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.

 

Federal judge strikes down Va. ban on gay marriage

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

200Plus
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


My brain damage gets in the way of me making clear points at times


I think we do want the same things at a basic level. A level playing field for everyone regardless of circumstance.


To turn your question over to you, does that include three or more people in a non-traditional (or in a large percentage of countries and cultures, very traditional) marriage? Lots of nice wedding gifts that way, an impressive first dance, and really crowded wedding cakes.




posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Do I support multiple marriage?

Not the kind I witnessed in the middle east and Africa by any means. However, that is personal prejudice I am sure. Women and children are chattel in those areas and it is very common for a man to have 2-3 wives. A woman however has little say in a new wife and never an additional husband


I would support any marriage from two to twenty if all partners had a choice in the matter and wanted to be married to each other. I could not see myself supporting a law that allowed a man to just add more breeding stock.

Hope that answered the question.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


Yes, thanks. And those nations which allow a guy to have several wives, but not a woman to have several husbands, are in need of a good social workaround themselves. That's certainly not fair, by any means. And if Anne Hathaway ever takes it in mind to have several husbands, well, she has my address (and a restraining order).



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Shadow Herder

Cuervo

Shadow Herder
The problem with same sex unions is that it can be exploited, abused.

2 roommates in college or out in the real world can rent an apartment together, claim to be gay and get all the benefits. There is no way to tell the legitimacy of their gay union. So then it is unfair for straight people who share accomodations. They will not get any benefits. So it is better for straight people to engage in sexual practices that fall outside of normal, tell the world you have sex with your roommate get temporarily married as you finish school or reap the benefits of 'marriage'.

These systems are being set up for abuse.


And that's more unfair than denying an entire demographic to the same rights you have?

Also, what's to stop a gay man and a lesbian marrying to "exploit" the system?


EXACTLY. Why do people want to marry? Religious reasons? Monetary? Status? or just to say they can. Benefits should be awarded to any couple whether or not they have sex with each other.

Two roommates are working together in many ways, they too should have the rights of the married.


As I understand it, any couple that is married, has a higher income tax than if they were unmarried.

Can you imagine if the same joint income tax laws that applied to married couples would also apply to people sharing an room together, even if they weren't legally married? Then it becomes tax fraud not to declare another person as your roomie, and any person who sleeps alone is treated as a tax evader?



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
One of the strongest reasons the status of marriage was sought, dare I use the word, "traditionally" was because unless married, gay-lesbian-bisexual partners have no say in their loved one's medical care, could be excluded from seeing them in critical care, etc. etc. due to the "non-familial" status of their relationship.
edit on 15Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:06:05 -060014p032014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I love it when states attempts to quash the freedoms of people whose way of life they don't agree with backfire. By attempting to impose a their version of a Sharia-style law, because of the Constitution, freedom is going to be forced upon the anti-Americans in Virginia.

The reference in the OP to Virginia as "Conservative", I would disagree with. They may describe themselves as such, but those who oppose constitutional rights for any American are neither Conservative nor Liberal. They are no better than anti-American terrorists. I wonder what the anti-gay crowd in VA would think of their disdain for the Constitution if they were in the minority and the voters decided to disallow racists with more than 3 missing teeth from marrying, or owning property.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
As i always say, this should never be an issue of "Voting" and courts, these are freedoms we deserve as Humans.

it's a Human Right Issue



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join