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.

 

some home truths about gay marriage.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Xpert11 says,


You have the issue all twisted. Giving same sex couples the right to marry gives them the chance to get married if they want to.
WHY? Based on what criteria? Do i have the chance at being the head of the NAACP? Can schwartznneger have the chance to become president? Can i collect food stamps if i dont meet the criteria?
You seem to think that there isnt special interest group entitlements for many S.I.M.G's here. Marriage is a S.I.M.G with entitlements available if you meet the established criteria, just like the negro college fund, womens only free health clinics, social security, welfare etc etc etc.

You also offer nothing to explain how a "marriage right" could not only be workable, but the interrelated affects and costs of doing so.

Xpert11 shows his expertise here when discussing states defining marriage by law,


Forgive me but isnt there 49 states in the USA 13 states is hardly a landslide.
Forgive me but,

Have you counted the stars on the USA flag lately? there are 50, one for each state.
as far as being a landslide, it doenst have to be...those are just the newest states to adopt these laws defining marriage, i dont know how many others aside from CA have them as well, but i think its around 5 others....the # of states adopting these laws is INCREASING over the long term and i suspect this trend to continue.

Xpert discusses cultural whitewashing,


Whitewashing of american culture and history I dont think so thats like saying giving women the vote whitewashed american culture and history.
The BIG difference here is, noone else had to give up/modify their institutions in order for women to get that right. (other than the gov updating staffing and such to deal with the 50% increase in voters,and adjustment of many laws with little finnancial linkage involved)




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Are non married or divorced people less of a citizen because they are not married? Arent they being discriminated against because they arent married either? Marriage is a choice not a right.


And yet your denying certain people(who are consenting adults) that choice. They don't want the right to marry, they want the right for it to be an option like it is for straight people.


Originally posted by CazMedia If you say its a right, how can it be enforced? will you force people to marry to make sure everyone has a spouse (is equal)? What if you dont want a spouse? Are you less equal than others because you dont want marriage?


How can you "enforce" any rights? How can you enforce my rights to free speech, what if I want to stay silent? Am I less equal than others who do?


Originally posted by CazMediaWhat about democracy in action here?recently 13 more states voters passed laws defending marriage (not banning gay marriage)


Oh, really? So they don't prevent gay's form getting married? Oh, that's right they do. They do ban gay marriage, and that's why they were passed. To keep Gays from getting married. We both know that's why they were passed. So stop acting like it's not.



Originally posted by CazMedia...are the rights of the majority in a democratic society to be circumvented by a special interest minority group? If so, which special interest minority group is to impose themselves on the cultural majority, and whom decides which group gets to next?


Oh, yes indeed. How dare those blacks try to oppose the will lof the majority and get into our schools with our kids. How dare they defy the will of the cultural majority! I mean what's next, blacks using the same drinkng fountains. The will for the majority must not be over turned!



Originally posted by CazMedia I suppose those that say its ok for a minority to rule the majority in a democracy are pkk with a mayor and his pocket judges in san fran tried to steal away the rest of the votes of the state and institute gay marriage on their own eh? (PS the marriages were overturned because they didnt have the authority to do this over the other citizens votes.)


Indeed, what would it be liek if those dirty negros got the gov'ner to force our kids to go to school along side them!
How horrid.

[/Sarcasm]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
WHY? Based on what criteria? Do i have the chance at being the head of the NAACP? Can schwartznneger have the chance to become president? Can i collect food stamps if i dont meet the criteria?
You seem to think that there isnt special interest group entitlements for many S.I.M.G's here. Marriage is a S.I.M.G with entitlements available if you meet the established criteria, just like the negro college fund, womens only free health clinics, social security, welfare etc etc etc.

You also offer nothing to explain how a "marriage right" could not only be workable, but the interrelated affects and costs of doing so.
Why in the world woudnt same sex marriages be workable ? It would be the same as a man and a women getting married.
How would same sex wedding/marriages cost more?

With all do respect you have added 2+2 and gotton 5.
Any man or women 21 years or older can get married you seem to
imply that people who are legally entitled to get married are a minorty
and the likes of womens health clinics are there to ensure women have access to health care.
You could say that main stream health care is only for men and that women shouldnt have access to health care because they are a S.I.G
Im not saying people have to get married but if a couple want to get married they should be able to.
Apart from the sex of the couples what would be differnt about the marriage? Lets assume there a two couples a man & women and a same sex couple.
The man & women are deeply in love and they get married.
The same sex couple also decide to get married and are deeply in love as well.
Now Im not saying that all couples are the same. but the the differnce between the same sex marriage and the Man & women marriage is cosmitic. If I paint a yellow car blue the change of colour dosnt mean the car is anything differnt beneath the paint.



Forgive me but,

Have you counted the stars on the USA flag lately? there are 50, one for each state.
Im not an American so why would I count the stars on the american flag?





The BIG difference here is, noone else had to give up/modify their institutions in order for women to get that right. (other than the gov updating staffing and such to deal with the 50% increase in voters,and adjustment of many laws with little finnancial linkage involved)

There is no difference all that would change with gay marriage is the people who get married just like women getting the vote all that changed is the people who voted.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
WHY? Based on what criteria? Do i have the chance at being the head of the NAACP?


Again, that's a private group. marriage is not.


Originally posted by keholmes Can schwartznneger have the chance to become president?


Is he being stopped from being it do to his homosexualty?


Originally posted by keholmes Can i collect food stamps if i dont meet the criteria?


Again, gays can become president and collect food stamps. It's not an issue their so why would it be an issue here?


Originally posted by keholmes You seem to think that there isnt special interest group entitlements for many S.I.M.G's here. Marriage is a S.I.M.G with entitlements available if you meet the established criteria, just like the negro college fund, womens only free health clinics, social security, welfare etc etc etc.


Nonme of which are based on your sexuality. So why should marriage be?


Originally posted by keholmesYou also offer nothing to explain how a "marriage right" could not only be workable, but the interrelated affects and costs of doing so.


It' s not a right in and of itself. It's just that gays want the right to be able to choose to get marriged in they wanted to.


Originally posted by keholmes
With all do respect you have added 2+2 and gotton 5.
Any man or women 21 years or older can get married


NO, if they are gaythey can't.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
WHY? Based on what criteria? Do i have the chance at being the head of the NAACP?

Again, that's a private group. marriage is not.
Your spot on couldnt have said it better myself.


With all do respect you have added 2+2 and gotton 5.
Any man or women 21 years or older can get married
NO, if they are gaythey can't.
you have quoted me slightly out of context I was refering to marriage as a S.I.G and what appeared to be the flaw in that argument. The dumb thing is that gays can get married as long as it is to a member of the oppsite sex . Although I doubt that a gay person would marry a member of the oppsite sex.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   
for both i am, and xpert11,
are those married more or less a citizen that those that are not?
Is a happy and successful life dependant on being married or not?
(careful you dont pizz off people when you answer # 2, as many people that never married have been way more successful that mosst marrieds, and indeed vice versa as well.) How is marriage or not a nessisary function? one which a person MUST have to be equal to another?

I AM says,


And yet your denying certain people(who are consenting adults) that choice. They don't want the right to marry, they want the right for it to be an option like it is for straight people.
Yes...they do not meet the criteria to be included in the special interest group called marriage, which is more amd more being defined as between one man and one woman. Look at it this way, a gay man can still marry, he just has to marry a woman. (We all know people marry for non love reasons all the time) How is this saying a gay person cant marry BECAUSE he's gay? He just cant marry another GUY. (or girl/girl marriage)

I could not force a black womens group (a special intrest group) to accept me as a member because i dont meet the criteria (im white and male) to be included in their group.
Why is defining marriage as between one man/woman as a special interest group, any different of a set of criteria for inclusion/exclusion.
There are already criteria that straights must meet to become married, (pay for license, get blood test, take pre marriage class etc...states rules vary) adding one man/woman to them is just another one in the mix.

I cant force the feds to give me my social security $$$, which is mine already, unless im meeting the criteria to collect this entitelment. (age or disabillity) Are my rights being denied in either case? NO.

Again, you wish to strip away citizens rights to gather into this group of marriage, defined as one man/woman union, in order to get a selfish gain for yourself. (not saying YOU "I AM" are gay, generally speaking) By doing so you not only remove these citizens 1rst amendment rights to assemble, but also destroy what it was they had by forcing your alterations onto their special intrest group, again in favor of your own. And you call this equality? I call it reverse discrimination.

I AM continues,

How can you "enforce" any rights? How can you enforce my rights to free speech, what if I want to stay silent? Am I less equal than others who do?
Im not going to waste space cutting and pasting the VOLUMES of criteria, rules, and laws that both define the existing civil rights AND how they are protected (mostly legally) Go tell a black your not hiring him because he an n-word, and see for yourself how those rules are enforced.
This includes the rights of free speech, which as a telivision broadcaster, i deal with on a daily basis, right up to the boundaries of lible and slander.
If you want to reamain silent PLEAD THE FITH AMMENDMENT! Its your right, spelled out and garunteed you.

I am,


They do ban gay marriage, and that's why they were passed. To keep Gays from getting married. We both know that's why they were passed. So stop acting like it's not.
Please show me ANY documentation supporting this allegation...somewhere it surley must say, "this is to keep gays from marrying" in fact i challenge you to read the laws and see where the word GAYS, homosexuals or anything like it is stated in the wording.
You are trying to impose your bias onto the law. The laws are to define marriage, you can imply that they are to deny something, but they really define something, which by the nature of defining, is discriminatory in and of itself..Big deal, we discriminate every day here on many things including race, sex, religion, age, income, criminal history, etc etc etc, thwe list goes on. There exists criteria for getting lots of entitlments, and no ctizen qualifies for them all...

I AM,


Oh, yes indeed. How dare those blacks try to oppose the will lof the majority and get into our schools with our kids. How dare they defy the will of the cultural majority! I mean what's next, blacks using the same drinkng fountains. The will for the majority must not be over turned!
are you willing for NAMBLA to defy the will of the overall culture that frowns upon them?
How about those into necrophillia? mabey incest too?
NOTE: this is not equating gays to any of those groups (much like gays shouldnt be equated as slaves, they soo arent) It is to say that there exists groups that want to go beyond what the culture deems acceptable, so again i ask, at what point does the culture loose its right to self determine where those boundaries are (especially thru democratic means), in favor of letting a minority group override the culture at large?

Please dont show ignorance by trying to equate gays with being slaves. gays have never been property, been denied property rights, votes, or access to use the same toilets BY LAW as blacks have....you dimminish the black struggle against slavery by cheapening it by trying to tie gay bashing to the same magnitude of institutionalized discrimination. The 2 levels of suffering are nowhere even close. Pathetic AND insulting to blacks is no way to go thru life.

xpert11 asks,


How would same sex wedding/marriages cost more?
Remeber we just talked about this, the additional bennifits that health and insurance (to name just 2) companies would have to pay out if forced to reccognise more combos of marriages, would be passed directly to you and me...how about the less tax revenue collected as more combos are able to get a marriage tax bennifit...there goes money out of the total revenue that is spent for everyone..these are just 2 of THOUSANDS .how soon our blinders make us forget.
saying gay marriage has no effect for non gays is a HUGE LIE perpetrated to hide the issue of effects from the dumb masses that dont look deeper and investigate, instead willing to leap into the darkness to support a feel good issue they havent even fully examined. closing your eyes and crossing a busy street is about the same level of stupidity, only on a cultural level, not a personal one.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
for both i am, and xpert11,
are those married more or less a citizen that those that are not?
Is a happy and successful life dependant on being married or not?
(careful you dont pizz off people when you answer # 2, as many people that never married have been way more successful that mosst marrieds, and indeed vice versa as well.) How is marriage or not a nessisary function? one which a person MUST have to be equal to another?


Fine then lets just abolish marriage for all as it's so pointless.


I could not force a black womens group (a special intrest group) to accept me as a member because i dont meet the criteria (im white and male) to be included in their group.


These are two completely different things, one is a private group based on culture and gender, they do not preclude you from starting your own private group but regardless you are all in a greater sense part of a democratic society which should strive to afford equality for all.




Again, you wish to strip away citizens rights to gather into this group of marriage, defined as one man/woman union, in order to get a selfish gain for yourself. (not saying YOU "I AM" are gay, generally speaking) By doing so you not only remove these citizens 1rst amendment rights to assemble, but also destroy what it was they had by forcing your alterations onto their special intrest group, again in favor of your own. And you call this equality? I call it reverse discrimination.


A selfish gain, any more selfish than the facts my taxes go towards other people's children, their education and marrital status. As do all single peoples, oh but at least some of them have the choice to get married and jump on the gravy train. How does my marrying someone of the same sex destroy or affect these man/woman unions in any real sense. You've accused others of using emotive language in this argument Caz, this is more of the same.




Please show me ANY documentation supporting this allegation...somewhere it surley must say, "this is to keep gays from marrying" in fact i challenge you to read the laws and see where the word GAYS, homosexuals or anything like it is stated in the wording.
You are trying to impose your bias onto the law. The laws are to define marriage, you can imply that they are to deny something, but they really define something, which by the nature of defining, is discriminatory in and of itself..Big deal, we discriminate every day here on many things including race, sex, religion, age, income, criminal history, etc etc etc, thwe list goes on. There exists criteria for getting lots of entitlments, and no ctizen qualifies for them all...


Does it really come down to anything other than prejudice, whatever way you cut it.



are you willing for NAMBLA to defy the will of the overall culture that frowns upon them?
How about those into necrophillia? mabey incest too?
NOTE: this is not equating gays to any of those groups (much like gays shouldnt be equated as slaves, they soo arent) It is to say that there exists groups that want to go beyond what the culture deems acceptable, so again i ask, at what point does the culture loose its right to self determine where those boundaries are (especially thru democratic means), in favor of letting a minority group override the culture at large?


Reversing your slippery slopw argument for a moment, what if gay marriage is blocked, is this the thin end of the wedge that will ultimately lead to re-criminalising homosexuality. Again and again this type of argument is used as a valid objection but homosexuality has been legal for near on thirty years in the UK and not once has there been any serious attempt or consideration from the govt/people to extend this freedom to peadophiles, zoophiles or necrophiliacs. And where does a society draw the line at determining such things, well basically where ignorance, and bigotry are jettisoned in preference to common sense and a sense of social equality.


Please dont show ignorance by trying to equate gays with being slaves. gays have never been property, been denied property rights, votes, or access to use the same toilets BY LAW as blacks have....you dimminish the black struggle against slavery by cheapening it by trying to tie gay bashing to the same magnitude of institutionalized discrimination. The 2 levels of suffering are nowhere even close. Pathetic AND insulting to blacks is no way to go thru life.


Do you deny gay people have and do face discrimination, in the past and present, do you deny some of that is institutionalised, does it have to be as extreme as slavery before you will take it seriously and not accuse gay advocates of sensationalising. Yet why do you feel justified in using reverse discrimination objections and claiming that you're rights are being discriminated against because gays want to marry.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
for both i am, and xpert11,
are those married more or less a citizen that those that are not?
Is a happy and successful life dependant on being married or not?


Remeber we just talked about this, the additional bennifits that health and insurance (to name just 2) companies would have to pay out if forced to reccognise more combos of marriages, would be passed directly to you and me...how about the less tax revenue collected as more combos are able to get a marriage tax bennifit...there goes money out of the total revenue that is spent for everyone..these are just 2 of THOUSANDS .how soon our blinders make us forget.
The argument about the increased cost of health insurance isnt vaild outside the USA. Well if the government really lost that amount of revenue current married couples wouldnt get tax breakes.



saying gay marriage has no effect for non gays is a HUGE LIE perpetrated to hide the issue of effects from the dumb masses that dont look deeper and investigate, instead willing to leap into the darkness to support a feel good issue they havent even fully examined. closing your eyes and crossing a busy street is about the same level of stupidity, only on a cultural level, not a personal one.
please explain how gay marriage would damage the cultural of the USA.
Gay marriage would have no effect on non gays How could gay marriage effect non gays ? the idea is half baked.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Xpert11 states,


The argument about the increased cost of health insurance isnt vaild outside the USA. Well if the government really lost that amount of revenue current married couples wouldnt get tax breakes.
i am only speaking on this issue for here in the USA, as i believe that other cultures have the same right of "cultural self determination of identity" as we do. If France wants to adopt gay marriage, have at it...If other cultures wish not to adopt this institutionally into their culture, they have the right to do that as well.

Im not saying that the ammount of taxes "lost" to marriage tax entitlments is a huge sum of $$ or will break the bank, but as an example of an effect, that would be nearly immediate and detectable and trackable, if gay marriage was enacted.

xpert11,


please explain how gay marriage would damage the cultural of the USA.
Again, im not nessisarily saying the effects to the culture would be damage, only effects that as of yet remain mostly not talked about. There is the possibillity that harm is manifest however if one SIG has their core beliefs ripped away and forced to change to accomodate another SIG. The harm is thet the 1rst amendment guarentees both the right to exist, exclusive of each other, without undu interfearance from one another...both sides lose if one of our cilil liberties is abused/tossed aside for any reason...we are all harmed.

Xpert11 asks the obvious,


Gay marriage would have no effect on non gays How could gay marriage effect non gays ? the idea is half baked.
As it only takes ONE example to prove the "no effect to non gays" idea is false,
I just gave you one economic effect that would manifest, there are many others....so there is your answer...there is AT LEAST one effect, which means there ARE effects, so that "no effect" position is false, a lie, red herring, and one which i feel only shows the ignorance of those that try to use it as it was only too easy to debunk with one example, let alone the unknown size list of effects as yet not discussed.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Again, im not nessisarily saying the effects to the culture would be damage, only effects that as of yet remain mostly not talked about. There is the possibillity that harm is manifest however if one SIG has their core beliefs ripped away and forced to change to accomodate another SIG. The harm is thet the 1rst amendment guarentees both the right to exist, exclusive of each other, without undu interfearance from one another...both sides lose if one of our cilil liberties is abused/tossed aside for any reason...we are all harmed.

Just what is the first amendment ?
,
I just gave you one economic effect that would manifest, there are many others....so there is your answer...there is AT LEAST one effect, which means there ARE effects, so that "no effect" position is false, a lie, red herring, and one which i feel only shows the ignorance of those that try to use it as it was only too easy to debunk with one example, let alone the unknown size list of effects as yet not discussed.

Hang on a second if same sexs couples are a minorty then why would they drive the cost of insurance up?
So your saying that if same sexs marriages were legal in the USA and the price of insurance went up it the price wasnt influnced by other factors such as natrual disasters. Woudnt an increase in single people taking out insurance at the same time as gay married couples also hike the price of insurance?
You need to prove that same sex marriages actualy change something for other married couples without other influences.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Expert11, where in the world are you? What is your nationality?

you ask about the 1rst amendment, it is a part of our constitution (our main legal document defining America) called the bill or rights, which spells out the rights of citizens of the USA.
learn about the US constitution

In a nut shell it gives us the right of freedom of speech (to say dissenting things), freedom to assemble in groups (without persecution of others), freedom of religion (to choose your own god and not be persecuted), the freedom of the press (not government controlled), and the freedom to take up a grievance against the government without fear.

It is a very important base from which our culture is founded upon.

you ask,


Woudnt an increase in single people taking out insurance at the same time as gay married couples also hike the price of insurance?
NO, because each single person's policy usually costs more than a couple/family policy. Thus if more people can declare themselves a couple, revenue would drop, and more combos of payouts would result... that cost to the insurers would be passed along to ALL thru higher costs.

lets say you have 100 x $1 policies for singles..the insures makes $100...ok now pair up the people (marry them) and discount the price to .75$ (50 couples x .75= 37.5) Thats about a 2/3 DECREASE in revenue...this is a very simple example but it shows the point.
even with no discount, the revenue is down 50% and payouts would be up.

to prove the idea of "no harm" false it only takes one example, it doesnt matter if it is harm to everyone or just to marrieds....harm done means "no harm" idea is false. again this is just one example, i dont think anyone has actually sat down and tried to list all the inter-related things that would need adjustment in order to make the change...this is a seroius problem for me BECAUSE its like we havent (as a nation) even talked about how this could be done, only if it should, well how can we say it should if we dont fully know all about what were dealing with?

Have you noticed at no point have i said "god says" anything?
This issue has more that just religion based objections.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Expert11, where in the world are you? What is your nationality?
I live in New Zealand but I was born in Australia and I consider myself more of an aussie then kiwi.

It is a very important base from which our culture is founded upon.
Thanks for the hyperlink.

i dont think anyone has actually sat down and tried to list all the inter-related things that would need adjustment in order to make the change...this is a seroius problem for me BECAUSE its like we havent (as a nation) even talked about how this could be done, only if it should, well how can we say it should if we dont fully know all about what were dealing with?
I am going to repharse my argument In New Zealand same sex marriage has been approved under another name see thread and its not going to effect other married coulpes. Im also going to assume that because the health/insurance system is differnt in the USA here in NZ we wouldnt get the same hike in insurance prices due to same sex marriage. Perhaps the effects of gay marriage havnt been talked about in the USA because no one has come up with any.

Have you noticed at no point have i said "god says" anything?
This issue has more that just religion based objections.
Even thou I dont agree with what your saying I respect you for not useing the bible in your arguments.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
to quote Jerry Seinfeld briefly: I can't believe so many people are getting married in the first place! How many people are really finding the person whom they want to share EVERY DAY OF THE REST OF THEIR LIVES with, and how many of them are doing it more as a subconscious social obligation? If everyone who was getting married did it for the former reason, then a wedding would only occur 4 or 5 times in a century!



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
how many of them are doing it more as a subconscious social obligation? If everyone who was getting married did it for the former reason, then a wedding would only occur 4 or 5 times in a century!

I think most people in western countries marry for love rather then social obligation. I thought arranged marriages were dead in western culture. I would only marry for love.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by General Zapata
How many people are really finding the person whom they want to share EVERY DAY OF THE REST OF THEIR LIVES with,


Me and mine for one. I found the woman I wanted to spend the rest of my life with and we have been togather over 20 years and I am looking forward to the next twenty



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Good on you Amuk!




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join