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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2002 @ 08:30 PM
link   


Halloween, by the way, Isn't a Christian recognized day. Just because it happens in America doesn't mean its a Christian event.


It happens to be the day after all Saints day, which is a Christian event. Coincidence? I think not...




posted on Nov, 30 2002 @ 01:55 AM
link   
is anyone still discussing this? It is moot. What everyone thinks everyone else thinks, even what the majority think in this democracy, doesn't make a rat's arse difference. Everyone will just have to put up with the fact that a NGO has more money and can get what they want. Homo-sexuals may still be discriminated against, but they wont be by the law. Another fine example of the law representing the will of the people, and by that, I mean, everyone wants fair laws, in spite of their own opinion.



posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

NO ! They don't have to be allowed !

Otherwise, the next step will be : " Ooooh, look, I'm a zoophile and I would like to marry my dog. Who want to be my witness ? "

And don't forget the childrens. For some of you, it's sound stupid and " retrograde ", but a kid need a mother AND a father. Not 2 fathers or 2 mothers.

Are you all crazy ????

A society need some moral fences, otherwise this society will collapse !

Call me an homophobe if you want, I don't care !


Ok, you're a homophobe.

But you're right about moral fences and societal collapse: we need to eradicate your kind of bigotry or society will continue to degenerate.

Children need love. It is ideal if they have more than one adult to care for them, only because parenting is a tough job, and like anything, many hands make light work. However, that can't always happen. There are one-parent families and same-sex families who are wonderfully caring and loving. There are hetereosexual parents who should never be allowed near children. (This I know from my own experience.)

Andrea Yates' kids didn't benefit much from the religious, mom-at-home lifestyle they "enjoyed."

There are too many variables. Your prejudices are not justified, except in your own mind. Your ideology is limiting to children all over the world who need good care.

Remember that gay couple in Florida who devoted their lives to foster children, most of whom were sick, some with AIDS? The state considers them ok enough to care for a dying child day and night, while having several other foster children in their care at the same time. That's fine. But can they adopt them? No. They're gay.

That might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but just know, your hatred and discrimination is more disgusting than any "unnatural" act of sex you can imagine.

Oh, and another thing. Most sexual abuse against children is committed by straight men, the ones you WOULD allow to marry.



posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 08:55 PM
link   
i personally have no problem with it, so long as they don't flaunt it. i have no desire to see to people of the same sex making out in public. and actually i have no desire to see 2 people of the opposite sex making out in public. So by all means if it makes you happy then more power to ya.



posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Hey Thomas, why the Ten Commandments in the bible? It was given to Moses, a jew. Christians stole it like everything else. You don't have one holiday that wasn't stolen from a pagan holiday.

And Halloween is a christian holiday. It was stolen from the witches Sowiehn(sp?) They used it to say if you don't celebrate the pagan holiday, you can be in ours.

Well, many religous reasons why not, by any legal ones?
Actually, here a question, why don't religons pay taxes when they interfere with laws and decisions so much? They suppose to be seperate, yet the church affects the state whenever it can. I fear to see what would happen if a Catholic got to be president. Never be in the country, be over at the Vatacin being the churches puppet. Banning everything but catholic church and molesting little boys.



posted on Dec, 12 2002 @ 09:18 PM
link   
btw, should polygamists be allowed to marry then also?



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 06:42 AM
link   
slightly old now, but ....

"The Government has announced plans for same-sex couples to be granted many of the same rights as married ones as part of a legally recognised 'civil partnerships' scheme."

news.bbc.co.uk...

a step in the right direction ....

- qo.
btw, there are several other links off the page to similar articles.



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by St. Theresa

1) Ok, you're a homophobe.

2) But you're right about moral fences and societal collapse: we need to eradicate your kind of bigotry or society will continue to degenerate.

3) Children need love. It is ideal if they have more than one adult to care for them, only because parenting is a tough job, and like anything, many hands make light work. However, that can't always happen. There are one-parent families and same-sex families who are wonderfully caring and loving. There are hetereosexual parents who should never be allowed near children. (This I know from my own experience.)

4) Andrea Yates' kids didn't benefit much from the religious, mom-at-home lifestyle they "enjoyed."

5) There are too many variables. Your prejudices are not justified, except in your own mind. Your ideology is limiting to children all over the world who need good care.

6) Remember that gay couple in Florida who devoted their lives to foster children, most of whom were sick, some with AIDS? The state considers them ok enough to care for a dying child day and night, while having several other foster children in their care at the same time. That's fine. But can they adopt them? No. They're gay.

7) That might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but just know, your hatred and discrimination is more disgusting than any "unnatural" act of sex you can imagine.

8) Oh, and another thing. Most sexual abuse against children is committed by straight men, the ones you WOULD allow to marry.


1) Yes I'm homophobe.
And what ? I don't like gay peoples. Where is the problem ? We can't like/luv everything. We have all many things and situations that we don't like/luv.

2) The degenrates, here, it's you and the peoples like you.


3) Of course childrens need love ! Did I say the opposite ? I don't think so ! And you can say what you want, the nature gave us a reproduction system in 2 parts.One female and one male. You need both of them to do kids.

4) I don't know Andrea Yates kids story.


5) Well St Theresa, I love childs. And I think that all of them have to have a good live. A kid is a kid for me, and I don't look if they are blacks/white/green/purple/yellow.

6) Exceptions are dangerous.That's why Florida State refused.

7) That's what you think.It's your right. But I have a different POV on this matter. Sorry if I don't share your " ideology ".
After all, we are living in a democracy ( ??? ), and we have all the right to have a differents POV on many matters, right ?

8) What do you want to say ? That gays peoples would do better parents may be ? I'm sorry darling, but in many gay website, " peoples " are ALLWAYS looking for youg man ( 10/12 years ). Ask to the police, they are watching them !!!!



Originally posted by quiet one

a step in the right direction ....


Yeah, a step in the Hell direction !

The gays : PLEASE SATAN, COMES COMES ! WE ARE ALL GAYS AND ARE ALL READY TO GO IN HELL WITH YOU !


Satan : YES MY CHILDRENS, I'M COMMING FOR YOU. YOU REJECTED GOD AND HIS TEACHING, YOU ARE MY CHILDRENS NOW.



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 07:15 AM
link   
and thats why the government are progressively legalizing it.

the anti-gay lobby are so amazingly irrational about the whole thing, their arguments are so wonderfully vitriolic and bile filled that they actually help make the argument for the pro-gay stand point.

Cheers UP.
keep telling us that Gay people are instruments of satan.

It won't stop the eventual legalization of marriage but it sure as hell might speed it up.



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 07:49 AM
link   
i'll second that, lupe. UP, i take personal offence that you accuse friends of mine of being the children of satan. if you're christian how about showing a little christian virtue and 'love thy neighbour', how about showing them a little respect at the very least. as a belgian, living so close to the heart of the EU, you should know of the phrase "freedom of religion", which includes allowing me (and my non-heterosexual friends) to be free from yours.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Quiet one & Lupe_101, please, I WAS KIDDING !!!!!

Where did you let your sens of humour ? In your W.C ?


Hey, wait a minute ! I was kidding ? Hum, not sure after all.


And what is it a " non-heterosexual " ? It's a new word ? Directly took from the politicaly correct dictionnary ?


Repeat after me QO : GAY ! GAY ! GAY !...."non-heterosexual "............pffffff, what a joke !


If we don't stop you, in 10 years, we'll have to say/write " non-homosexuals " peoples when we'll speak about straight peoples !



[Edited on 13-12-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Excuse me, UP, I mistook you for the American, right-wing, Christian homophobe type. But you're a bigot from another land, so I'll explain.

You MUST have heard this story, but here it goes: Andrea and Rusty Yates were the perfect picture of goodness. They popped out kids, one after another, until there were five. He worked. She stayed at home. ALL THE TIME. She even home-schooled.

God-fearin' and straight as they were, you'd think everything would be fine. But Andrea has a little mental problem, which wasn't helped by giving birth every five minutes. She snapped one day, and drowned each of her children in the bathtub. Chased them down, dragged them into the bathroom and killed them. One by one.

Would those kids have been better off with two gay men or two gay women who DID have their wits about them? Yup. Therefore, sexual preference has nothing to do with parenting skills, and kids aren't necessarily better off because they have TWO straight parents.

Now, before you get the idea that I'm a lesbian defending my rights, let me tell you I'm straight as an arrow. I have nothing personal at stake in this debate, except, of course, the hope that my children will grow up in a less hateful world.

Oh...and as far as "God's Law," etc., did I mention that the Yates' were EXTREMELY religious? It just goes to show that bibles can be more dangerous than anal sex.


You don't have to like it, UP. But to make laws based on YOUR point of view is backwards, at best. And spare me the crap about degenerate gay people. Degenerates come in every sexual orientation, and most perverts are straight men. If you REALLY want to get rid of the perverts in society, you'll probably be better off going after the heterosexual pigs, because most of the gay people are minding their own business. If they're protesting, however, it's because they have few rights as people. I'd do the same.



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I am pretty much on the fence w/ this issue - that's why I haven't said much here.
St. Theresa, that's nonsensical. The kids would simply be better off with anyone that wouldn't kill them. I am sure gay people loose their heads just the same and when a homosexual kills their kids then someone would turn the table and try to make the same ridiculous argument. I asked before if gays should be allowed to marry how about polygamists?



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by St. Theresa

1)Excuse me, UP, I mistook you for the American, right-wing, Christian homophobe type. But you're a bigot from another land, so I'll explain.

2) They popped out kids, one after another, until there were five. He worked. She stayed at home. ALL THE TIME. She even home-schooled.

God-fearin' and straight as they were, you'd think everything would be fine. But Andrea has a little mental problem, which wasn't helped by giving birth every five minutes. She snapped one day, and drowned each of her children in the bathtub. Chased them down, dragged them into the bathroom and killed them. One by one.

3) Would those kids have been better off with two gay men or two gay women who DID have their wits about them? Yup. Therefore, sexual preference has nothing to do with parenting skills, and kids aren't necessarily better off because they have TWO straight parents.

4) Now, before you get the idea that I'm a lesbian defending my rights, let me tell you I'm straight as an arrow. I have nothing personal at stake in this debate, except, of course, the hope that my children will grow up in a less hateful world.

5) Oh...and as far as "God's Law," etc., did I mention that the Yates' were EXTREMELY religious? It just goes to show that bibles can be more dangerous than anal sex.


6) You don't have to like it, UP. But to make laws based on YOUR point of view is backwards, at best. And spare me the crap about degenerate gay people. Degenerates come in every sexual orientation, and most perverts are straight men. If you REALLY want to get rid of the perverts in society, you'll probably be better off going after the heterosexual pigs, because most of the gay people are minding their own business. If they're protesting, however, it's because they have few rights as people. I'd do the same.



1) Hey, many thanks for your compliment.


2) Yes, it a sad story.
I hope you don't think that I'm happy to read it.
But I don't understand what you tryed to point . This story is horrible, of course. But why did you write it ?????

3) Even if the gays and lesbians were allowed in adoption, I don't see the point with this story. What do you want to do ? Removing kids from their legals parents and giving them to homosexual peoples ? What will be your criterias ?

4) Well, I didn't say and don't think that you are lesbians.In fact, I don't mind. I have myself lesbians friends ( unbelievable for you, right ?
). Also, I'm a father, and I want to see my daughter growing in peacefull and free world.


5) You know, you can have it in the back if you want.See with your husband/boy friend, not with me please.
. Of course religion can be dangerous. Look the muslims terrorists ! I'm not blind with the religion issue.

6) May I used your argument ? If the laws don't have to be like I would like to see them, they don't have to be like you would like to see them.


What's your problem ? Why do you think that straight men are pigs/perverted ( allmost all of them ) ? You have kids, ok, but....are you sure that you have an husbands/boyfriend ? I'm not sure....



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I think my post was completely sensical. I can point to poor heterosexual parents and good homosexual parents. I can show you lousy two-parent households and wonderful single-parent households. That just goes to show us that quantity and sexual orientation as criteria for parenting is faulty logic. Then we can move on....

Having established that two adults of the same sex can provide a loving home for children, let's think of other reasons why they shouldn't.

*thinks hard*

Hmmmm....

Because the bible says homosexuality is wrong? Well, fortunately, we don't all have to live by that particular book of poetic stories, so, scratch that.

Because the children shouldn't be exposed to acts of homosexuality? (I hear that one a lot.) Well, they shouldn't be exposed to acts of heterosexuality either, so...scratch that, too.

Because it makes YOU uncomfortable? Nope, not a good enough reason.

So, I guess there's no real good reason to reduce the number of good families available to children who are in need of homes, is there? If I can borrow a bit from MLK, maybe we ought to judge prospective parents by the content of their character, not by what mother nature bestowed upon their sexuality?

I posted the Yates story to demonstrate that two straight, Christian parents don't necessarily cut it for kids. Sure didn't for those five babies.

And as far as poligamy, I suppose that if three or four adults wanted to live together in that way, I don't see how that affects my life, although I don't think it would work for too many people or be very popular. Of course, it would have to allow a woman to have multiple husbands.



My biggest concern about that, from a national viewpoint, would be about taxes, social security, etc.

[Edited on 14-12-2002 by St. Theresa]



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 09:05 PM
link   
no, totally nonsensical. The children would have been better off w/ anyone that wasn't going to kill them period - be them straight, gay, bi, poligamist, etc, etc. But I realize what you mean. taxes, social security, that you've mentioned, are my concerns with gay marriage among others.

[Edited on 14-12-2002 by Bob88]



posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 09:46 PM
link   
For 100,000 years, humans have been raised by a mother and a father, they learned responsibilities pertaining from both sexes, that can not be taught by a same sex couple.

Yes, homosexual parents can be loving, but they are both only half of the equation.

It is not a question about can they, but a question about when did salt puls salt equal salt water?

This is evident in even single parent families, and while a single parent can be more loving and decent than two parents somewhere else, their lack of father figure//mother figure is very dominant.

It's alright St. Theresa, I understand why you don't understand the need for a father and mother, that is because your family has no father. And while you may be the most awesome mother in the world, how do you think your kids will raise theirs, knowing only and asshole for a dad that left them? You will not be old enough to ever see the adverse effects, but we all now see the adverse effects, from the minor restrictions removed from society 100 years ago, and 50 years ago. Morality is going to be destroyed, because of the destruction of families. Homosexuals, while can be great people, and educators, can not be a family.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Ok St Theresea.

May be it will help you to understand me. I agree with what FM wrote. I wrote it many times, childrens need to have a father AND a mother. But I understand your point of view. Could you do the same effort please ?



posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Why? The kids had a mother and father, look what happened. Lizzie Borden had a mom and dad and look how she turned out. Charles Manson had a mom and dad, Hitler, Pol Pot, the priests who raped little boys, Jeffrey Domer(Sp?) the unabomber, Saddam, Osama, all had a mom and dad. Just because they had them doesn't mean they gonna turn out good.

Besides, gays/lesbians unlike Andrea Yates won't have five kids to kill if they do snap. Might have one. And who says that having gay/lesbian parents means they won't be taught the same things? If anything they would be more tolerant than you are. The kids would see that there isn't anything wrong with gays/lesbians, that they people who just like the same sex. Unlike say a person from a catholic family who learns that gays go to hell, then take it in the @$$ from a preist.

Also, seperation of church and state. So church will not influence the laws. I may be the foriegn affairs minister, but still worry about the domestic problems of christians influencing the laws of this country. They don't pay taxes, don't help the country become more tolerant. They teach that their way is right, they don't teach individuality is good, they teach to follow the crowd, to be sheep. One should be allowed to do what they want as long as no one is hurt.

Hey, who controls the taxes in our government Mr.President Ultra_Phoenix? We need to tax the religons if they are going to influence the law makings.



posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
It's alright St. Theresa, I understand why you don't understand the need for a father and mother, that is because your family has no father. And while you may be the most awesome mother in the world, how do you think your kids will raise theirs, knowing only and asshole for a dad that left them? You will not be old enough to ever see the adverse effects, but we all now see the adverse effects, from the minor restrictions removed from society 100 years ago, and 50 years ago.

I'd really like to know a couple of things. First of all, how old are you? Second of all, do you have children? Have you even been in a long-term relationship?

My children are with their father as we speak. They're with him overnight on Fridays and Saturdays and for a few hours every Tuesday. We all live in the same town. My children have both of their parents, and all of their grandparents, just as they always have.

Divorcing was a very difficult decision because of them. I KNOW that the ideal situation is to live with two parents. I completely dreaded the day we would tell them that mommy and daddy weren't going to live together anymore. It was the single most heartbreaking moment of my life.

But I had to face reality. He and I couldn't even agree on the color of the sky. In 14 years, we grew worlds apart. The tension and animosity would not go away, even with years all sorts of attempts to reconcile, including counseling.

I'll share a personal thing with you, only because it goes to show that, at least in some ways, this was a good decision. My son suffered severe behavioral/emotional problems from birth until about two years ago (when his dad moved out.) Of course we thought we must be doing something wrong, except that we raised our daughter in the same way and she didn't have the fits and tantrums he did. He literally kicked holes in his bedroom door and walls. My ex and I would disagree about how to deal with them.

In those nightly, hours-long tantrums, I insisted that we had to ignore his fits. We had to all go on with what we were doing, and pretend that his screaming and kicking didn't bother us, even if it cut into our very souls. I said that to give him any sort of attention during these times, whether positive or negative, was going to encourage that behavior.

Well, you know what? The fits stopped the day dad moved out. Our son knew that my approach was different. He knew he'd get NOWHERE by pulling his tantrums and they stopped. Instantly. Our home has been much more calm since I became a single mom. Their rules and expectations are consistent. There's no game for them to play which involves pitting one parent against the other.

And perhaps they'll have a step-father (maybe in the next year or so), or even a step-mother, which will give them even MORE people to love and teach them. But it's really not about quantity, but quality. I had two step-fathers: one was a violent alcoholic and the other was a pedophile. I would have been much better off without either of them. On the other hand, I have a step-mother, too, and she is one of the most virtuous people on this planet. I could have used her influence much earlier in life than I got it.

I'm teaching my children that good families involve good people ~ period. They HAVE to learn that to deal with the real circumstances life presents. And if one of them grows up to realize he or she has sexual preferences toward his or her own gender, I don't want them to feel guilt or shame. I want them to know that people can't be judged by gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. Why? Because it's true.

Tolerance could change the world in such a beautiful way. In order to work toward that, I have to call out bigotry every time I run across it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join