Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

What people do behind closed doors or anywhere else for that matter is no ones buisness but thier own.

just my thoughts

reply to post by boondock-saint


If everyone immediately turned gay we could turn to female plus female reproduction. The techniques for this already exist. Or gay females could have children the way they do now. Being gay doesn't stop conception.

But everyone isn't going to turn gay, so why ask the question? Homophobia perhaps?



[edit on 9/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

If everyone immediately turned gay we could turn to female plus female reproduction. The techniques for this already exist. Or gay females could have children the way they do now. Being gay doesn't stop conception.

But everyone isn't going to turn gay, so why ask the question? Homophobia perhaps?



[edit on 9/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

The technique exists....but only through science. and of the lab tested rats this technique was used on....the embryo's either died or had major birth defects.

If women(lesbians) had some fantasy world where men did not exist...they need to wake up.

also calling people homophobes does not work anymore.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Proudconservative]

Originally posted by Proudconservative
also calling people homophobes does not work anymore.
[edit on 9-7-2010 by Proudconservative]

I didn't call him a homophobe, I asked if he was. Many people are rational apart from a few subjects that cause them to throw rationality away.

I'm sure some lesbians do fantasise about a world with no men. Once women can reliably have babies without a male men may lose their usefulness. I'm not sure the world would be a better place though - reality TV demonstrates that it is usually women that can't get along with each other.

In what way did calling someone homophobic 'work' that doesn't work now?



[edit on 9/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

Marriage it's self is unconstitutional. It is part of our right to life liberty and happiness. Yet the government feels they can license our inalienable rights.

Marriage is between two consenting adults, and whoever decides to marry them within their community. It is not the business of the government.

However since the government unlawfully made it their business (mind the pun), then they are denying a civil right to citizens by not allowing homosexuals to marry.

If the government wasn't involved. Straight people wouldn't even be complaining about homosexuals not deserving the right to marry. Entirely circumventing this whole debate.

Nor would straight couples, or any couple for that matter need to pay to be married.

Procreation is not what the right to marriage issue is about. You can procreate inside or outside of marriage. This has little to do with making children.

On the other hand, gay men and women are not exempt from creating children. Thousands often do during the time they are struggling with their identity and tried hetero relationships. Some, even afterwards decide to have children just because they want them. Being gay is not a black and white you are/you aren't kind of thing anyway. The parts all still work.

People do like to generalize, but when you are talking about humans, its near impossible to generalize anything.

I am sure one day you yanks will catch up with the rest of us in allowing marriage universally to those couples so inclined.

What I want to know now is when will all of the states recognize my concealed carry permit or recognize Vermont's lack of one?

Same difference.

I can be in a same-sex marriage and another state apparently has to recognize that. The other state has to recognize my drivers license too. Why not my pistol permit or if from VT or AK my lawful ability to carry without a permit.

NH has to recognize MA's gay couples so MA should recognize NH's pistol carriers. I'm getting pretty sick of having to pull over just before entering MA to unload and lock my gun and pulling over just past mass to unlock and reload my gun. Ironically my travel through MA is the most dangerous stretch of my travels as far as crime goes.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Boondock, I think I can actually answer this one for you. I am a gay female, well bi, but I am in a 4 year relationship with a woman. I've never been with a woman than for the sexual thrills of a man (the ever fantasized 3 or more somes), before I started my relationship with my girlfriend. Just as a side note, i'm not lumping all guys into this atypical fantasy, but we all know how it is. This is the healthiest relationship I've ever been in. We can talk openly, neither of is abusive towards the other, we've had a stable home since we've been together, and all and all our lives are great. You know what the exceptions are? The hatred and the glares we get from outright strangers if we openly show our affection for each other in certain public areas. Mind you, we are respectful and aren't sexual deviants (in public lol) but if I hold my girlfriends hand, and a mother happens to walk down the city streets beside us, 6 out of 10 times we are going to get a hateful comment or "that glare". But we still endure, do you know many straight couples that could endure being exiled from their family's, half their friends and complete strangers, treated like a lower life form and still hold steadfast to their love for each other? I don't know many that have had to even try, but I see many "straight" (I hate making distinctions) relationships fail for less, even my own. Now that I've shown you how strong our bond and love is for each other I want to let you know what is missing....our ability to make decisions concerning each other in medical emergencies (her nearest "kin" is 3000 miles away and don't really care anyway), the ability to insure each other when one of us may not be able to carry ourselves, the rights to be recognized as a true citizen. We are treated like second class citizens, by most of society and our government. To FINALLY get to your answer (sorry, I felt the background to be relevant) , everything would be just fine, civilization would continue, procreation would continue. Just because I've chosen to be with a women (yes, I CHOSE, I don't distinguish myself as gay, therefor i made a choice), doesn't mean I've lost my desire to procreate. We intend to have a child, we want a child, and we are not going to do it by scientific means, we're doing it the old fashioned way, with a close male friend of ours. I'm sure we're not the only couple to do it this way, in fact, I know of 2 others myself....do you have any idea how expensive the other means can be with no guarantee? But we're waiting, we're waiting for equal rights. We want our child to be raised with the same benefits and rights that a child would receive being born to straight parents. If this never happens, we probably will not have a child. The thought of this rips my heart straight from my chest even as I type, but this is our stance. If everyone were to turn gay, and governments still wouldn't budge on their rules we'd still have procreation because regardless of sexual orientation, the desire to procreate is just as alive as it is within the straight community.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


How can you equate the right to marry with the right to carry guns??

There's a huge difference in consequence or potential effect of the two. Marrying someone is a potential risk to your own well being and maybe your spouse and children but that is about it.

Carrying a loaded weapon opens potential risk of severe consequences to just about anyone who comes in contact with the carrier -- like death. There is a legitimate reason so many jurisdictions and countries impose restrictions.

Talk about apples and oranges. No similarity here at all.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by wayno]

Originally posted by wayno
How can you equate the right to marry with the right to carry guns??

Because they are both inalienable rights.
Line 2 says Constitution.

Gay Marriage.

I'm a traditionalist. I believe that traditional marriage is between a man, and a woman. This belief stems from the way I was raised.

However, I do believe LGBT couples deserve equal rights and equal protections. This country was founded on freedom. And getting married to whomever you desire is at the core of 'freedom'.

I'd like to see civil unions for gay couples on equal footing with marriage. I just don't want it called marriage.

They deserve all the same rights, though.

Originally posted by The Theorist
Gay Marriage.

I'm a traditionalist. I believe that traditional marriage is between a man, and a woman. This belief stems from the way I was raised.

However, I do believe LGBT couples deserve equal rights and equal protections. This country was founded on freedom. And getting married to whomever you desire is at the core of 'freedom'.

I'd like to see civil unions for gay couples on equal footing with marriage. I just don't want it called marriage.

They deserve all the same rights, though.

Seperate but equal...

Where on earth have we seen that before? Oh from people in the 50's and etc that were too afraid of social change because it impacted their social constructs. *sheds a tear*

reply to post by The Theorist


Theorist, why are you so tied to what it's called if end the definition is the same?
I personally don't care what they call it as long as it is in every way equal the right rights given to a "married" couple, just curious about the hang up over the phrasing.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

How can you equate the right to marry with the right to carry guns??

How cant I? People are either free or they arent. You cant pick and choose "nice" freedoms. Certainly you can't pick and choose them then expect it to make any difference.

Proposing the theoretical "a gun poses a threat" is just as nonsensical as those homophobic claiming "gays marrying will destroy society."

Because your particular brand of "for your own good" totalitarianism is more soft and cuddly than somebody elses doesnt make you any less an ignorance driven fascist. A bigot even.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
let me ask a question:

what if ...... just what if
everybody in the entire world
immediately turned gay.

How would we procreate as a species ????

man + woman = life

man + man = death

woman + woman = death

why is that so hard to comprehend how we
were supposed to be to sustain ourselves???



[edit on 9-7-2010 by boondock-saint]

That made me laugh so hard... LOL

Is this supposed to make a point? I ask this because... really... it is not going to happen is it.

I could say that our species would also be in trouble if every one was born infertile. That would be REAL trouble.

At least if the completely ridiculous happened and everyone was born gay the species could still carry on.

The fact is, people are born the way they are. Some are born with blonde hair, some with red. Some are born with gifts some with disabilities (as measured against the majority of the population at the time).

What this all comes down to is that there are people in society who believe that they have the right to dictate to others how they should live their life. It is that simple. They can site a God that they can not prove exists. They can quote old texts that they call the word of God when they do not even know the origin of the texts themselves. It is all opinion nothing more. One may feel strongly about it and feel it is 'the truth'. It is nothing more than 'your truth'.

All decisions made in your head are processes utilising information that you have learned in your earlier life. Therefore you will arrive at a decision based upon what information you have been given in your upbringing. The individual themselves will of course think they are right. Everyone does! The fact is no one knows anything. They just have a point of view. Each point of view is arrived at by travelling the life that led to it.

All conflict in this world is due to the belief that one has power over another. That one knows better than another.

reply to post by 6minutes212


It's an equal ground decision. I personally don't "approve" of gay relationships but I do accept them as a reality. It's my attempt to find a common ground on this subject. Something both sides need to do. It's called compromising. Finding a middle ground. Something that seems lost on today's world.

I'm not going to go into a rant as to why I do not approve of gay relationships. That's a heated topic which I do not want to go into here on ATS. However I respect that our Constitution promises freedom of expression, pursuit of happiness, and so on. So I accept that gay couples should have the freedom to pursue equal protections under the law.

Like I said, I'm a traditionalist. I want 'Marriage' to be defined as between a man & a woman. Civil unions with equal protections under the law for the LGBT community.

Marriage is just a word but that word has symbolized something through-out history. I believe it should continue to symbolize traditional marriage for the rest of time.

I'm not hating on the LGBT community, either. I'm just stating a personal belief. My wife and I have a few gay friends.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by The Theorist]

Originally posted by The Theorist
reply to post by 6minutes212

 

It's an equal ground decision. I personally don't "approve" of gay relationships but I do accept them as a reality.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by The Theorist]

That could be said by some to be the issue at hand. By what authority do you have the right to approve or disapprove?

Myself, I am straight, male and I prefer blondes. I do not even assume I have the right to make a judgement call on what anyone else does. There is a line of course, coercion or force. That is a matter of law though. But in a free society I have no right to even make a call on what anyone else thinks or does. The concept of even beginning to form a judgement on another is strange to me. I would not begin the thought process.

reply to post by Pentothal


I'm allowed to have an opinion, am I not? I'm allowed to be free-thinking, am I not? I am allowed to stay true to my beliefs, am I not?

Answering all of the above 'Yes!' gives me the the right to form a free-thinking and belief fueled opinion on said subject; and by that standard, I have the ability to approve/disprove.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by The Theorist]

Originally posted by I AM LEGION
I feel this is step is right direction so everyone get's to enjoy equal rights now.

It's the right step for destruction. When peoples morals are so low, destruction comes.

Originally posted by Parallex
Something tells me we will see the right-wing and religious christian 'crazies' turn up on this thread to denounce your support of liberty for gay folks.

I agree with you OP - equal rights FOR ALL. Let's hope this good trend continues.

Parallex.

Left wing people denounce it also. See this site:
townhall.com...

And Christians aren't crazy.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by texastig]