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 NJE03
I was once against gay marriage based only on the way I was raised.
Having stepped back and looked at it from a new perspective I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to be against it. Gay marriage does not affect me therefore I have no right to tell others they cannot be married nor does anyone else. @OP you are absolutely correct when stating that this money could be better spent...
Having stepped back and looked at it from a new perspective
Originally posted by Griff
I thought of a way for California to get itself out of debt.
Since the churches donated money to a political cause, didn't they exempt themselves from tax-free status?
Tax the churches who donated monies to this cause (whether for or against) and get back on your feet Cali. Here's your chance. Maybe.
Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
To GeeGee above:an observation.
The term minority is broad, factually to broad to have much credibility when defining groups of individuals. Virtually anyone can rightfully and probably legally define themselves as a member of one or more 'minority' groups given the current terminology .
Left handed people, green-eyed people, red haired people, etc. Its all a bit relative and certainly subjective.
That said, the homosexual community is in fact recognized as a 'sexual minority' in the USA , at least, although comparing the expected civil rights for sexual minorities is much trickier than applying those same rights to members of a more 'obvious' minority group such as racial/ethnic or even religious.
However, it might be a bit overstated to compare the homosexual union to that of interracial marriage simply due to the fact that IR marriages have the potential in most cases for natural reproduction, which was long held as one of several objections to IR marriages decades past. And obviously no such potential lies with the homosexual union.
Merely an observation.
Originally posted by WhedonFan
Just my two cents. My partner and I were "Unioned" (how stupid does that sound?) in Vermont while we lived there. We now live in New York, which sorta kinda but not really recognizes our Union. I really do not care if any chuch does or does not. I do not want to be wed, unioned, partnered, married, or anything else that has nothing to do with a social view, I could really care less.
However, I do care when it hits my pocket book:
850B Stimulas (ha ha)
250B tax credits for poor and parents (shameful amount to very specific groups)
Why not stimulate the economy by allowing the government to let gay couples file as married, or partners or whatever the hell the far right need to call it to let themselves sleep at night..let us have a few extra of our dollars back, which we will spend and probably not save for our kids college. 10% of the population is gay, mostly with more disposable income (ie..no kids). Gay Travel is a large percaentage of dollars spent (I think something like 20%) in the hospitality area, such as airfare, hotels, restaurants. Hospitality is the largest industry in the globe.
So dont marry me, but darnit all, let me file my taxes jointly just like you would a het couple that is married, and I think a het couple that has been domestic partnered for more tha X amount of years.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by dooper
Who are you to judge what kind of behaviour is good or bad? Who made you god?
All of this gay hate stems from bigotry and homophobia. The world changes, and so must you, religion included.
Originally posted by PieKeeper
Just because prop 8 was passed does not mean that the issue is over. It is simply another roadblock on the path to equality for homosexuals.
[edit on 3-2-2009 by PieKeeper]
No one has a right to impose their beliefs upon another.
Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by WhedonFan
Just my two cents. My partner and I were "Unioned" (how stupid does that sound?) in Vermont while we lived there. We now live in New York, which sorta kinda but not really recognizes our Union. I really do not care if any chuch does or does not. I do not want to be wed, unioned, partnered, married, or anything else that has nothing to do with a social view, I could really care less.
However, I do care when it hits my pocket book:
850B Stimulas (ha ha)
250B tax credits for poor and parents (shameful amount to very specific groups)
Why not stimulate the economy by allowing the government to let gay couples file as married, or partners or whatever the hell the far right need to call it to let themselves sleep at night..let us have a few extra of our dollars back, which we will spend and probably not save for our kids college. 10% of the population is gay, mostly with more disposable income (ie..no kids). Gay Travel is a large percaentage of dollars spent (I think something like 20%) in the hospitality area, such as airfare, hotels, restaurants. Hospitality is the largest industry in the globe.
So dont marry me, but darnit all, let me file my taxes jointly just like you would a het couple that is married, and I think a het couple that has been domestic partnered for more tha X amount of years.
Yeah sure and if we allow those who have sex a certain way with certain people and make that a class distinction then we have to do it for Bi sexuals and people who can't express their "love" unless it is mixed couples and what about those who can only get off by expressing theirs with themselves and then I can marry myself to get a tax break too!
I mean really if you people cannot see how case law works and the slippery slope this line of thinking begets than you need your heads examined. The gay marriage argument is a fallaciously argued as it is destructive to those who actually NEED the tax breaks.
I mean why wouldn't two straight guys just lie and say they are gay to get the same tax break and two woman say they are lesbian whether they are or not. I mean this idea is absolutely ridiculous and if you don't think people have already thought of doing this to take advantage of this tax break then you have never heard of attorney Denny Crane.
Believe me, it would inundate the states with so many bogus marriages and the Government knows it. Gays may as well take credit for yet another type of epidemic that ends up costing us billions.
Which reminds me of what a liability they are
in thre first place
[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]
Referring to the fact that California grants same-sex couples the benefits of marriage under the term "domestic partnerships," Moreno asked: "Doesn't this just boil down to the use of the M-word -- marriage?" The best response came from the lawyer for the city of San Francisco, which briefly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. "Words matter," Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart said. "Names matter."
Originally posted by WhedonFan
Forgive me,
but I choose not to "believe you".
. My point is there is a separation of Church and State, at least there is supposed to be. Why should anyone be taxed differently than anyone else simply because they are part, or not part of a religious unity?
Originally posted by Marmota monax
Or is it another reason to blame Christians for the problems in the US?
Originally posted by Aermacchi
Originally posted by Helmkat
Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by 29083010384959
Homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior, based on statistical data alone. Not even counting historical, cultural and religious bias.
So no, homosexuality should not be taught in sex-ed as a normal sexual behavior, as it's not normal sexual behavior.
Deviant, aberrant, is deviant and aberrant. If I were deviant and aberrant, I too, would think I'm "normal."
And I grow weary from the "love" aspect. I know how this works. If it's "love" then nothing can be wrong with it.
BS.
Just like heterosexual "love," it's also based on sexuality.
The scope of Human sexual behavior is -huge-and to point to the sexual relations between Homosexuals and say "deviant" or "aberrant" is honestly laughable. There is nothing that occurs in the Homosexual bed that has not occured in the Heterosexual bed since animals figured out what feels good.
Hence the reasons for making same a "class disntinction" like race is ludicrous so thank you for proving the pointlessness in the gays argument much less the stupidity