Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gay marriage. Your View?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance
Do you truly believe God wanted the sacrament of marriage for men to marry men?


There is nothing in the current marriage laws that say that marriage is a sacrament. Straight people do not have to be Christians to be married. Straight atheist, Buddhist, Pagans, Jews, Satanists, and others all have the right to marry. So, marriage is not granted purely on one's religion and doesn't have to be based on it. Why shouldn't I have the same rights?


Originally posted by zerotolerance
Hmmm, I wonder how he expected them to get pregnant and give birth to their kids?


Again, there is no law that says married people must have children. However, since the subject of children was raised, millions of straight people have managed to either not have children, abuse their children, or give their child/ren up for adoption. So, we can't base marriage on the ability to have and successfully raise children either.

If marriage was based on the ability to have children, every straight person would have to undergo an extensive medical exam to insure fertility before a marriage license could be issued. Don't you think it would be discrimination if a straight man were denied the right to marry because his sperm count was a little low? What if a couple was married, and then before they had children the woman suffered some accident or illness and had to have a hysterectomy? Would you have the marriage anulled?




posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
To ban gay marriage, or indeed to limit it in any way that heterosexual marriages are not limited is in my opinion both immoral and against the Constitution in at least two ways (hence, I know, the effort to distract the population, er, I mean the effort to ammend the Constitution):


Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(Emphases mine)

Source: US Constitution

Amendment XIV clearly states that all citizens of the US, and subject to US law, are to receive equal protection under said law. A law limiting the privileges of marriage to a significant portion of the population is clearly in violation of this amendment.

This is reinforced by Amendment IX. Since heterosexual people have the right to marry under US law, and since Amendment 14 guarantees equal protection under the law, this amendment (9) states that gay people also have the right to marry under secular law, even if this right is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

And morally, banning these marriages is bigotry, plain and simple. It is no more justifiable than bigotry against people of other races, or bigotry against women. For every single horror story anybody can dream up about how gay people 'warp' marriage, at least one story of the same type exists, starring heterosexual people. Trying to blanket all gay people by the actions of a few (whose actions are really none of anybody's concern) is as obscene as saying all black people are thieves.




Originally posted by zerotolerance

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There's no place in secular law that says you have to marry for love.

:shk:
I'm glad I'm not your spouse...


Actually, BH did not elaborate about the reasons behind her marriage. She was referring to the fact that secular law does not require love to be the reason for marriage. BH very much married for love. She is in a very stable, very loving relationship. One that also enjoys legal benefits. I know this is true, because I'm the one she married.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance

What planet is everyone from around here?


Earth, so i was taught .... . .. .



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance
The whole gay marriage issue is a total joke. Why? Because it's extremely, extremely, extremely extremely rare for 2 gay men to stay monogamous.


Let's assume (again) that this is true... So what? They obviously have an arrangement that is their relationship, whether married, living together or just dating. Being monogamous is also not required by law in most places. And even if it was, how often does it really happen?

So, your argument is that they shouldn't be allowed to get married because their marriage wouldn't look like you think it should? Some heterosexuals practice "Open Marriage", so that's not a 'gay' thing.




Do you truly believe God wanted the sacrament of marriage for men to marry men?
Hmmm, I wonder how he expected them to get pregnant and give birth to their kids?


I honestly couldn't say what God wants, but obviously you know his mind... As I said, there are other reasons for marriage besides religion, love and now having kids. As hets, we get to say.
So should gays.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I always thought Marriage was in the realm of religion, not politics. That decision should be left more to the religious institutions rather than the politicians to make.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Leaving to the religious institutions won't work. A church can't okay health insurance for my partner or make it okay for us to file taxes jointly. There are many rights that straight people enjoy when they are married to which I cannot gain access. This makes marriage more than a religious institution.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I fail to see what the problem with gay marriage is, if not now they are going to end up approving it in 20 or 40 years.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
1st, Marriage is not a "right" in any context. Exactly like a Drivers License one must first obtain a License to be married (Non religious sectarian view point), that means you can possibly be denied the license. That by very definition, make it a privilege granted by the individual state. NO one, hetero or Homo sexual has the RIGHT to be married.

That said, who cares if Gays get married? It is their life and they can do as they please. My life will not change one whit either way.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   
For banning gay marriage: 1

Against banning: 13

Statements by Lysergic and sweatmonicaIdo ambiguous, therefore not tabulated.

Oh, sorry, make that 14 against. I forgot to count myself.

Pretty nearly a walkover.

Hardly what I expected. And as for our one holdout...


Originally posted by zerotolerance
The whole gay marriage issue is a total joke. Why? Because it's extremely, extremely, extremely extremely rare for 2 gay men to stay monogamous.

Are you saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't be trusted to respect their vows? That's absurdly judgemental. I expect someone in flight from the gay community (and their own sexuality), looking back on a part of their life that now terrifies them, might be led by those emotions to adopt such a position. Set emotion aside, however, and what you are doing, zerotolerance, is stigmatizing a minority in order to justify oppressing it. Just like Hitler did to the Jews, in fact. Whatever your personal problems, punishing others for them is rarely a good solution.

Here are two vital points that cannot be stressed enough:


Originally posted by Zeratul
I fail to see what the problem with gay marriage is, if not now they are going to end up approving it in 20 or 40 years.

Absolutely. It's like suffrage: once you start extending a privilege to more and more people, you start building a momentum that eventually turns the privilege into a right and makes it universal. John Stuart Mill pointed this out over a century ago.


Originally posted by Crakeur
Same sex couples who are together for ten, twenty, whatever years, and they own a home together etc, are screwed when one of them dies.

In fact, two of my friends, a gay couple living in Singapore, are now at an age where this is getting to be a problem for them (they've been a couple for 25 now, zerotolerance, so rare or not, it does happen). One partner is English, so they could probably move to the UK if they wanted, but the other, a Straits Chinese, is reluctant to live in a 'cold country', as he calls it. They've made wills, but the Chinese partner reckons his family will contest his will in court probably win; that's the way it works in that society. Singapore is not a good place for gays, or for anyone else who deviates too far from the norm.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Kudos to you, zerotolerance, for sticking to your guns while comprehensively outnumbered. I think it's only fair to add that, even though I couldn't disagree with you more.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Straight people aren't any more faithful than homosexuals.


Actually, they are.

Google up homosexual infidelity studies. The average lesbian couple
stays together 3 years. The average male homosexual couple stays
together 1.5 years. The number of 'additional partners' that male
homosexuals average is staggering.

And then there are the 'bug chasers' ... (yes, they are real)

I have a lesbian friend. She and her partner have been together 10 years.
They are an anomaly. A gay male friend that I went to high school with
has been with his partner for close to 25 years. They are also an anomaly.
Even though they are 'out of the norm' statistically, I wouldn't be against them
being allowed to 'make it legal'. Heck ... the average length of a heterosexual
marriage is only 5 years.

That being said - I really don't want the constitution touched for this. It's
a 'states rights' thing. Each state should determine if they want legal
homosexual unions or not. That's my opinion.


[edit on 6/9/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The argument that homosexual marriages undermine the sanctity of marriage is outdated. Marriage has very little sanctity left. The revolving door to marriage/divorce is spinning so fast it could be a fan.

I discovered a few years ago that my company insurance covered unmarried same sex partners but not opposite sex unmarried partners. Their reasoning was that gays could not get married.

I say we’re all equal. If two people love each other let them get married.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
What is marriage? If it is a religious rite or religious ceremony then that religion has the right to decide for itself as it is a creation of that religion. However being in what is said to be a democracy, everyone should have the same rights, thus the right of a civil/common wealth (or whatever they are calling it these days) joining.

Personally (not being religious) I have no need of marriage nor does my gf. We see it as merely a tradition for the sake of a tradition. We have pledged ourselves to one another and do not require the approval of a third party to validate our feelings or commitment.


This pretty much states my views as well. I find one thing interesting though. There is a big push to seperate Church and State everywhere but on the subject of marriage. Is marriage a State institution or is it a function of religion? If it is religion then I have to say that each religion should be allowed to state its own policies. If it is State then I have to agree to allow same sex marriages. Personally I think that we could dodge alot of bullets if we determine that marriage is a religious institution. Then the states could permit same sex unions and we could use the Church and State arguement to keep the issue out of schools. I am getting married next month and from the classes I have had to attend it looks to me that marriage belongs to Religion.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Is marriage a State institution or is it a function of religion?


In a religious marriage, you still have to sign LEGAL papers, or you're not legally married and cannot enjoy the LEGAL benefits of marriage.

In a civil marriage, you have to sign LEGAL papers, and no religious component is required.

The religious component is an add-on.

Marriage is a STATE institution. Many have a religious ceremony as well, but that's NOT what determines if you're 'married'. It's that little legality that determines marriage.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I beleive there should be gay marriage. It seems unfair that heterosexuals can marry, but homosexuals cannot. It's discrimination.

Also, from another viewpoint than 'right' or 'wrong', comes the issue of the partner being included in matters of life. For instance, my uncle (who is gay) lives halfway across the country. If something would happen to him and there would be medical decisions that need to be made, it would be hard for my family to get there and be able to make those decisions in a timely matter. There should be gay marriage so his partner can be able to make those same decisions the family would.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I can see this board is loaded with liberals. If it feels good, do it and while we're at it, reward the doer.

As I said in another thread, it is my belief that homosexuality is a sin and quite unnatural. Therefore gay marriage is on the same path with me. This country was once a hallmark of good things and that is being eroded each and every day. In fact we are getting close to Sodom and Gomorra in they way we live. Although I have seen allot of differences between lesbians and gay men in the way they live, I still can't give a pass to the women either.

Many here are forgetting the benefits that go along with Marriage. Some examples are health coverage, savings plans and/or pension benefits, tax advantages and the list goes on. Also, I believe it is very important for a child to have both parents (mother and father) in the home whenever possible.


Elf alluded to the fact that marriage is not what it used to be. While that may be true it doesn't mean we have to allow it to continue on this destructive path. The sanctity of marriage that our parents demonstrated is now becoming disposable and a joke. My Mother and Father were married for almost 50 years before my Dad died. They went thru many hardships as well as times where they didn’t get along but they worked thru it all and raised 3 children.

Finally, I would advise you to read some of my other posts before you start name calling and labeling me.

JMO



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
I can see this board is loaded with liberals.
....
Finally, I would advise you to read some of my other posts before you start name calling and labeling me.


I have no desire to call names or label you. I see you have no qualms about throwing the 'liberal' label around, though!


Perhaps you should take your own advice.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
I can see this board is loaded with liberals. If it feels good, do it and while we're at it, reward the doer.
...


Hmmmm, first time I've heard a strict Constitutionalist labeled as 'liberal'. See Amendments 9 and 14.

My argument against this form of bigotry is largely based on these two Amendments. Equal protection under secular law. My opinion of homosexuality, or your opinion, is irrelevant.


edit for spelling

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
I can see this board is loaded with liberals. If it feels good, do it and while we're at it, reward the doer.


I am not a liberal. I am, however, for human rights.


As I said in another thread, it is my belief that homosexuality is a sin and quite unnatural. Therefore gay marriage is on the same path with me. This country was once a hallmark of good things and that is being eroded each and every day. In fact we are getting close to Sodom and Gomorra in they way we live. Although I have seen allot of differences between lesbians and gay men in the way they live, I still can't give a pass to the women either.


I can find nothing in the Bible that is against gay marriage. I do agree on the Sodom and Gomorrah point. God destroyed those cities due to their violence and selfishness. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.



Many here are forgetting the benefits that go along with Marriage. Some examples are health coverage, savings plans and/or pension benefits, tax advantages and the list goes on. Also, I believe it is very important for a child to have both parents (mother and father) in the home whenever possible.


This is exactly why I am for gay marriage. Do you think that gays should not have the same rights as everyone else? Are you aware of the number of single parent homes among heterosexuals?


Elf alluded to the fact that marriage is not what it used to be. While that may be true it doesn't mean we have to allow it to continue on this destructive path. The sanctity of marriage that our parents demonstrated is now becoming disposable and a joke. My Mother and Father were married for almost 50 years before my Dad died. They went thru many hardships as well as times where they didn’t get along but they worked thru it all and raised 3 children.


The genie is out of the bottle. My mom’s second marriage lasted 48 years until she and my dad passed away in February. They raised six kids. One died in his teen years, one has been married twice and I have been married multiple times. The other three have been married to the same person for years. I have one sister who is coming up on her 30th anniversary, one who is coming up on her 25th, and my baby brother is coming up on his 16th anniversary. Divorce is too easy but some do manage to get it right the first time. Allowing gays to marry has absolutely no bearing on my on anyone else’s marriage. It does not change the sanctity of anyone’s marriage.


Finally, I would advise you to read some of my other posts before you start name calling and labeling me.


I would never label you or call you names.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I have no problem with people who are gay getting married. They should have that freedom.

Some say it is a choice to be gay some say it is something you are born into and have no choice.

It is really both, depending on the person. I have seen a few people that I knew of since childhood, that acted like the oposite sex from the time they were very young. I guess you could say they were born with too much estrogene or testosterone, depending on the sex.

There are also quite a few that make the choice out of nessecity. I know of people that who in the teen years and beyond, because of various reasons, (usually because of appearance) had to choose to be gay, or be alone. I almost had to make that choice because I was over-weight. Because the public was unaccepting of this choice at the time I stayed alone and held out. Thank GOD for that. I lost weight, found the woman I love and now have grandchildren. None of the hardships of being with the same-sex partner, and I have been with my soulmate, and am really happy, because I was never attracted to the same sex, but when you are young and dumb, flesh is flesh.

I dont know for sure what would have happened in this time of teens being nearly transgendered in this present time. I may have made the wrong choice.

My point is this. There are a lot of teens teatering one way or the other and only need that little push, lets make sure we are responcible, thinking, caring adults and push them in the right direction. Let them know there are some that can choose and some that cannot because of the way they are born. Dont make this something trendy, or so politicly correct that some poor kid makes the wrong choices in life, I think there are many more that are like that than you would think.

Also I must say, it is NOT a right to be a parent. Children are inoccent and do not need to have something that most of nature doesnt participate in be a role model for them from the time they are young. That is a very selfish thing to do IMHO.

One of the big problems with this country is the fact that no one knows there role in life. More and more we go down this path of thinking we should all do the same thing. We are different, and have different skills for the most part. We are politacly correcting ourselves to death.

I know of a Firefighter that is the guy YOU want helping you when you are in a bad place. This person is also an instructor at our local fire accedamy. There was a female student that during ladder rescue of an unconcience patient didnt have the strength to lower this other student down the ladder. The fire instructor took her aside and stated "If you really want to do this you should start lifting weights". Did not even hint towards a gender bias, just stated the fact that she needs to make herself stronger. You see we go into structure fires as teams, and if I go through a floor into a flaming basement filled with black smoke, (burning basements are like hell) she needs to be strong enough to help me get out so I dont die down there. Every female Firefighter I know is strong enough to do this, they made themselves that way. Because of this policaly correct world this case is getting out of hand and this Firefighter is going to be sued and lose his instructor status for this incident. He may even lose his job, this would be a bad thing for our community, because this guy WILL risk his life to save YOUR kids.

Society needs to start using its collective head, and stop trying to save everyones feelings!





new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join