It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


For gay marriage or aginst it?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:40 AM
Most of what I might have said here has already been said, by various posters, so I'm going to just sort of hit the high points.

First, I couldn't care less about same-sex marriages. I refuse to accept religious arguments against this or any other human activity. If an activity causes direct harm to another person, then it should be prohibited. Same sex marriages do NOT do such harm-- at least no more harm than the contention that might arise in any marriage, and as such should not be prohibited. A same-sex couples matrimonial state has no effect on my life (with a few exceptions, that I'll get to in a bit), so it's really none of my affair.

However, as noted, married couples are granted addititional rights that non-married couples generally do not have. Some of these are fairly straightforward-- custodianship (in case of medical emergency or such) and inheritance come quickly to mind. Others are constructs related specifically to the government, and I personally believe it's these, rather than any notion of "representing the will of the people" that has led governments to attempt to ban gay marriage-- specifically, the right to collect on one's spouse's Social Security, to file joint tax returns and to share assets (thus largely avoiding inheritance taxes). The government stands to lose a fair amount of money if gay marriage was allowed-- in part from decreased tax income and in part in increased outlays for entitlement programs, and it's almost certainly this single point that has made the issue of interest to governments.

As has already been stated, the problem isn't really that the government has some manner of control over gay marriages, but that it has some manner of control over ANY marriages. Marriage is a contractual civil institution, and as such is simply a binding agreement between two people-- no different than any other contractual arrangement. The only authority that the government normally has over such arrangements is to require that the people involved are legally able to enter such an agreement-- that they're adults of sound mind and such. Just as there's no provision that gays cannot sell cars to each other, there should be no provision that gays cannot marry each other, and there wouldn't be if government had not been allowed to control marriage in the first place.

As an aside, this is where religious arguments fall down, and is a fine example of another reason why religious matters and state matters should be kept separate. If the churches had not allowed the state to interfere in a matter that was once strictly their domain, then they would still be able to determine their own rules for who should or should not be allowed to marry. So long as the state supported the traditional religious notion of marriage, the churches were perfectly content to allow it to usurp their control. Now, when some govenrments appear ready to contravene religious views on the issue, is far too late to start complaining.

As another aside-- gay marriage WILL become a reality unless the government does manage to pass a Constitutional amendment banning it. Existing law forbids the government to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so all that will be necessary is for a case to wend its way through the legal system, probably all the way to the Supreme Court, before the government will be compelled, under existing law, to allow it. Sooner or later, all laws barring same-sex marriage will be overturned, since they already are contrary to existing anti-discrimination laws.

And personally, and sincerely, I couldn't care less who marries whom. That's their problem-- not mine.

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:23 AM
It is cavscout, friend. The v is nowhere near the m. Honest mistake, I am sure, but it matters to me. You see, a cavscout, or Cavalry Scout, 19DELTA, Reconnaissance Specialist, is a man trained to sneak miles into enemy held territory and scout out the roads, conditions, enemy, obstacles and any thing of value and disrupt the enemy in any way possible while doing so, to include the searching out and destroying of enemy scouts, all in a 2-3 man team. I take pride in the fact that I am a combat tested cavscout, I just don’t take pride in the war I was tested in. Just in case you wanted to know.

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.
And just how many gay couples do you suppose adopt children? Do you really think it is even a majority? I would be surprised if it was even 1%. Now, to put that into perspective, how many normal couples do you suppose have children? It’s got to be allot, cus the world is getting smaller and smaller every day.

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
So sorry, not my problem.

and spends years in prison on the American taxpayer.
Pure evil, the fact that I have to pay to support millions in prison when 70% of them are there due to non violent drug related offences. How about we start trimming back the other useless laws that put him there, as well as not-government-business marriage laws? Maybe then, when said 13 year child (oops, I mean career criminal) gets a legit. job, he can keep his money and not have to turn to crime in order to avoid taxes and republicrat juggernaut coming between him and a living. Now, what were you saying about putting a band-aid on the problem by sticking that child in the home with two dads and no moms? Hell, I know being orphaned and then placed into a home with a gay couple at 13 (way to late to adjust to living with a gay couple, sorry if that offends some, just "keeping it real") I would probably rebel.

Which leads to one of the points so many have tried to make and that is the moral decay of our nation (you brought this one on yourself with your 13 career criminal what-ifs.) However you may feel about organized religion, you cannot deny that on the whole (lets not bring the priests into this, they are a very small percentage of Catholicism, which is the largest religion in the world even when you don’t count the protestant Christians) Christianity teaches morals. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t sleep with a chick/dude that aint yours, turn the other cheek ( you know the rest.) So, you would argue that it is healthier for a nation of degenerates to deny Christianity than to embrace it? You think a person who grows up in a Godless home (sorry if that offends anyone, see: The Bible for explanation) is more likely to turn out good? Good luck selling that.

Thankfully life for this young man turned out differently.
I will wait to see the numbers showing that orphans raised by Dad and Dad are less prone to a life of "crime" than orphans raised by no one before I concede to that. Not holding my breath.

Perhaps this American born citizen and his family deserves and is due the same benifits afforded other families.

Perhaps. And perhaps my family and I deserve to keep our hard earned cash to take care of us instead of married couples (fake-marriage gays included) along with welfare mothers, welfare CEOs, welfare nations, jack-booted thugs, and just plain rude and criminally meddling demopublicans sending Robin Hood and his band of merry IRS agents to commit armed robbery against me (yes, armed robbery; if I don’t pay my taxes, men with guns will evict my family from our home and sell it to subsidize the income of all of the above.)

Sleep with whomever you want. "Love" whomever you want. Just don’t use your lust/love to justify stealing my family's money.

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 07:53 AM

Originally posted by cavscout
People have been getting married for thousands of years, and it has always been done under the guidance of some form of holy man.
It has always been between a man and a woman.

These statements are simply factually incorrect! Do some research and you will find just the opposite is true. Marriage predates religion. Gay marriage has a long history.

Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's false...

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 08:29 AM
I don't care if gay people get married or not.

What I DO care about is sexual issues of any kind being
discussed in schools at too young of an age - this includes
the gay issues.

3rd graders being shown how to put condoms on bananas?

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 10:43 AM

Marriage predates religion.

Pshaw. The earliest historical records still extant, aside from records of business transactions, are myths and religious texts. The Epic of Gilgamesh-- an account of the Assyrian gods-- is the earliest existing work of "fiction" known. Religion dates back to the first time that some primitive human wondered what the stars were, or where the weather came from, or what happened to people when they died, and theorized about a being who was in charge of it all, and that moment no doubt predates damned near everything other than pointed sticks and senseless grunts.

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Religion dates back to the first time that some primitive human wondered what the stars were...

Did this primitive human have a mate? Was he forming a family?

Because if you're going to count "wondering at the stars" as religion, then I think we can count dragging a mate home as marriage.

[edit on 19-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 12:44 PM
I'm for the .gov getting out of the marriage business entirely.

People should be free to voluntarily enter into whatever kind of contracts they want, the definition of "family" should be up to the individuals involved, not some bureaucracy.

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:16 PM
I'm for gay marriage. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to marry unless your a brainwashed twisted hater who follows Christianity. I can't believe that we are making such a big deal about this. Why don't we just get slavery back while were at it? It's no different than what were doing to the gay community. Time for the Gov't and Religion to just get the hell out of dodge and quit screwing with people.

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:39 PM
for - love is love, it should be celebrated, and with the divorce rate as it id these days they probably wont last longer then two years is two people in love getting married hurting anyone? who cares what sex they prefer? I mean all it is these days is a Contract that can be broken at anytime, that people spend lots of money on and eat lots of expensive cheese celebrating.

posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Eye Of Ra
how is two people in love getting married hurting anyone?
If you are interested enough to post, then you should also be interested enough to read others posts. Look upl.

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:11 AM
Bandar Paul has the right idea. lol nj

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:57 AM
For gay marriage
whether it's called marriage or union or whatever. I agree that in theory, the government has no place in marriage; in practicality the govt. must have a place. A legally binding (marriage) contract is designed to protect the parties involved. Nothing more.

Here's an example: A man and a woman of different skin colors are legally married. One of them gets hit by a train and winds up in a coma. Because of that legal contract, and the rights associated with it; the partner to the coma patient can sit by their spouses side day after day, even if one of the hospital staff believes the marriage is wrong.

That's the heart of the issue for me. It's all about protecting the citizens of my country. ALL the citizens, whether I agree them or not.

posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 12:05 PM
Believe it or not, I am FOR gay marriage!

If a gay guy wants to marry a lesbian woman, I see no problem with that.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4
Believe it or not, I am FOR gay marriage!

If a gay guy wants to marry a lesbian woman, I see no problem with that.

Carsellers postion on the gay marriage issue raises a more important issue. In two lines Carseller debunked the sterotype of the "conserative" or "right winger" I ask that members take a moment to think about this.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Busymind
I agree that in theory, the government has no place in marriage; in practicality the govt. must have a place. A legally binding (marriage) contract is designed to protect the parties involved. Nothing more.

Why does the government need to get involved to make a contract? Contracts are made every day without having to go down to the courthouse and perform a ceremony. What if me and my strait friend, who is not my "partner" or spouse, want to sign a contract that he has the right to the plug on me if I am veging out? What would that be called?

Two people, gay or strait, friends or lovers, should be able to enter into any contract they want without government interference. If my brother and I buy a house together and we want to will it and its contents to each other, do we need to be married to do it?

Government has no place in marriage.

That's the heart of the issue for me. It's all about protecting the citizens of my country. ALL the citizens, whether I agree them or not.

Well good for you. Now start protecting my right not to have any married couple send armed men to my house and steal on their behalf.
Thanks, I appreciate it.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:10 AM
Yet another gay issue thread. This is getting boring.

In edition 18 of the ATS, UM_Gazz talked about the lack of new and different ideas... At this point I agree. I knew exactly what was going to be said by whom in this thread before I even opened it.

Well, since I bothered replying I might just as well voice my humble opinion.
I am gay, and I couldn't care less if gay marriages are legalised or not.
For those who missed it, South Africa legalised gay marriages last year round about this time. A lesbian couple (who are divorced by now) did the whole Supreme Court (and court of Appeal) exercise, won the battle and legalised gay marriages.

And since then you don't see homosexuals running to the magistrate’s office to get married. Actually I personally don't know a single married gay couple. Why? They just don't care.

Homosexuals don't want special rights. They just want to be seen as equals. There's but a handful "fighting" for gay rights to be equal - the rest just don't care. To me it's all about being equal as well. To be seen as just another couple. Just another person. Without the gay label on it.

I am (obviously) not married. All my legal documents have inclusions (or exclusions) for my life-partner, and we have also a sworn statement that we are life-partners. Maybe when I get older I'll be concerned with marriage and what it entails.

This is just another homophobe issue. It's once again a case that some people are against homosexuality, and anything that can be "in favour of" homosexuality, they are against. They'll use any argument (call religion, "technical definitions", blah, blah blah) to support the "anti-gay" campaign.

This is so boring.

Can I test a theory? Is it true that all homophobes (and people who are against homosexuality) don't know any homosexual people (personally)? And vice versa, that all people who are for homosexuality (or rather NOT against it) have a gay friend, family member, etc?

SA Gay Marriages Legal
Coverage of the Same Sex battle court case
Same sex marraige around the globe
South African pens US gay marriage decision

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:20 AM

Originally posted by rock_the_spot
I am againt gay marriages. It is wrong and goes against common traditional family values.

god made adam and eve, not adam and steve.

Funny you should quote Little Richard. Maybe you should investigate his preferences a little.

I'm for. I agree, deny hate.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 05:50 AM

Originally posted by rock_the_spot

I am againt gay marriages. It is wrong and goes against common traditional family values.

god made adam and eve, not adam and steve.

I just wanted to point out that Adam and Eve were never married, at least legally.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 10:38 AM
I really do not have anything against gay marriage or gay people, I just do not like the idea that there should be gay marriage.

I am for gay marriage. It's really none of the government's bussiness (the sexual prefernce of people).

Your right. It really isnt any of the governments business. Just another thing for us to figure out. Quesions to ask are:

Why should the government REALLY care that much if people are gay or not?

My answer to this would have to be Tax Reforms. When you sign a W-4, you are basically telling the government how much money you are going to give them, and if your spouse will be on your taxes. Can gay people be married and still tie in a tax reform to pay the government?

I mean really, how could this benefit the country in any way by not allowing homosexuals to be married?

It cant benifit the country. Just being married to the opposite sex doesnt benefit the country as well as a gay marriage would, right?

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?

I do not think that the governtment should be there to tell us what we should or shouldnt do with relationships. Pretty much one of the only reasons I can think of is the tax reforms and how the government gets their money. That has always been a big problem.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 12:30 PM
i believe that if you are in love then you should be able to get married if you wish.
gays-straight etc... marriage is about love and respect, its got nothing to do with your gender.

so i am not against any person who is gay to get married to their loved one.

oni x x

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in