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.

 

Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by SamaraTen
 

It doesn't matter if they are making it our business or not, because, it is really no one's business in the first place. You might not agree with same sex marriage, but, that doesn't mean you get a say in other people's personal lives. I think people should be able to marry whoever they want. And, I think that because, like I said, it is none of my business and it shouldn't be yours either.
That is where the problem lies where others (society in general) doesn't have a say in a person's life. Good then they can go marry on their own if its nobody's business. Why even have a thing called 'society' or 'culture'. We might as well not have a political system and a Government. They shouldn't seek the blessings from the church/society or perhaps their family. The question that people should really ask is 'What is Marriage?". Is it simply a union of two individuals/families/mutual agreement to save taxes
or is it something that is a result from a higher understanding of love and monogomy? and that social rules/norms/laws require one to be bound 'officially' with a ceremonial pact called 'Marriage'? Often times in the animal kingdom females are approached by other males for mating and the stronger male protects his rights/turf. In humans we do the same but we also do it in a more civilized way of letting others know that a couple is married and either one of the members are off limits from the hungry eyes IMO
You dont have to be married to be loyal to your partner (just look at several species which are monogomous without marriage). The other reasons in animals is to successfully pass the stronger genes to the next generation and ensure the survival of the species. In humans, it is not the case anymore (though courtship clothes, cars, good physique, looks, money, jewelry etc etc is abundant before marriage and fizzles down
)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SamaraTen
Originally posted by danneu89
reply to post by SamaraTen
 

They don't want the "Rights" of being married! They want the 'BENEFITS' of it! HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!

welfare and tax incentives ?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction
Quoted from Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain

In 1993, Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in BMJ (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."[12] In the United States, liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution.[13] Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality.[14] Given Dr. Miron Baron's commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Any restrictions on any persons in the US based upon religious dogma is UnAmerican.

The US was founded upon the tenants of freedom from religious persecution and the right to persue happiness. Anyone who would deny those fundamental 'rights' is no better than religious zealots in other countries that stone women to death for violation religious dogma.

End of story.... don't like it? Go live somewhere else.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Absolutly marriage is not in the constitution nor should is be in any federal, state or local legislation including the IRS. Marriage is a religious joining not a "legal" issue. We have made it one and now we need to UN MAKE it and hand it back to the churches.

That way if the gay/lesbian community has an Issue they can start their own church and call it the Gay/Lesbian church of the Carnal...or what ever they want.

I'm Getting tired of my TAX dollars being wasted on what is so Blatantly a battle for Benefits. Scrap marriage from ALL the LAW books and have done with it. STOP THE INCESSANT WHINING!

This is doing NOTHING for any cause. Gay or not!



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Actually, a lot of research has been done on the topic. Just go to Google Scholar and search for "genetic research hmomosexuality", and you'll find a legion of papers and articles on the topic. The general scientific point of view is that most biologists are fairly certain that there are genes responsible for sexual orientation, and it is neither a disease, nor a choice. (see: Homosexuality and Biology, C. Burr, 1993). It's only a matter of time until they will discover this genetic sequence and abortions among religious people will be the new thing. =/



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Nope, America was formed for Christians to worship without the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


For every study for a homosexual gene there is one against it. There has never ever been a totally unbiased study on this subject.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


Nope, America was formed for Christians to worship without the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church.


What's the source of this argument? Whoever told you this? I'm not even American, yet I know that you are either lying or were misinformed.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





Any restrictions on any persons in the US based upon religious dogma is UnAmerican.


Agreed.



The US was founded upon the tenants of freedom from religious persecution and the right to persue happiness. Anyone who would deny those fundamental 'rights' is no better than religious zealots in other countries that stone women to death for violation religious dogma.


The question is the definition of the word 'happiness'. It's one of those little quirks in the constitution that can be bent in any direction and used to define most any circumstance. For some people, happiness is being able to go fishing. But try doing that without a state issed permit and you'll end up a lot unhappy, lol.



End of story.... don't like it? Go live somewhere else.


Nope. That's not how this country was designed to operate. We have this thing called 'the vote' so that when we are faced with tough choices, we can call on the will of We the People to make the choice. But now, that said... if and/or when we ever decide that the will of the people is no longer worthy of our respect, I might consider moving.

Cheers



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 


Actually ,I think that was the Church of England but very good point.

Not being a wank, just trying to help



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christian Voice

Exactly, CREATED equal. People are not created homosexual. They choose that lifestyle. People are created white or black or Asian. We can't choose the color of our skin but we can choose our lifestyle.


And some people choose to smoke. Choose to drink. Some choose a fitness lifestyle. Do they deserve less happiness because of their choice?

What a silly argument.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by IknowJack
 


Seeing 2 founding fathers were Catholic and 28 belonged to the CoE, I think people are getting stuff wrong here.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.


So, your argument is that animals are bi in how they have sex, but hetero in their relationships?


Semantics...all I know is that EVERY one of my female dogs has tried to hump the other female dogs.
EVERY one of my male dogs has tried to hump the other male dogs.
My two male rabbits go at it all the time.

To another:


The question is the definition of the word 'happiness'. It's one of those little quirks in the constitution that can be bent in any direction and used to define most any circumstance.


The "happiness" clause isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence (which, isn't really law). Just a point of order...is all.

I will have to say, haven't seen the horses do it yet though...
edit on 27-3-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 

Serious question.

What if marriage ( as defined as man and woman) were the domain of the church alone and the marriage license ( legal document) which is governmental include same sex? That way the "state" gets theirs and the church keeps theirs. That should satisfy both parties, wouldnt it? That would " render unto Caesar"? or is it just the terminology?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


I'm just posting this because IM SICK AND TIRED of the BS feed to kids in the public school system then grow up? and think its the truth.

www.loc.gov...

The colonies were established mostly by people escape persecution by the church. If this doesn't fit your version of History your in need of a paradigm shift

"Ignorance is the one thing that a government can rely on to manipulate a people" ME



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independence isn't really law...it's just our "Dear John" letter to merry old England, hehe... But yeah, it does illustrate the founding fathers' intention. Not that they would have approved of gay marriage though, hehe...I think they are a bit old school for that.


I think if the founding fathers wanted to prevent gay marriage, they would have said so. Homosexuality was around even back then. Look back at the Roman or Greek societies for many examples of same sex unions. Even in ancient Europe, same sex unions took place. Feel free to read this wiki page on the subject.

History of same sex unions

So I would suggest that the Founding Fathers were indeed aware of the possibility of gay marriage.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


It's not the terminology. Most church groups even rose up against calling it a "civil union".

I believe the poster better expressed his views when answering my question as to how it affected him...because homosexuals' display of being together somehow infringed on his rights.

To the above:


So I would suggest that the Founding Fathers were indeed aware of the possibility of gay marriage.


Perhaps, but they didn't specifically address it. Fascinating how long that issue has been around though...
edit on 27-3-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Religious people need to get of their high horses and just shut the hell up. I cannot believe that in this day and age, they are still allowed to have a say in they matters of the world.

The world would be much farther along if it weren't for these idiots.


Dont forget one very important issue here man, whike I agree with your statements in this post, and the one before it.

We are the vast minority, most people of the earth are religious, so much so, as to take it into the absurd even.

We of little faith, have no right to decide anything for the majority that are of faith. Were it different, and most would guide their hands by reason, instead of stories from a thousands of years old book, written by man. This is jot the case though.

We are no better for trying to them, the majority, what we the minority think and or like.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SamaraTen
 
No it is not in the constitution....but freedom of religion and institution is in the rights



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join



viewport: 1280 x 720 | document: 1280 x 10860