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.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigI do not agree with the statement that gay marriage would lead to polyamourous or incest, as it is a blanket statement that only leads to fear and the contention that by allowing 2 people who are of the same sex to marry.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigIt is a strange notion, having no real basis in fact, or any proof that such would occur, beyond logic. Show us the proof that such would occur, as such would be required, beyond logic.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigTo make such a statement, is the same to put out the argument that a straight marriage leads to child abuse.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigOne could link the logic this way: In a straight marriage, they have children. And as 99% of all child abuse cases are from the home, therefore straight marriage should be prohibited from raising any children, for the safety of the child.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigOr how about this one: Straight marriages should be against the law, as it leads to divorce, 100% of all of the divorces are from straight marriages, and it is a determent to the community and society.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigThe logic is there, yet without the proof it is not really correct.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigBy giving proof it gives weight to the argument, else it is nothing more than just fear and speculation. And that is what the statement that was made equates to, fear and speculation and nothing more.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigThere is no proof that allowing gay marriage would give a rise to either incest or a multi family home fighting for the right to marry.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigThose are 2 separate issues, both of which have already been debated on, and fought over in not only a court of law, but also the full scientific weight behind it to not be allowed.
Originally posted by sdcigarpigGay marriage has neither, until recently, either been debated in the courts or have any real scientific weight to prohibit such behind it.
Originally posted by grahag
Originally posted by blueorder
Originally posted by grahag
Originally posted by SevenBeans
Originally posted by grahag
You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children?
No, like I've said twice already, that would obviously be impractical and it's none of their business, and that's why they aren't going to void your marraige.
Hmmm, let me think, what would be a good easy way to identify relationships that are prone to producing offspring? I wonder, when a man and a woman declare that they're entering into a committed romantic relaltionship (I think they call that marraige), might that be a good indication that their relationship is the type that's prone to producing offspring? I think so...edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)
If your reason to deny someone marriage is because they're not likely to produce offspring, then you'll need to qualify that with some facts. And if you deny some people, you'll need to deny ANYONE who can't have kids at that point.
he doesn't "Need" to do that- that is just you acting like a little tyrant and demanding it- clearly marriage is centred around the bedrock of civilisation, the family, which means mother, father and kids- some people choose not to and others are unfortunate, but that is what it grew out of (as well as the religious aspect)
Now me personally, I don't really care, and if some "group" demand these imaginary rights and bizarre state recognition then so be it- clearly most people in California do oppose it though
It's a hypocritical standard and wouldn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. It'll happen and this entire debate will just go away...
Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)
Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.
Originally posted by voidla
Did you even read the full post?
He gave the idea more population = better economy.
Originally posted by voidla
Do you even understand how mating works? It doesn't involve marriage in anyway.
Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)
Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.
Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?
Actually there is nothing more important today than individual rights.
Give me one single rational non-religion BS based argument why a same sex couple should be kept from being allowed to get married, while any hetero couple has no problem getting married?
Special rights? How in hell is wanting to be able to do what everyone else can become a "special" right?
By your silly statement, black people wanted "special" rights to vote, as did women, and non-landholders
Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)
Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.
Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
If it aint broke, dont try to fix it!!!
... or should I say, Satan.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)
Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.
The whole idea is that while the Majority may rule, it must NOT infringe on the rights of the Minority; otherwise black citizens would never have gotten the vote. That is why and how the system is set up.
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by Annee
S & F Annee.
Take a deep breath homophobes.
How is it right that the Federal tax code recognizes various marriage status for income tax, when it is allowed by states that SOME couple's marriages can be denied?
Tell me the right by which YOU, not some fiat God in a book written by men 1800 years ago, but that YOU may deny any couple the right to marry? Ever got educated enough to understand these two concepts? Equal treatment under the law, and no taxation without representation?
If you don't mind taking probably 11 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers off the books for fed and state and local and consumer taxes, then by all means continue to not allow gay and lesbian couples to make the same mistake and get married as hetero couples do.
Originally posted by blueorder
Originally posted by grahag
Originally posted by blueorder
Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by blueorder
I have a feeling the longer that they are denied equal treatment, the more you're going to hear from them. That's how the civil rights movement went in the 60s... In the end, it'll probably take bloodshed to make people realize that human rights aren't about gender or preference or race.
If people want "bloodshed" over this imaginary right (to be honest I dont care, but if someone threatens bloodshed over it, then I am going to react)- then they will get the serve returned
I'm sure that same phrase was uttered regarding civil rights in the 60's. It's only imaginary to people who already have the right to marry who they want.
anyone who threatens murder because their "group" does not have recognition by the state over marriage should be dealt with in the firmest manner, keep referring to 50 years ago all you want
Originally posted by blueorder
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by KelvinH
reply to post by Annee
I am a gay person with a partner of over 7 years. I don't like how this turns out. One judge can over ruling people's voice like this is just wrong. No one should have that much power. This issue got voted down (twice I think) so bring it up the next election NOT using one judge or two to kill what people voted. This is going to open cans of worms for other issues, well it is already happening. I hate it then and I hate it now to see this practice forced on people (voices of people.)
Although I have a lot to gain from this but I just think it's wrong to get the rights this way.
The whole idea is that while the Majority may rule, it must NOT infringe on the rights of the Minority; otherwise black citizens would never have gotten the vote. That is why and how the system is set up.
"NEVER", that is a long time and I doubt it is reality- using 19th century mentality in the 21st century.
How does affirmative action fit in - infringing on the rights of the "majority" by the "minority"- yowser!
Originally posted by blueorder
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?
Actually there is nothing more important today than individual rights.
Give me one single rational non-religion BS based argument why a same sex couple should be kept from being allowed to get married, while any hetero couple has no problem getting married?
Special rights? How in hell is wanting to be able to do what everyone else can become a "special" right?
By your silly statement, black people wanted "special" rights to vote, as did women, and non-landholders
It is silly to equate this issue with women getting the vote for instance- that is just hyperbole.
Originally posted by blueorder
Originally posted by Garfee
Yes, and if these attention seekers do not get these "rights" then gays will disappear completely
No, they wont. But then you know that dont you? And just wanted to have a dig? Crawl back in your hole or go to church or whatever it is you do. Burn books perhaps.edit on 15-6-2011 by Garfee because: arrgh typos
ha ha, when the hyperbole is returned your thin veneer of tolerance and "equality" is removed and you resort to crude and, in my instance, incorrect stereotyping
Couldn't have gone better