Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

For gay marriage or aginst it?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I am for gay marriage. It's really none of the government's bussiness (the sexual prefernce of people). I mean really, how could this benefit the country in any way by not allowing homosexuals to be married? I think this is one of the political ideas that apeal to the uneducated masses of people that don't realize that there is a lot more that our government could be doing for us; instead of trying to choose who we date. What do you guys think?

p.s. deny hate




posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I am againt gay marriages. It is wrong and goes against common traditional family values.

god made adam and eve, not adam and steve.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
so what does that have to do with how our govn't is run? our country is not about god (even though we do metion in it currency, national anthem and so on); it is about doing what is best for the country, world, and everythings else we can be apart of.



posted on Nov, 6 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I 150% support gay marriage !
The government and other members of society have no bussiness in what happens in peoples personnel lives.
If two gay people dose it affected a straight couples marriage?
NO ! There is no good reason to be against gay marriage.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
I am against gay marriage, but support another type of union where a gay couple enjoys all the same rights and benefits as a straight married couple. Some sort of special union designed with gay relationships in mind and the differences.

Its wrong to claim that there is no difference between straight relationships and gay ones. There is. Its a very different type of union, even though the same basic principal of love and companionship is the same for both gays and straights.

Marriage basically is a legal contract between a man and woman that states that the two are now legally recognized as a family for financial and child rearing purposes. Love has NOTHING to do with marriage. You do not marry someone and then love them. You marry them because you love them and you want to form a legal partnership based on that love. Thats all marriage is: a legal recognition of your female/male partnership to combine finances, share wealth, and breed.

Gay relationships are different. Though two gay people might love one another, the basic nature of their relationship is very different to that of a heterosexual relationship. For starters, the idea of gay unions is new. In times past, marriages were simply legal contracts between two families to bind their kids together for breeding and wealth. Gays by the nature of their relationships cannot naturally have children without outside help. And because the relationship involves two people of the same sex, there are many issues unique to a gay relationship that makes it different from a heterosexual one.

As I said, I am for a legally recognized union of gay relationships. But I feel it should be called something else, and the rituals and ceremonies involved should be different than the ones that involve straights. I think that gay unions should have all the legal rights and responsibilities that straight unions have, such as medical benefits, insurance, finances, and taxes.

But I dont think gays should mimic straight rites and ceremonies, and should create their own unique ceremonies and call thier unions something else.

I do not believe in the Bible or Christian god, and thus, i do not believe homosexuality is immoral or sick, nor do I believe gays to be inferior. Just different.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Its wrong to claim that there is no difference between straight relationships and gay ones. There is. Its a very different type of union, even though the same basic principal of love and companionship is the same for both gays and straights.


What's different?



You marry them because you love them and you want to form a legal partnership based on that love. Thats all marriage is: a legal recognition of your female/male partnership to combine finances, share wealth, and breed.


What if you don't want to breed? Can't get married? I can't breed if I wanted to, Should I not be allowed to be married? Does the law ask about procreation? Why is breeding an issue in gay marriage if it isn't in straight marriage?



For starters, the idea of gay unions is new.


Nope. That's incorrect. See the link at the bottom of this post.




And because the relationship involves two people of the same sex, there are many issues unique to a gay relationship that makes it different from a heterosexual one.


Like what?

The rest of my thoughts:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, and I support gay marriage. 100% All the way.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Marriage is just a contract that "legitimizes" co-habitation.
Since heterosexual unions are sanctioned by the US goverment so should homosexual unions.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Marriage is just a contract that "legitimizes" co-habitation.
Since heterosexual unions are sanctioned by the US goverment so should homosexual unions.


I was going to go into depth on this but I couldn't put it better than that.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Personally I think my main issue with gay marriage is that they don't just want to be married to the person they love. If that were true they could easily find some church that would stamp a certificate and say yes they are married. What they want is for the U.S. government to grant them all the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. THAT is how it affects me, and THAT is why it is my business. The Government has granted ADDITIONAL rights, privileges and responsibilities to married people over all single people (and the supreme court has allowed this to slide for the entirety of our nation's exsitence) because it (i.e. the American voters) views the traditional heterosexual married family lifestyle to be beneficial to our society. So put it to a vote, let the American people vote yes or no as to whether gay marriage is beneficial to society to an extent that warrants granting them additional rights. With state after state banning gay marriage in their own constitutions, it's obvious why this option has not been pursued...gay marriage proponents would be soundly defeated. I personally don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't care if they want to have relationships with one another. I don't think the government should have any say regarding homosexuals having relationships with one another, be it cohabitation or sexual or whatever. But when the gay community starts wanting me to grant them additional rights, it is up to them to convince me that their lifestyle is beneficial enough to society for me to vote yes.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nipples
But when the gay community starts wanting me to grant them additional rights, it is up to them to convince me that their lifestyle is beneficial enough to society for me to vote yes.


What addiitional rights? They want the same rights we have.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Interesting post coming from a member that chose the username "nipples". I'm going to assume you are a plumber, that will take the sexual connotation out of this.


Originally posted by Nipples
Personally I think my main issue with gay marriage is that they don't just want to be married to the person they love.


Whoa there. That's a helluva assumption. Love to know how you came up with that reasoning. BTW, do we dock hetro's that marry for whatever reason and divorce shortly after? Didn't they marry for love? Maybe they married for the obligitory Spongebob pillowcases.


What they want is for the U.S. government to grant them all the rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with marriage. THAT is how it affects me, and THAT is why it is my business.


OK, what's wrong with granting gays the same rights as everyone else? It affects you HOW? Your tax dollars? I'd be more concerned with the, this is just a guess, 35 cents on the dollar of your taxes that go to an illegal military encursion in Iraq. The benefits that gay people would get, that would be attributed to your tax dollars, are minimal compared to that.


So put it to a vote, let the American people vote yes or no as to whether gay marriage is beneficial to society to an extent that warrants granting them additional rights.


Hell yeah, put it to a vote. I have faith in the American public. You'ld be surprised at the tollerance of non-Red states. Even in Red states you've got reasonable people.

Also, additional rights? Aren't gays people too? What the hell is the addition? Oh, right. Rights that gay people should already have but is being used as a political tool.



With state after state banning gay marriage in their own constitutions, it's obvious why this option has not been pursued...gay marriage proponents would be soundly defeated.


I'd do some looking into "current events" if I were you.


I personally don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle


OK, now we get to the truth of the matter, you either have a religious reason for disliking gays or you're just afraid of something you have NO idea about. That makes ALL of this make sense.

Deny Ignorance dude.

The rest?

Snip, no relevence.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeuathemovies
how could this benefit the country in any way by not allowing homosexuals to be married? [...] What do you guys think?


First off, the term "gay marriage" is an oxy moron. The word marriage denotates two people of the opposite gender...

I am against "gay marriage".
Namely, because, homosexuality is a sin. It incurs the wrath of God.

No one is born that way. The devil is a LIAR, and some people have been lied to since they left their mother's womb: www.fireonthealtar.com...
YAHSHUA (Jesus) can set you FREE!!!

Also, I will mention that it is not discrimination against gays if "gay marriage" is not recognized.
Its simple:
all people can marry someone of the opposite sex
...whether you call yourself gay or not, you are entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex.

So its not discrimination! Don't go there.

**EDIT: I DON'T HATE HOMOSEXUALS
Jesus hung out with (repentant) sinners!!
...ALL have sinned

[edit on 18-11-2005 by seawater999]

[edit on 18-11-2005 by seawater999]



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seawater999
First off, the term "gay marriage" is an oxy moron. The word marriage denotates two people of the opposite gender...


Says who, outside of some preacher or church?


I am against "gay marriage".
Namely, because, homosexuality is a sin. It incurs the wrath of God.


Wow, I'm surprised.
Nothing that will EVER apply to your family but you just HAVE to have an opinion.

Let's face it, you're screwing with gay folks lives WAY more than they are yours just trying to get some equity. :shk:



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Intrepid:

For starters, my member name comes from when I was about 14 and a bunch of us were in a swimming pool and someone goes, 'man you really have small nipples'. Nothing more, nothing less...where the plumber comment comes from I don't care to know.

The reasoning behind my belief that homosexuals wanting legalized gay marriage are not interested in it purely for love comes from my statement immediately after what you quoted. In our society, marriage is legitimized by two institutions...the church and the goverment. If someone is interested in marrying purely for love then what do they care who considers their relationship legitimate, be it the church, the government, me, you , or the dog on the sidewalk? If it's purely for love then why do they need a certificate to tell them they love each other. The very fact that gay marriage is even an issue reveals that there is a motive present in addition to (note I didn't say in place of) love. I'm not saying that the additional motive is not worth discussing, I'm saying that this appeal to emotion of 'oh they just want to be with the one they love' is bogus. If love is truly all they need then they certainly don't need some stamp of approval from anyone. You'll have to help me out with your divorce argument. I am unsure as to what you were getting at. The best answer I have is that they are 'docked' by having all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage removed after leaving their union.

As to what's wrong with gays having the same rights as everyone else...nothing? They already do...so long as you consider 'everyone else' as individuals. My point is that married couples are granted further rights than non-married couples, and by this the government encourages what it feels is a behavior beneficial to society. For gay couples to be granted the same rights as married couples (not just the same rights as all of us) the government (voters) must be convinced that gay marriage is as beneficial to society as traditional marriage is. Tax dollars are not the driver here...although your figure of 35% of our tax dollars going to the war is ludicrous since the entire defense budget for 04 only made up about 20% of the total government spending. Yes 20% is a greater monetary value than what additional costs would most likely be incurred through granting further rights to homosexuals wanting to marry. That is irrelevant. If I am not in favor of something why should I vote for something that costs me 1$ more? Again, they want their rights extended to the same level as traditional married couples. They want me to grant them this. They have to convince me that gay marriage is as beneficial to the society I live in as traditional marriage.

I'm glad you are willing to allow the American voters to decide on this issue, as many who chime in on gay marriage seem to think that it somehow should not be up to the voters, but should be decided by some court (left or right leaning). I agree with you that this issue has become a political tool, but every issue becomes a political tool (aside from an anti-puppy beating bill). It is a tool used by both sides. That's politics. What's new?

As far as looking into current events, I have, but just in case I imagined the last year, I rechecked, and yes far more states have banned gay marriage via their constitution or through legislation than have accepted homosexual unions. A cursory reading of wikipedia can tell you that much. Maybe I missed your point so I'll leave that point open for now.

I don't know if you think you 'caught me' or something quoting what I openly put in my original post regarding my personal disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. I stated that I didn't care what they do with each other. I even stated that the government should not be able to intervene in their relationships...such as with the texas anti-sodomy law. Just because I don't agree with someone's lifstyle doesn't mean I think the individual rights granted to them under the constitution should be removed. I assume that line is where someone clever will quote me and say 'aha, gotcha'. One more time here, my current understanding of the constitution is that marriage is an additional enumerated right delivered via the states. Thus is is up to the individual states (or the federal government, should a national constitutional amendment be passed) to decide how they will grant rights that are additive to the U.S. constitution. So if the gay community wants those additional rights then they have to convince the voters that it benefits them (society) to grant those rights. To this point I have not been convinced that their lifestyle is as beneficial to society as traditional marriage, so I vote to withhold the additional rights they ask for.

Religious reasons for my decision...don't make me laugh. Fear of the gay community...no I don't think I'm going to get cooties from them if they are around, or that they're going to come murder me in my sleep. If you had not 'snipped' the rest of what I wrote I would not have had to reiterate the first half of the previous paragraph. Instead of 'snipping', convince me by making a legal argument that gay unions have been a right originally granted, and perpetually denied, since the founding of this nation. Instead of telling me to deny ignorance (how cute), convince me by showing me how gay unions benefit me.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I would vote in support for gay marriage.

The main problem I have with people who oppose it are the resons thay give are purely religious. Such as marriage is between and man and a woman, being gay is a sin, etc. Thanksfully in the US we have a small thing called Seperation of Church and State! Every argument I've heard against gay marriage goes against this idea of church and state.

In many states gay marriage is getting beaten in polls, This will change eventually. Polls show younger people are for gay marriage, it will happen.

Lastly I have aq uestion for any against it, especially married couples. Why do you care if your happily married and a gay couple you dont even know gets married, does that lessen the bond of your marriage? Does that make you gay? Are you a homophobe?

Dont mean to offend just trying to decide why anybody cares. Only in America is this such a major political issue when we have so many more important things to work on.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The question we should be asking is not if the government should recognize gay marriage, but if it should be recognizing normal marriage. Marriage is a religious, cultural and moral institution, not a government one. People have been getting married for thousands of years, and it has always been done under the guidance of some form of holy man. The state has no right to say who can and cannot be married; it is between a man, a woman, and God. Government has no place in the matrimonial affairs of anyone!

Some of you seem to forget that marriage as an institution is something that has been going on for thousands of years, and in all cultures. It has always been between a man and a woman. As such, I personally feel that a marriage ritual performed between a woman and a woman, a man and a man, or a man/woman and an animal is a mockery of a sacred ritual and is plain wrong and rude. A perversion, if you will. You want to have sex with those of the same gender or animals, go at it; it's your soul, your dignity, not mine. Just don’t mock thousands of years of sacred ritual matrimony.

So far as the benefits (see: armed robbery of citizens) go, they are intended to assist families, not couples. The idea is that those who get married a quite likely to have children, and more than one. Children are expensive. To ease the burden of "doing your duty to the party" as old Winston would put it, governments have created tax (and other) benefits to those families on account of the new crib/bigger house/baby clothes/bigger car/ect./ect. that must be purchased by a newlywed couple who has sex and creates a new American born citizen.

Do I think this right? No, not by a damn sight. Is this how it is? Yes, sorry if that hurts your feelings.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Wow, it amazes me that while the world seems to be falling down around us people and government waste time/ resources/ energy creating and sustaining such a fear-based divide. I mean really...get over it. Where's your tolerance, your understanding, your acceptance of people's differences?
Saying gays shouldn't marry makes about as much sense as saying people with blue eyes shouldn't marry. Generations from now...if the world is still turning...the discriminatory attitudes held ever so dearly by people today will be a source of shame and embarrassment. And so they should be. Your sons and daughters are dying in a war being fought so far from home. Many of those brave souls are homosexuals...are you telling me that they shouldn't have the same rights as yourself? Please. It's time for America to join other progressive countries and take a stand for human rights by making gay marriage legal.
Now, more than ever, I am proud to be Canadian.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kismet
Wow, it amazes me that while the world seems to be falling down around us people and government waste time/ resources/ energy creating and sustaining such a fear-based divide.


The world is falling down? Show me a history book that can point out just 1 full year when nations have not been at war with one another and I will show you a worthless book full of kindling. Are we to drop everything because people are killing are each other? Humanity has been in a perpetual state of war for as far back as we can trace it. Just because you are alive durring this time period to to see this war does not mean that world is falling down or that we should stop discussing things other than this war.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
You don't agree that the world is in a mess right now? Sure. history is wrought with violent conflict...all the more reason to take a position of inclusion and tolerance rather than continue in a system that separates and divides us over something as unimportant, in the big scheme of things, as who we are sleeping with, who we chose to love, and who we want to marry! And for the record, I believe that discussion may be the only way to make things better, so I certainly do not consider it to be a waste of time.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Kismet]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by camscout So far as the benefits (see: armed robbery of citizens) go, they are intended to assist families, not couples. The idea is that those who get married a quite likely to have children, and more than one. Children are expensive. To ease the burden of "doing your duty to the party" as old Winston would put it, governments have created tax (and other) benefits to those families on account of the new crib/bigger house/baby clothes/bigger car/ect./ect. that must be purchased by a newlywed couple who has sex and creates a new American born citizen.


Gays and lesbians have families, they are not just couples.
What about the gay parents who welcome into their family a 13 year old foster child. Imagine that if they did not take him this young man would come of age without the support of a loving family. Imagine that maybe he turns to a life of crime and spends years in prison on the American taxpayer. Thankfully life for this young man turned out differently. Perhaps this American born citizen and his family deserves and is due the same benifits afforded other families.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join