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 deepankarm
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail linkedit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather
Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by theBigToe
Originally posted by deepankarm
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail linkedit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)
On the contrary, the majority has NO right to eliminate the rights of minorities.
Originally posted by peck420
Originally posted by theBigToe
Originally posted by deepankarm
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail linkedit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)
On the contrary, the majority has NO right to eliminate the rights of minorities.
And in equal measure, the minority has no right to eliminate the rights of the majority!
The government is going to have to find middle ground, maybe let the people getting married choose what 'titles' they want, as opposed to forcing titles?
Originally posted by Unity_99
They can ask for this, and should be respected in terms of an identified gay marriage, but that doesnt mean they can override our words and terms and what the majority wish for themselves.
I have no problem with 2 sets of names or terms however, as I don't think they will be able to hide their identies, ie, everyone involved will know its the marriage of the same sex.
Originally posted by PhantomLimb
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather
Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Human beings are animals.
Did you not pay attention in biology class?
lol..
Originally posted by Lovebringer
Pretty much all I see is some QQ about not being a special snowflake anymore. Who CARES what they want to call it? Why does it matter to you? it's not really affecting anything in your life. If they want to call each other different names so what? I mean really with all the other actually important issues going on in the world, THIS is what matters. Marriage is not exclusively owned by any party. It was here before religion, and it will probably be here afterwards.