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.

 

Gay Marriage. Is the opposition just Symantecs?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Oudoceus

Why do you think marriage is only between a man and a woman, and where did you get the opinion from?

What led you to have such a narrow definition of a historically broad and diverse concept?




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

maybe not personally but look at the divorce rate. Where is WBC with the banners flying about divorce or annulment? Where is the "I Hate Divorcees" flyers and website? I am not sure the right/religious 'support' divorce, but they sure don't raise a big public issue with it. Man and woman can divorce and remarry all they want...clearly not in love...no problem

But two guys want to marry and be in love...and now it's the end of the world



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
What happened to the bible verse that said "we should not judge"? What they do in their bedroom is no concern of mine nor will it effect whatever belief I have.

I believe in the bible and I have friends and family that are gay, mixed race but will believe whatever the media tells them to believe.

Although I think the marriage should be legal for all, I do disagree with forcing a preacher to do something against his beliefs, there are many other preachers out there that will marry two men or two women.

Again, I think this is made out to be about something it isn't. Just another way to divide the people!



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: KyoZero




I am not sure the right/religious 'support' divorce, but they sure don't raise a big public issue with it. Man and woman can divorce and remarry all they want...clearly not in love...no problem


Actually in the Catholic faith this is not possible, well not quite.

If I was to get divorced I can only be legally divorced yet in the eyes of the church i would still be seen as married and as such i could not then remarry in a religious ceremony. There are exceptions to this but they are quite unusual where by under cannon law a marriage can be annulled.

The idea of two divorced Catholics getting married in a church wedding is frowned upon just as much as two men wanting to have wedding ceremony in a church.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

absolutely. Many of my family was raised Catholic on one side. I enjoy your faith and your devotion. You responded kindly and appreciated and I will do what I can to do the same friend

I appreciate subjectivity to near full extent so long as it harms none. I submit that all should be equal or at least given equal opportunity. I admire that the Catholic Church as a whole stands by its ceremony and tradition and conservation. My biggest concern however lies outside of your institution.

My problem is that while divorce can be painful to all involved and can hurt families, I still do not see the near nationwide dismissal of the practice of divorce despite the Church's aspirations and feelings towards it. Legality notwithstanding, I see so much vitriol from many on the right and of the religious in their attempt to tell me, as a man who appreciates the body, soul, mind and heart without regard of gender, that I am not as important and that I am to be tolerated from a distance

Now, I have indeed married a woman and that is not because I have made my so-called "choice" rather it is because she is the one I love and am devoted to. I see many men and women who share the same devotion as my partner and I and I wish them every ounce of love, luck and prosperity.

I only ask that the same equality and respect be shown legally and with the same treatment as my partner and I, as well as any heterosexual couple in this country.

I do not seek to tell a heterosexual couple that their marriage is invalid...I seek to allow valid marriage for those who desire their partners and whose partnerships fall outside of a spectrum that is unfortunately unacceptable to many.

Thank you so much for your response...and may your God shine your way



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Gay Conservative...???

Pictures or it didn't happen.



Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, Richard Tisei

Carl DeMaio of California Carl_DeMaio

and Dan Innis of New Hampshire Daniel Innis



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: whyamIhere
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

Gay Conservative...???

Pictures or it didn't happen.



Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, Richard Tisei

Carl DeMaio of California Carl_DeMaio

and Dan Innis of New Hampshire Daniel Innis


Yes, I know Carl.

Got to admit...It's pretty rare.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

It has become a fight over the ownership of the term "Marriage" and it's definition which is ridiculous. Religion is trying to stake a claim on what "Marriage" is and how it is applied, but the fact is, nobody get's to own words and their meanings unless it's a Trademark name that is. But as for normal language, no, it's public access.

What you won't hear about (because it would solve the problem), is that "Marriage" comes in at least two versions which are NOT supposed to joined. One is Religious Marriage and the other is Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage is through the Church and is a Union between two people and witnessed by God. It follows whatever rules the Church deems it to have as well, without restriction of the State Power. So if they want it to be Man and Woman only, so be it. Or like Catholics who are against Divorce, you must have Church authority to get one, or you can't. This type of marriage is also not "Legal" in the sense that it is not sanctioned by the State. This is because God is the Author of this type of marriage, not the Government. This also meas that all Government benefits are not allowed for this type of marriage however.

Civil Marriage is through the State, or Government and is a Union which is defined as whatever the State wants it to be. Man and Woman, two men or women, or even more than two if they decide to allow that. This kind of marriage has the State or Government as it's author. This is why today when a married couple wants a divorce they go through the State instead of the Church to do so. This type is NOT controlled or influenced in any way by the Church. The Church can choose not to recognize it if it wants. The State however does recognize it and gives certain Benefits for it as well.

These two types of Marriage were never supposed to be joined in the first place and by doing so we have the problems we have today in regards to it. It makes a perfect example of why we established a separation between the two. You don't want you Politics in your Religion or your Religion in you Politics. In other words, "Keep your chocolate out of my peanut butter and I'll keep my peanut butter out of your chocolate!"



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

One thousand stars...



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

Yes, I know Carl.

Got to admit...It's pretty rare.


Hell ya it's rare. At least being openly Gay and Conservative is rare. I'm sure it happens much more but not openly.

As for the Conservative Party in general it's great for their image to the rest of the world though. While many Extreme Right Wingers may hate it, there are many more Moderate Conservatives as well as other Non Right Wingers who don't care if someone is Gay or not. So in that sense, I'm not sure if the Republican Party truly is starting to accept them or not, but as far as a Political Tactic to gain some support it's certainly a good move on their part.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

We've got to stop meeting like this... Agree 100%! My marriage cannot be affected by someone else's. It's impossible. Actually, recently, within the last 10 years, my marriage has gotten better and better. Could it be that marriage equality has actually had a POSITIVE effect on my marriage???




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think that understanding the concept of marriage, that understanding the meaning, the bond that is developed, only strengthens the union.

Good for you!

I hope your marriage lasts forever!

Ours will.

Though my wife said that "until death do us part" means she might see other people after we die.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It's not about what other people do and call a marriage. It's about what other people attempt to force me to call a marriage that matters.

If other people only wanted to have their relationships, then fine, but we are discovering this is not the case. They are now reaching for control of my faith to tell me that what my faith says is a marriage can't be a marriage anymore because they find that hateful. I'm sorry if they hate what God and Jesus said, but that's their problem, not mine. If they don't like it, they are not being forced to follow my particular brand of the faith, there are plenty of sects who are falling away.

But that isn't enough, I have to fall away to or else it's not good enough for them.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

They are now reaching for control of my faith to tell me that what my faith says is a marriage can't be a marriage anymore because they find that hateful.


Are you saying that "someone or some group" is trying to say that marriage isn't or can't be traditional anymore??? Because I don't think that's happening and if you say it is I'll need some evidence to prove it.

What I see is an expansion of what marriage is to include other forms of marriage along with the traditional one. No different than "Common Law Marriage" for example which once was a commonly recognized form of marriage. Common Law Marriage was just another form of marriage included with Traditional Religious Marriage.

I've never seen anyone suggest removing "Traditional Religious Marriage" from being a form of Marriage.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Let them call it a marriage. Let them call it a blue umbrella. It shouldn't matter. How you define your marriage is between you and your spouse.

Married heterosexual couples even see marriage differently. I can guarantee that not all married heterosexual couples define marriage the same way.

There is no universal rule for what marriage should be. Marriage should be defined by what the two participants call it. If they want it endorsed by their religion of choice? Then it should follow certain guidelines.

Marriage is a way to unite to separate beings into one.

In my humble opinion, of course.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

OMG, I'm agreeing with you again!! This is starting to scare me a little. lol

Just a little joke since we so often seem to be butting heads with each other.

But I totally agree. Every couple defines, and rightfully so, their Union in a different way than others. Anyone who makes that choice to bond with someone does so on their own terms and they don't give a crap about what others think about it. I know I don't. I'm with my woman forever under the terms that we've decided on and nobody else is in charge of that but us.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I think it's just money and plain old intolerance. What does anyone care what other people call a marriage? It has 0 impact.

I also don't get why from a religious standpoint gay marriage and naughty times are any worse than other sins. Good luck making masturbation illegal, or porn for that matter. There would be riots in the streets.

This country is supposed to be about individual liberties, not forced morality.

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

-Thomas Jefferson



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
originally posted by: ketsuko



I'm sorry if they hate what God and Jesus said, but that's their problem, not mine. If they don't like it, they are not being forced to follow my particular brand of the faith, there are plenty of sects who are falling away.

But that isn't enough, I have to fall away to or else it's not good enough for them.


I'm sorry you & your faith misunderstood what God & Jesus said about homosexuality being a sin but that's your problem, not the LGBTQ+ community. If you don't like it, you are not being forced to follow what God & Jesus said, there are plenty of people who are falling away from religions who are corrupt and have twisted things their way.

But that isn't enough, LGBTQ+ have to become heterosexual (which is impossible) or else you treat LGBTQ+ like abominations.
edit on 11 7 2014 by Sabiduria because: code error

edit on 11 7 2014 by Sabiduria because: code



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I can probably bet that if we got all of us together in some tavern, we'd probably agree on more things than disagree.

We just seem so focused on specific aspects that we lose sight of the big picture.

Like marriage.

Everyone is so focused on just one specific aspect of marriage.

One rule of thumb that I've begrudgingly held to is that you can't legislate morality. Because morality is subjective.

Women working? Wearing pants? Showing ankles?

Times do change.

We can't always be right all the time.

The bible, the one I read anyway, stresses humility.

Perhaps we need more of that.
edit on 7-11-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

I'll tell you exactly why, which you've already pointed to yourself partially. It's about "control". Anything that has been sanctioned or made official by either the Government or Religious Organization gives that orgainization some bit of control over it and those involved.

A Civil Marriage is done by State Authority and in return gives some benefits for it. But because it is with the State you are basically marrying the State into that union as well. Same goes with the Religious Wedding only that union marries God into that union rather than the state. The result is the same however. Either The Government or The Church now has some Control over the others involved. That's the "Why".

Now, why individuals care, I have no idea because they have no stake or claim in what another couple does. That's just people being intrusive A-holes IMO.

If you and your partner decided to "Marry" without the Church or State, but did it in whatever way you felt was true to yourselves and with the same conviction and everything in my opinion you are just as married as anyone else is. Maybe more even. The only difference is it wouldn't be recognized by either the State or the Church. But if you told people you were married and acted as such nobody would know any different anyway.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join