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.

 

Should Gays be allowed to marry?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:48 AM
link   
yet another nice objective insightfull comment by our moderators.

does simon interbread them in a big trailer park or somthing?




posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one
UP (and others) why do you continue to push the religious issue? if you want to do that take it to the religious forum.

- qo.


Hey, we're speaking about the both sides. The human & the Goddly side. So my post is not out of subject.

I'm sorry for you if the Bible and others Holly Books are not going in YOUR way and are not matching your point of view !



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Mein Kampf doesn't match our point of view either.........what exactly is your point?



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
NO! If they want to marry, they may also find another country to live in~!


Yeah, good idea. May be we can do like we did with the Jews & Israel ? We can set up a new country ( an island in the middle of nowhere ). We'll call it " Gays land " .



[Edited on 26-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
Mein Kampf doesn't match our point of view either.........what exactly is your point?


I tryed to point that we were speaking on this matter ( gay marriage ) and that the both side, the Goddly & the human, have to be used on this topic. He just don't like the " God point of view " cuz this point of view is opposite to his own. That was my point.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:

"I tryed to point that we were speaking on this matter ( gay marriage ) and that the both side, the Goddly & the human, have to be used on this topic. He just don't like the " God point of view " cuz this point of view is opposite to his own. That was my point."

however, you must have repeatedly missed my point. religion is a matter of faith. faith is personal. hence, religion is personal. since there is (and should be) freedom of religion, each individual is free choose whether or not they believe in - say - the bible. hence the bible nor any other religious point, arguement of issue MUST not be used to dictate legal policy to an entire populace.

in short: THE RELIGIOUS ISSUE IS DEAD. why? because the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an afront to god, it is evil, and as such gay marriage should never be religiously condoned. arguement over.

however, there is the issue of legal marriage, totally aside from any religious aspects, which can still be discussed. do you see my point UP?

- qo.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:06 AM
link   
he just proposed shipping homosexuals off to an island.
one very much doubt that "points" however succinctly written will have any effect on him.

Luckily, his view point while sickeningly prevelant on this web page is not dominant in society. its dying out, as, luckily, is christianity.

personally I'd give up on people like this and just wait ten or so years by which time they'll have died out.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne:

"Quiet One, it is a universally recognized more that same-sex relationships are not recognized. Don't let a biased media and politically active court system fool you, society does not want it at this time. Society changes and there will come a time when Adam and Steve is totally permissable, but we aren't there yet."

now ~this~ is an interesting post .... why is society "unready" for same-sex marriage? sure, the BNP and similar fascists want the whole of britain to be just the way they want it, but most sensible people are willing to give freedom to others. why can't people handle the freedom of same-sex marriage? certainly most of the people i know don't have a problem with it.

another point, if society ~is~ unready for same-sex marriage, should we not "force" society onwards? we have supposedly embraced personal freedom as part of our "civilised" society. should this not be part of that society, whether certain individuals like it or not?

- qo.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Its an interesting point but I think Thomas 's perception is flawed, certainly in Europe the prevelant attitude is that they should have all the freedoms granted to hetrosexuals.
this is specifically prevelant in the under 30's who have grown up with the concept of the "out" homosexual

take a poll of 100 people today and you'll probably see a 50 50 split, ask in 10 years time when the older generations who grew up during a time when it was a criminal offence have passed away and you'll see an incremental leep to somthing more like 90%

these statistics are of course speculatory but I'm fairly sure the sociology is there to back me up.

just as it only really took a generation to emancipate blacks in america once the paradigms were set up.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:17 AM
link   
i concur, so does anyone have any reasonable reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry?

so far TC has about the best arguement with "we're not ready for it yet", which i agree with lupe is innaccurate.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Even you posted my "as things are" - which is tantamount to wahat TC is saying.
In my post I also said: "real or potential damage to vast numbers of heterosexuals: simple things such as wills, inheritance,liability for debts and so forth."
The devil is, as so often, in the details and if you pause to investigate the legal and financial status of marriage in the West you will see why this is so.
And if there were legislative changes -could they be retroactive? Could a couple of homosexuals who had lived together for years decide they were married and had been for years and one of them claim back-taxes as a "married man"?
Many hosexuals have been married and had children - marriage is one of the things that automatically affects wills -could people suddenly find themselves disinherited? Would such homosexuals have to apply for a divorce from their previous heterosexual partner? Would such a homosexula be guilty of bigamy? etc etc.
Actually look at the laws, taxation and the like of your country in some detail, and with great attention, before you make such points.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Even you posted my "as things are" - which is tantamount to wahat TC is saying.
In my post I also said: "real or potential damage to vast numbers of heterosexuals: simple things such as wills, inheritance,liability for debts and so forth."
The devil is, as so often, in the details and if you pause to investigate the legal and financial status of marriage in the West you will see why this is so.
And if there were legislative changes -could they be retroactive? Could a couple of homosexuals who had lived together for years decide they were married and had been for years and one of them claim back-taxes as a "married man"?
Many hosexuals have been married and had children - marriage is one of the things that automatically affects wills -could people suddenly find themselves disinherited? Would such homosexuals have to apply for a divorce from their previous heterosexual partner? Would such a homosexual be guilty of bigamy? etc etc.
Actually look at the laws, taxation and the like of your country in some detail, and with great attention, before you make such points.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 07:23 AM
link   
"so does anyone have any reasonable reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry?"

there is no objective scientific reason why homosexuals should not enjoy all the freedoms of marriage awarded to hetrosexual couples out side the church.

there are people who don't think they should, but then there are people who think they should be burnt at the stake. both these groups argue from the stand point of a personal politic, they cannot be changed by reasoned argument because there simply are no reasons that can change someones own bigotr.

Luckily as I stated, their voice is a minority and often so full of hyperbole that its shrugged off and derided by most civilised sectors of society.

The law is changing, and will continue to change and, when the government gets to a point where it believes legalizing marriage won't loose it too many votes they will legalize it.

thats why this thread doesn't really matter, the pro mariage lots such as myself will get what we want in time and the anti marriage lot will be welcome to shout about it for as long as they exist, like a few still do in England about votes for women.

their opinion is vocal and empassioned but luckily doesnt actually matter



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one
Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:

1) religion is a matter of faith. faith is personal. hence, religion is personal.

2) since there is (and should be) freedom of religion, each individual is free choose whether or not they believe in - say - the bible. hence the bible nor any other religious point, arguement of issue MUST not be used to dictate legal policy to an entire populace.

3) in short: THE RELIGIOUS ISSUE IS DEAD. why? because the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an afront to god, it is evil, and as such gay marriage should never be religiously condoned. arguement over.

4) however, there is the issue of legal marriage, totally aside from any religious aspects, which can still be discussed. do you see my point UP?

- qo.


1) We are agree.

2) One more time, we are agree. Except for one point that we developped previously. The kids.If gays want to marry, ok. But for the kids, we have to count with them. I will be always opposite to this idea. Gay don't have to have childs.

3) Nope, it's not over. On this matter, we are speaking about marriage. A wedding can be civil and/or religious. What do you want to do ? The same topic, but in the religious forum ? We can't have 2, and by the way the Church say " NO ". We don't have the right to change the Bible or the Quran or the Torah cuz we don't like these books.

If you believe in God, you have to obey to the Bible. So, for me, a gay or a lesbian do not believe in God. It's impossible. You can say " I believe in God & the Bible, and in the other hand, doing a gay wedding.

Otherwise, you are, consciously, against God.
But if you don't believe in God, it's another story. Of course, if God exist really, you'll be in deeps troubles.


4) We can do it since the Church have been separated from the State. But sometimes, ( just sometime, not all the times ), I think that it wasn't a good idea.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Lupe_101 & QO ,

male + female = childrens.

male + male = no childrens.

female + female = no childrens.

It's like that in the nature ( and I don't speak about God, I wrote NATURE ).

And this is NOT bigotry, it's a fact ! Of course,you can use genetics engeneering or others scientifics stuffs, but this time, you change the normal evolutions of life.


Posted by Lupe_101 : " like a few still do in England about votes for women. "

You can't do this comparison. You can't compare an apple to a pear.



[Edited on 26-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 08:55 AM
link   
why the hell not.
you used a comparative argument with Homosexuals and paedophiles.

regardless, the concern here is not children its marriage, Marriage doesn't necesitate procreation, its a legal (and for some, philosophical) binding of two people.

To suggest that two men shouldn't marry because they can't procreate is like suggesting two women shouldn't own a joint bank account because they can't reproduce.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Because, Lupe, the total concept of marriage goes deeper than a bank account. The mere fact that things aren't as you wish it to be suggests society isn't ready for that.

You make it sound as if the Emancipation Proclamation Act was signed and *poof*, Blacks were equal to whites. As a matter of fact, in your usual cursory haste that ignores handfuls of facts along the way to push an askew point, you fail to notice the devil is, as Estragon pointed out, in the details.

No group of immigrant had it easy when coming to the U.S. The Black slaves were no different. The fact that the slave had no choice in coming here is moot to the point that everyone has to pay a price to become accepted in a society. That is just societal fact. Every other group managed to melt into the contents of the pot and become part of the group. This is not the case of the Black group, as government interference disrupts the natural flow of things and causes strife. The hate and racism that goes on between the Blacks and Whites can be laid at the feet of the government interfering. Making a mistake is one thing, not learning from it and trying to do the same thing and get different results isn't too bright.

You want to know when such time that society is ready for such a concept? Allow it up for vote, not a political maneuever. Otherwise there'll never be the acceptance you hope for.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:38 AM
link   
"You want to know when such time that society is ready for such a concept? Allow it up for vote, not a political maneuever. Otherwise there'll never be the acceptance you hope for."

I don't accept that. I don't elect a government to tell it what to do, I elect a government based on it performing the reforms I wish to see.

Labour has been progressive when it comes to a number of issues, one, which was in their original manifesto and widely touted, was to lower the age of concent for gay couples to 18.

they were voted in on their policys and philosophy by the majority of people and, whilst I don't like some of their new initiatives I deal with them because I like other initiatives.

thats why I'll vote for them again.

and thats why people who are opposed to gay marriage will also vote for them, because, even though they don't like that policy, they approve of others.

hence they will eventually allow it so long as they feel the move wont be so adverse as to cause those who don't approve of that policy to ignore the policys they do approve of.

hence most social change happens before a society is "ready" and becomes accepted over time.

you should also bear in mind that England pretty much is ready.

we have a 1 in 10 gay ratio here, and most of the younger generation are pro the move, a poll as I said would probably give a 50:50 split.

(and thats being generous to the anti gay lobby and, frankly, insulting to the older generations who have also allways believed or come to terms with sexual parity)

society is ready.

U.P. on the other hand is not.

luckily his views are not in the majority and like christianity are slowly dying out.

thank baccus.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:40 AM
link   
"Should gays be allowed to marry"

We seem to have lost the plot a little here ...

Sure let gays live together, cohabit, do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, I have no hangups with that.

But the MARRY part I do....

Marriage is not just a social contact, you don't need one nowdays, but it is fundamentally a religious rite.

You are asking God to bless the union of the couple. You are asking for society to support the union of the couple.

God for sure wouldn't do that.. he can't bless the union of something he describes as abhorent...

Maybe society can ... but then they can show their commitment in other ways outside the realms of "marriage".

So what you are wanting is not the christian rite of marriage, maybe you can create your own pagan rite of bonding ...

.. and use that....


Lupe said..
"we have a 1 in 10 gay ratio here, and most of the younger generation are pro the move, a poll as I said would probably give a 50:50 split. "

Lupe those figures are wrong, the author was 'outed' as a fraud years ago, he manufactured his data to support his stand.

The 'real' data is only about 2-5% but with low numbers like that the Gay support would drop markedly, as they are a smaller voting part and power block than previously thought, so the 10% fallacy is still widely reported..




[Edited on 27-11-2002 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by James the Lesser
"Thou shalt not take it in the rear by another guy" .


But there is a phrase, something like :
You'll not do/go with a man like you do/go with a woman. I'm not sure for the phraseology.




[Edited on 26-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]


I believe the bible verse(s) you are referring to are :

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Leviticus 20:13




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join