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: Aazadan
Marriage offers legal and financial benefits, ever since governments started offering benefits to people who get married it was moved from a purely religious institution to a state institution. It has nothing to do with tradition, marriage today from the governments perspective is nothing but a legal status and denying that legal status to a section of the population is discriminatory, which is unconstitutional.
Marriage means something more to a church, but churches are allowed to deny marriages to anyone they wish and that hasn't changed, and their marriages don't offer any legal benefits in the first place.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Benefits are offered because traditional marriage is good for society. When societies get away from traditional values, historically, they fail.
For now, the churches can refuse, but we all know they will be the brunt of lawsuits. It's simply a matter of time.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Churches will eventually stop marrying anyone and then they can say they are equal to all then so no discrimination when all are denied equally. WHat gets me is a MAN performs the wedding ceremony,so how can it be said that God joined them? Didnt a MAN join them together? So since it was a MAN who married them how can it be wrong to divorce since God himself did not perform the ceremony? Its just something i always wondered about.
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Churches will eventually stop marrying anyone and then they can say they are equal to all then so no discrimination when all are denied equally. WHat gets me is a MAN performs the wedding ceremony,so how can it be said that God joined them? Didnt a MAN join them together? So since it was a MAN who married them how can it be wrong to divorce since God himself did not perform the ceremony? Its just something i always wondered about.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful.
originally posted by: Seamrog
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful.
If faux marriage is such a wonderful concept, why is just now 'coming out?' There have been numerous advanced civilizations other than the modern era - why was this wonderful 'progress' not championed before?
It is true that some societies embraced homosexual behavior openly - look how wonderful that turned out for them.
How did it end for the Weimar Republic? How did it end for the Roman Empire?
They got lazy, they got fat, and they celebrated sexual excess and deviance.
Then, the rest is history, and we are pretty well set to repeat it.
originally posted by: Seamrog
If faux marriage is such a wonderful concept, why is just now 'coming out?' There have been numerous advanced civilizations other than the modern era - why was this wonderful 'progress' not championed before?
It is true that some societies embraced homosexual behavior openly - look how wonderful that turned out for them.
They got lazy, they got fat, and they celebrated sexual excess and deviance.
Then, the rest is history, and we are pretty well set to repeat it.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It isn't a fallacy if it's true. Societies stand and fall on building blocks of behavior, with some behaviors being good for a stable society, and others being harmful. It would be illogical to assume any and all behavior was equal. Heck, if that's the case, why do we have laws at all? We have the because anarchy doesn't work.