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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Welcome to the history of the world:

Begin your journey at ye olde wiki

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


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



I've decided to Marry my dog, if he'll have me.





posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Oh no you beat me to it, now it looks like I might have been serious!

I don't even own a dog! I swear!


NAM



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf. There are records throughout history of same-sex marriage (or marriage rituals between people of the same sex). These include ancient China, Mesopotamia, Assyria, the Roman Empire, Spain and so on. (Keep that in mind if you get bored with the current events and want to dig deeper.)


certainly i find gay marriage perfectly fine myself but to be historically objective here, many of those ancient cultures practiced pederasty and considered it perfectly acceptable, ideal even. so from a historical perspective people who worry about such things as legalization of pedophilia have "somewhat" a valid reason for their worries.

morality is a subjective thing prone to change with the whims of human nature after all.
edit on 28-6-2013 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2013 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
In all seriousness, it was a historic ruling, and I'm very pleased about it for all the right reasons.

Plaintiffs in same-sex case wed

What a wonderful and historic moment!



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.
This is changing the definition of not only a word but an important noun.

I think gay people should have Civil Unions that are recognized legally in every way marriage is.
And if any church sees fit to allow gays to marry then fine.
But don't force it on anyone's church by legal means which is what it will eventually come to in order for them to keep their tax-exempt status..

edit on 28-6-2013 by Asktheanimals because: corrections



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
A dog is not a consenting adult
A corpse is not a consenting adult

You're right, they aren't consenting. However, they can't object to anything either.




posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 



The point is, if one group wants to be included in what was once exclusive, what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included.


Well nothing. You can't stop anyone from making a claim... short of violent oppression.

Did you mean what would stop that group from getting those alleged rights?.

Just like anything else in society. People get together and deliberate on the merits. Just like anything else. So what would stop it, would be enough collective decision deeming it immoral or unfit for society. Enough people get together to voice its support, but even more people voicing dissent. Tell me...if human/animal marriage was voted on right now what do you think the outcome would be? Seems like you feel the voters that support LGBT equality also support human/animal marriage. If not, on what grounds are these fears being substantiated.

As I said earlier, why don't we (the People) discuss these issues AS they actually arise instead of inundating our minds and our forums on situations that only exist in imaginative speculation. There isn't compelling reason to believe society would agree to adults marrying babies, but there is compelling reason society (let's say US as example) would not agree to that.

Truly bizarre these leaps are. *shrug*
edit on 28-6-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.
This is changing the definition of not only a word but an important noun.

I think gay people should have Civil Unions that are recognized legally in every way marriage is.
And if any church sees fit to allow gays to marry then fine.
But don't force it on anyone's church by legal means which is what it will eventually come to in order for them to keep their tax-exempt status..

edit on 28-6-2013 by Asktheanimals because: corrections


I don't think churches need a tax exempt status.

Especially when they think they can throw their support, one way or another, during elections.
In fact I'd love to see churches and corporations justly, and firmly taxed, like everyone else.

Instead of building mega-churches, maybe they'd have to actually feed the poor, care for the sick and nurture children, then. If only to get the tax credits.

Yes I admit to bias, because frankly, every single time I see monster church building, with a parking lot full of high end cars, and yet the community around them does not have a food bank, homeless shelter or daycare, 'supported in part,' by that monster of a church.... I have to think their worship of money is more important than living up to what they religion they supposedly teach, and supposedly live up to.

Yes, there are some churches that make an outstanding case for their religion, but they do it not from just their words but via actions. But I suspect that is the exception rather than the rule.

Slippery slope indeed, and it's paved with hypocritical stances and behaviors.
M.




edit on 28-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





Just like anything else in society. People get together and deliberate on the merits. Just like anything else. So what would stop it, would be enough collective decision deeming it immoral or unfit for society. Enough people get together to voice its support, but even more people voicing dissent. Tell me...if human/animal marriage was voted on right now what do you think the outcome would be? Seems like you feel the voters that support LGBT equality also support human/animal marriage. If not, on what grounds are these fears being substantiated.

As I said earlier, why don't we (the People) discuss these issues AS they actually arise instead of inundating our minds and our forums on situations that only exist in imaginative speculation. There isn't compelling reason to believe society would agree to adults marrying babies, but there is compelling reason society (let's say US as example) would not agree to that.


The collective decision. Therefore, whatever the subjective whims of the collective are the defining factor of reality? You tell me...would the collective have voted to change the definition of marriage 50 years ago? 30? 15? As you're well aware, the answer is a resounding no. Yet you can reassure me that it is inconceivable this definition will be altered or expanded to include other forms/relationships in my lifetime. Sorry, I can't buy that.

Again, I'm not implying that anyone who supports gay marriage would also advocate for pedophilia and the like. I am, however warning that there are those existent today who do support such things and would like nothing more than to sieze an opportunity to further their agenda. So, please, don't act like I'm chasing rainbows and unicorns. This threat is real. Those of you who might be scoffing now, mark my words...within the next 20 years we will see activists the likes of which we couldn't have dreamed attempting to piggy tail on the strides the gay rights movement has made for "civil liberties".

A society who adopts the belief of subjective morality has one manifesto that reads as follows: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Is this what you believe?



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 



The collective decision. Therefore, whatever the subjective whims of the collective are the defining factor of reality?


You make it sound so chaotic, but YES. That's our reality. Society is that collective. Not gonna debate that point because the other side (other worldly) is one that has no empirical merit.


You tell me...would the collective have voted to change the definition of marriage 50 years ago? 30? 15?


There was a time when we, society, believed women shouldn't vote. What's your point here exactly? Our moral compass evolves... kinda what we've been saying. We are growing and our understanding of what is right and just along side it.


I am, however warning that there are those existent today who do support such things and would like nothing more than to sieze an opportunity to further their agenda.


Okay fine. Let them have at it. Don't see the relevance here. It seems like in one breath you're agreeing this isn't relevant and in another you make some direct corollary. Which is it? Let these people voice their thoughts. We will deal with it then....


within the next 20 years we will see activists the likes of which we couldn't have dreamed attempting to piggy tail on the strides the gay rights movement


And if they are absurd like people marrying multiple goats it won't fly.

Curious. Would you describe the movement for black rights or women's rights piggy-tailing on some prior rights movement? In my eyes it's the same movement.


A society who adopts the belief of subjective morality has one manifesto that reads as follows: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Is this what you believe?


I don't even agree with the the premise you're making with that quote. So no. You do. Obviously. Absolutely zero surprise there.

The idea you need some divine universal guidance to have a heart and a moral compass is ridiculous, offensive, and demonstrably false.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


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.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
 


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



I've decided to Marry my dog, if he'll have me.




Oh noes! What's the cat going to do then?



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
The problem lies in the idea that something of a controversial nature can or should be 'generally accepted'. Societies of the past were smaller, and within each society there were things which were not accepted in another society. A society as large as tens or hundreds of millions of people can't be made to 'conform' to any minority. It's basically too large for that. The interesting part is that in some ancient societies which to a certain degree allowed same sex relationships, family was a different matter, highly religious (e.g. Hymenaeus) and tied to fertility and the household. The idea of joining two families/clans each having its people who contributed to the nation was considered sacred and noble. But there were also some undeveloped tribes who lived in forests, had random sex and common children. So, basically, the sacred institute of marriage was a mark of developed civilization (regardless of any possible outside of marriage relationships). Trying to extend marriage to what it originally was not, may be a sign that a society drifts in the direction of a less developed tribe. At the same time, human life is too short to see the real consequences of any historical bifurcation.
edit on 29-6-2013 by mrkeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews


The gay rights movement is attempting to convince the world that gay marriage is equal in both value and in definition to heterosexual marriage. Merely on the basis of two people loving each other, the former may seem to be true, but can we technically call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage?


Incorrect, if you look on a global scale, Homosexual assists with population control not only in Humans but in Animals as well.


Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman.
Sorry incorrect again there have been many cultures that married gays including Greeks.



"Who cares what a marriage has been deemed in the past...it's time for progress and evolution," you might respond. OK sure, but have you considered the consequences of arbitrarily changing the definition of marriage? If we can now shift the boundaries of what constitutes a marriage to suit our societal whims where does it end?
Please see response above...



What's to stop someone from saying "I am hopelessly in love with my (fill in the blank), and therefore should acquire the right to call this relationship with it/him/her a marriage...oh and hey while I'm at it enjoy the societal benefits that come with this title." After all, organizations like NAMBLA (google it) are lurking just around the corner eagerly waiting for this kind of opportunity.
Whoa there buddy...you just related same sex marriage to pedophilia....Any relationship between consenting adults should not and cannot be compared to any relationship one party is not able to consent (CHILD, DOG, CAT, TOASTER, etc). If you are trying to logically make a vaild argument I would stay away from this point...



It strikes me that the recent Supreme Court rulings and any akin to them that seek to expand the definition of marriage could be setting a precedent for securing benefits and protections for groups that all of us would agree shouldn't be allowed these rights.
Again, please see above response.

I understand your argument but the undertone is simple..intolerance..every US citizen deserves to be treated equal. If a law is in place which prevents this, that Law should be deemed unconstitutional. All other arguments should be held by your designated church service provider.

This has been a public service announcement.....
edit on 6/29/2013 by Djayed because: Me Spells GOOD



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I, given my preoccupation with ETs/UFOs, will offer the suggestion that eventually there will be clever laws that allowed any ETs to be equal to humans in all ways.

Actually, similar to certain religious groups scattering around the world today, they may insist on special rights which will probably be granted at the expense of the general public.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Just felt like tossing my 2 cents in here and rehash what has been said over and over (I am sure).

Marriage being changed by definition..since when? Marriage is simply one man..many wives. Or wait, right..that was changed in the west fairly recently to one man, one wife..

Point is, marriage definition changes to suit the times. Its a government institution of legal partnership, not anything religious.

As far as equality.

You have brown hair, your wife has blonde.
As a brown haired individual, I recommend we give tax breaks to all brown haired people because...why not?

Equality is about taking my recommendation and saying either no, or yes but to all colors of hair (and no hair)...no singling out for preference of who gets treatment just because historically brown haired people have gotten tax breaks before.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.

I asked a tree who I could marry. It said nothing
I asked the sky who I could marry. it said nothing.
Seems nature and creator (assuming your meaning sky ghost) are silent on the subject.

So, I will then talk to people about it considering this is clearly just a people thing...and it seems any consenting adult is in game.

Now if only Meghan Fox will accept, the world will be right.


But don't force it on anyone's church by legal means which is what it will eventually come to in order for them to keep their tax-exempt status..

And here is where I agree with you actually. A church should be able to do whatever they want...and from my understanding, this remains true. If a church doesn't gay marry, then they wont. But if the church next door does, then the person is married and recognized by the state as married. This only paves the way towards recognizing the legality of it when someone does find a church that does it (plenty do)

But yes, the moment a government goes into a church to tell them what to preach, or how to enact one of their own ceremonies is clearly a time when its overstepping their bounds. (suddenly religious people see merit in the whole separation of church and state argument. heh..irony)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 




You make it sound so chaotic, but YES. That's our reality. Society is that collective. Not gonna debate that point because the other side (other worldly) is one that has no empirical merit.

If the description of your worldview sounds chaotic, there's probably a reason for that.


Our moral compass evolves... kinda what we've been saying. We are growing and our understanding of what is right and just along side it.

Therefore, in your view our understanding of "right" and "wrong" is continually shifting, and we just have to trust that this shift is an improvement. I know you aren't into hypotheticals, but let's just say the Nazi forces accomplished what they had intended (which was a real possibility at the time)...would you as an individual citizen of a racist, inhumane, abhorrent (in our current understanding) collective society, just go along with it because the collective affirmed that it was "right"? If morality is subjective, how can one culture tell another that what they are doing is wrong? Who are we to tell Iran, for example, that stonings and beheadings are inhumane, just because that might be our current sentiment in American society?

If morality is subjective, as you say, the words "right" and "wrong" don't have any meaning, other than to dictate what a particular society "feels" them to be at any given moment. That, my friend, sounds like a terrifying world to live in. Fortunately, I don't believe that is the world we live in, regardless of the fact that there are those who do.



Okay fine. Let them have at it. Don't see the relevance here. It seems like in one breath you're agreeing this isn't relevant and in another you make some direct corollary. Which is it? Let these people voice their thoughts. We will deal with it then....


Not sure where you get that I think these issues aren't relevant. They are relevant, and here is why. If our view of what is right and wrong is shifting as you say, how can you predict that in 20 years pedophilia won't be deemed as "right" behavior? It strikes me that you are just as guilty of making hypothetical predictions as I am by implying that our view of morality won't shift to that extreme in the future.


And if they are absurd like people marrying multiple goats it won't fly.

Let's hope. In your view of the world, I wouldn't be too certain.


Curious. Would you describe the movement for black rights or women's rights piggy-tailing on some prior rights movement? In my eyes it's the same movement.

Definitely. Does that mean I think it's warranted? As I've alluded to before, to call the fight for gay marriage a civil rights issue is not technically correct. Answer me this. What rights are being withheld from the homosexual community that are being enjoyed by society at large?


The idea you need some divine universal guidance to have a heart and a moral compass is ridiculous, offensive, and demonstrably false.

Such confidence. Please demonstrate.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 



Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.


If that is an important aspect of marriage, why is I got my marriage license from the state and it doesn't mention the "Creator" or "Nature"? You know you're talking about two different things here, right?

Marriage - A holy union of matrimony before God
Marriage - the legal union contract between two people

The word has at least two meanings. Denying that causes most of the religious vs secular marriage discussions here.



This is changing the definition of not only a word but an important noun.


It's not changing the definition. It has several meanings already. That's just fact. That's like people using the word "box" to describe a cardboard cube and claiming someone who uses the word "box" to describe a fight is "changing the definition".

There isn't just one definition.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join