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.

 

Solution to All Marriage issues (Equal, same sex or otherwise)

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: mOjOm

We will agree to disagree even though we both know I am right and you are wrong. Have a blessed day.


I think I'll Disagree to Agree instead.

I also know for a fact that I'm right and you're wrong so neener neener.

(I love the mature conversation that can be had with Religious Zealots!!

edit on 23-12-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I'll be the bigger man here and forgive you for saying things like that. You're welcome. I know it must be hard being a godless ruffian but every soul can be saved. Even yours.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
You'll still need the legal recognition of a union, for life insurance, medical, inheritance, etc. Look at how some same-sex couples were denied hospital visitation for their sick spouse because they were not recognized as a member of the immediate family. So there is a need for the government to legally recognize same-sex unions, even if a religious institution won't.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Please ignore the troll who is pretending to be a Christian. He is not. He only wants to disrupt this thread. Please ignore him and don't reply to him.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar


I'll be the bigger man here and forgive you for saying things like that. You're welcome. I know it must be hard being a godless ruffian but every soul can be saved. Even yours.


Sounds like the smaller man to my ears.

Luckily for us, the "right" you have to decide who can and cannot get married is completely made up, amongst other things.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: mOjOm

I'll be the bigger man here and forgive you for saying things like that. You're welcome. I know it must be hard being a godless ruffian but every soul can be saved. Even yours.


So you're the bigger man for calling me a godless ruffian??? Who calls anyone a ruffian anymore anyway??? Are we in the 1600's all of a sudden???

Also, I don't need nor want your forgiveness as there is noting to forgive. I stand by everything I've said so save your voodoo BS for someone who believes it.

You don't get to be the authority over other people. Period. Whether it be their marriage or anything else. Why don't you keep your attention on your own life instead of others??? Nothing gives you the right to decide anything for anyone other than yourself. Not God, not You. If they want to give that up to you, that's one thing, but you can't simply claim it for yourself. Don't believe me??? Try it out on real people who think for themselves and see how far you get with it.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Alright. I like playing with the trolls though. But I'll stop.

I just get bored sometimes....



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I do have the right it's in the Bible or something. I haven't read the whole thing , but I'm sure it's in there somewhere.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: mOjOm listen I do have the right because I said so and God clearly wants me to anyway . If you don't like that fine , it's the truth though I know what is best for everyone. Praise the Lord Jesus H Christ


Is there a "wink wink" on this post?

If not, that's just damn scary



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You know I'm not entirely sure or anything but someone may have missed the point here or there. Are we on the same page, Cabazan?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

ok i will bite :

current marriage // civil unions grant partners certain rights

and people expect those benefits

you cannot just remove them all and expect people to be ok with that


I wouldn't remove the benefits, just give them to everyone, and not make them dependent on your marital status.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: PsychoEmperor

It's beneficial to the state for people to marry and procreate for various reasons though. That is why they get involved with it. Plus it can't just be a Religious Institution that people get married at because some people aren't religious. Marriage is actually more of a Contract Agreement between people which doesn't even require Religion.

That's not to say I agree or disagree with your idea, but it would never work out. Too many other vested interested parties that use it to their advantage also.


Thank you for this reply. I agree it's beneficial for the state, and that's probably the only reason the state ever got involved with it in the first place.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
You'll still need the legal recognition of a union, for life insurance, medical, inheritance, etc. Look at how some same-sex couples were denied hospital visitation for their sick spouse because they were not recognized as a member of the immediate family. So there is a need for the government to legally recognize same-sex unions, even if a religious institution won't.


Or we can all just tell the hospitals they are just a hospital and if we want someone to visit us they should allow that and stop making arbitrary rules and who they will "allow" in and let it be based on our own individual decisions.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Marriage is the building block of families. Families are the building blocks of communities and communities are building blocks of society. For a society to continue, you need to procreate. Evolution set up humans for one man and one women procreation.

Since ZERO homosexual couples can produce offspring, their unions are different from heterosexual couples. How is it fair to treat two totally different relationships as the same?



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
Marriage is the building block of families. Families are the building blocks of communities and communities are building blocks of society. For a society to continue, you need to procreate. Evolution set up humans for one man and one women procreation.

Since ZERO homosexual couples can produce offspring, their unions are different from heterosexual couples. How is it fair to treat two totally different relationships as the same?



No two relationships are exactly the same. Some people marry for money, some for companionship, some for having kids. Some couples are religious, some couples are atheists, some couples are swingers. Many heterosexual couples can't or don't want to have children. The fact is, it's no one else's business who gets married or why, as long as there are no victims. If a person is a U.S. citizen and a consenting adult, that person deserve equal treatment under the laws, period - no matter what "your" opinion is.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So I have a degree in history with a minor in religion, let's see what all of you think of this.

There is no marriage, no such thing, it is false.

To explain fully - it is an invented institution, it has no consistant definition, it has no golden age of meaning or practice.

It is a ritual that was not initially religious, it was an economic practice operating under a theocratic culture, an exchange of goods between families, goods that included a woman.

Later it became political, as two married families would be allied in future generations.

As it moved forward, the Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Western religious movement), claimed authority over the right to marry in a political move to reject the authority of secular rule.

The Anglican church then comes into being, creating a more secular and state-approved method of marriage.

I don't care about anyone's entitled nonsense. I don't care what people think they deserve. I'm tired of hearing about what people think they need and think the state should provide, and the wanton bigotry that pervades the establishment of social unions. Screw your tax breaks, screw anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we are all human FIRST.

I don't care if you think marriage means anything, it only means what you want it to mean. Everyone should stop giving a rat's anus what the state approves of, what your neighbors think, all of it. What a huge joke this is on all of us. State and religious marriage is a massive social control, and those benefits you are given do nothing but serve as a lock on your cage. They make you live in fear of having your benefits taken away, or reduced in validity by giving those rights to groups you see as deviant. Are you fooled?

Stop letting the state define you, stop letting religious authority tell you what is right and wrong. Live free, love who you want, live with who you want. Stop lying to yourself about marriage and the rest.

I'm with the author, scap the political and religious recognition of the ritual of marriage, and return it to the people, and then any of us can just make of it what we will.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
Marriage is the building block of families. Families are the building blocks of communities and communities are building blocks of society. For a society to continue, you need to procreate. Evolution set up humans for one man and one women procreation.

Since ZERO homosexual couples can produce offspring, their unions are different from heterosexual couples. How is it fair to treat two totally different relationships as the same?



Everyone else (besides you) must have missed something, because this thread was initially not about the (alleged!) "issue" of homosexuality and marriage AT ALL.

Aside from that, what you say is total BEE-ESS since not every heterosexual marriage is producing offspring either. Sometimes people simple don't WANT children, sometimes they can't have them.

So according to your stone-age logic, all those marriages which for the one or the other reason do not produce off-spring are not valid? Do you look at couples and judge their "legitimacy" of their marriage or partnership based on their ability to have children? Obviously not, because this would be MORE THAN bizarre if someone would do this. However, you think it's fine to do the same with homosexual couples and take away their right to marriage "because they cannot have children".

Your claim that relationships are "totally different" when children are not coming from it MAKES.NULL.SENSE.WHATSOEVER. It's as absurd as it can even get.

Better even: Today we live in a world where couples (even if they CAN NOT, for 1000s of reasons, have children) CAN HAVE children, for example through adaption. Means that your implied claim that homosexual couples "cannot found a family" is nonsense also.
edit on 12/24/2014 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Herolotus

Great post, thank you for that information!



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor

I wouldn't remove the benefits, just give them to everyone, and not make them dependent on your marital status.


Marriage is (first and foremost) making a union/partnership between two people official before a judge.

As I already mentioned, there are some good reasons to enter into such an officially acknowledged union because IT WILL result in sometimes significant changes. (It's a different story whether someone lives alone without a partner or if someone has to provide for TWO people....better even..if someone has to provide for an entire family incl. children etc.)

So why should a single person get the same "benefits" as a married couple or why should a single person get the same benefits as a person who needs to provide for, say, several people, a wife, children etc.? Isn't this obvious that there are entirely different responsibilities at play? TBH it's so obvious that I ask about the reason for this thread in the first place.



posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I don't understand why we, you, and I, as parts of the state, should give anyone benefits simply for living together and not killing each other. Stop being so entitled and remember that these are gifts from the state funded by the citizens and that there is nothing special about your marriage. We would be better off without it as a state or public institution.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join