This is the most frustrating thing to me now and must stop ....

Originally posted by Rocky Black
I think it is more to prevent people like criminals from defrauding the system to obtain health care and other social benifits like SS and medicare.

Well Johny if you and I get married then you can get health insurance under my plan. But we are not gay.

So what I dont care.

I think there are more gay people with legitimate legal concerns and issues due to gay marriage prohibition than there will ever be fraudulent claimants. Also, how many straight people set up a fraudulent marriage just to gain benefits? I've never met a single one.

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by Rocky Black

 

I notice alot of you huggers are taking off your bumper stickers. I guess your ready for some real change...

huggers?

It's people like you with the filthy language and nasty insults that are turning this forum into a stinking cesspool of absolute filth. If you hadn't noticed there are young folks that visit this site and like to participate but it's people like you that want to spoil it for everybody. I hope you are happy now..."potty mouth" You owe the members of ATS a great big apology and I just alerted the mods... Just so you know...

Potty mouth. Where What did I say. huggars. Liek tree huggar you ding dong. Let me tell you I have not used any launguage that is offensive ok pal.

And for your information there are some on ATS that want to marry their pet lizard. It's really none of your business.

Well when I have to pay for the cost of that said insurance for the stinky lizard. Well ya it is my buisness. just like I have to pay a higher premium on my auto insurance to of set the cost to the people who cannot afford insurance because thaey are bad drivers. no don't punish them and make them pay high premiums lets go after the people who have money and make them pay for it.


ya I know how you think.

That says it all.

Give me a break.

edit on 1-3-2011 by whaaa because: sarcasm you betcha

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Ya I guess you may be right.... I dont know of any.

I know my sister in law she was in a cerimony with here lover and they went to the church and they wouldn't let them have acerimony in a church so thaey had like a wicken wedding cerimony.

it was pretty neat.

I love my sister and I know there are alot of issue surrending gays. Like when your loved one is in the hospital and they only let in immediate family. Sometimes they would be discriminated against.

But people are racist and they need to show some compassion.

If your the hospital worker and you know that the people are a couple let them in. God cant you seee that this is someone who is here to see and care for there loved one.

I know some people are very biased and when they hear something they think the worst without even giving it some thought.

I cannot tell you how many messages I have gooten from gay people thinking I am attacking them.

Sorry peeps. I would never attack you I love you all as we are all one on this blue dot in this solar system.
I dont make the rules up they were already there before you or I were ever even conceived.

All I can add is that poor spelling, insensitive bigotry and flawed logic is exacerbated by one's ability to type.

This OP / thread is a new low in ignorance. New motto: DENY IGNORANTS. [sic] /rant

ON TOPIC: But in the spirit of ATS cooperation and "Teaching a Man to Fish...."

I invite you to check out: Internet Explorer Spell Checker Add On

It will instantly add faux credibility and make even absurd beliefs a tad more digestible. Kinda like putting on a pair of those IQ boosting Sarah Palin Librarian glasses.

I'm not sure if I understand it this all correctly..

You're pro-"freedom", desiring to see an America where the state has less power and operates for the people and not for vested interests, right? Then how and why could you sit here and argue for the state to have the power to dictate who can get married and who can't??

The state has no business telling us who we can or can't marry, or what we can or can't do it our bedrooms (assuming we're consenting adults). The core issue here is a religious debate, not a political debate. Might I quote Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to the Danbury Baptists, discussing the First Amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Gay marriage, like abortion, is a political tool to win sway voters. A candidate who is anti-gay and anti-abortion will, of course, appeal to the Christian masses in America. The grand irony is that those these people are generally self-described as 'conservative', they're ultimately voting in a more authoritarian form of government.

The crux of the matter is, we have no right to determine who can get married and who can't. The Constitution would have to be updated if it outlawed such a thing. And marriage fraud? Honestly, it can happen with straights too.

Oh, and socialism? I don't think financial regulations and gay marriage are what determines if a country is socialist or not.

Take ten minutes, read about the American School of Economics (don't worry, its an easy digestible wikipedia article

), then come back and talk to me about America's glorious 'free markets'.

reply to post by captainbitter

BUT....they consider the constitution to be a dynamic document - not sacrosanct. And changing it ("Hope, Change") fits the socialist agenda....bigger government and "collective" rights/priviledges -- smaller individual liberties.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I'm kinda confused. I thought the gripe here was the POTUS no longer supporting a law that tells people what to do, and who they can be. Even if his other policies contradict his current action this isn't socialistic. It's not like he's forcing churches to marry gays either.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Um, I'm not sure if changing elements of the constitution, slight financial regulations, and gay marriage are the central tenets of socialism.

I'm not sure where this idea that the opposite of America is socialism, but it reeks of ignorance. People are so blindside by propaganda that they don't even realize that the government infringing on the markets and putting regulations in place is what made this nation a financial powerhouse in the first place. It wasn't until taxes on the rich and corporations were lowered, and industry was deregulated that income inequality (i.e, the dissolution of the middle class) increased exponentially.

If we're going to spend out of control on things, then we can't have the lowest income tax rates and corporate tax rates. But touch people's social security and see what happens! Touch the 5% of the GDP that goes to military spending, or the unknown amount that goes to corporate welfare in the form of bail-outs and subsidies, and see what happens! Meanwhile, countries like Sweden, where 80% of the labor force in unionized, one third of the workers are public sector employees, and 32% of the GDP is social spending, low unemployment rates are all the rage!

Basic fact: spending keeps money circulating the market. There are just smart ways and dumb ways of doing it.