, everyone would get one and ruin the integrity of the marriage vows and the strength of marriage itself.

Do you think it did?

I think like many other things people are just afraid of what they don't know about.

Judge not and ye shall not be judged.

I'm having trouble understanding how this information is relevant to the discussion at hand.

But to answer your question, I am quite confident that the attitude toward the sanctity of marriage has been hugely diminished. I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to the legalization of divorce alone however.

What is it that you are implying is unknown to me? Also, could you please point to where I have cast judgement in this discussion?




Are you "people?"
I said what is unknown to 'people' - not what 'you' don't know. The Church was afraid divorce would mar the institute of marriage for everyone else if it were permitted. It was and it didn't. It isn't that complicated.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join