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.

 

10 Reasons Gays Should not Marry

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
No, they don't. Nobody has to get married. But if they want to, so what?

In Canada, gay marriage benefits the economy. A married couple with no children gets less tax credits than two single people or a married couple with children. If the gay people are willing to take a tax hit to get married, I don't see why we should refuse the offer.




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There's nothing wrong with two people spending their lives together. They don't need to get married to do that.


Then why do straight people need to get married? I am asking you for a reason to why gay people should not get married, and you said because our culture is different from cultures allowing gay marriage? We are supposedly THE WEST, like the center of Western capitalism, movies, music, food, etc. The west is supposed to be open minded, liberal, secular, and advanced, so please tell me a reason why gay people should not marry, in America of all places? And don't tell me it is against nature, because there are many instances with 2 animals of the same sex living with each other and even raising KIDS. The ONLY reason that is stopping it is because of Chritianity which is the same as Islam when you get down to it. And Christianity does NOT rule America.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Yay for gay marriage. But Nay for pet marriage? I want to marry my iguana, and we're the same gender, so it would be a gay pet marriage.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I hear people saying "They can live together but its not marriage" So aside from "being between a man a woman" because the not being able to have children is not going to be an issue a decade or two from now. Sure the US (resident) is on the way down the Theocratic nightmare afflicting so many other nations, but the UK, China, and the rest of the developed world are furiously working on Genetics and Embryonic research. So....other than the standard arguments...those of you hear who don't believe in allowing Homosexuals the right to marriage..please explain to me what two women or two men together cannot do that a man - woman relationship?

I honestly believe there is nothing different....Love is Love....we are obviously not eternal in this physical sense but there is something that transcends our primitive state..Love imho is part of that....and true love .... the kind of love you should have before you get married is much more than race, religion, or sexuality.

Those of you who don't believe that Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married I challenge you to contemplate that if allowing Homosexuals marriage rights somehow validate their sexuality and what that really means to you? Is that threatening? Is it attractive? Is it scary or unknown? Now these questions are in no way meant to be taken sarcastically. Don't post your answers if you don't want to, i don't care...these questions are not for me....they are for you.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
OK heres my view, but before I start I think its only fair to let you know my backround so that it is clear i do have a slight on the issue. I am a Roman Catholic and I do beleive being gay is a sin. I personally dont think it is a huge deal, to me being gay is just as sinful as sex out of wedlock. This is my personal opinon and I will not debate it. Now for the part I would like to talk about. I personally feel gays should not be marryed. To me it seems awful backwards, marriage (sp?) is a binding of two people which as we know it today has evolved from Christianity, which for the most part rejects being gay as a sin. So since the roots of marriage rejects gays they should not be allowed to marry. HOWEVER, there is a seperation of church and state in the US, so I feel that straits should also not be allowed to be legally "married". Marriage should become something that is strictly religious. Civil Unions which is something done by law in the government should due to seperation of church and state be given to both gays and straits with all the same benefits current legal marriages have. I have tryed my hardest to seperate my personal views from reason and this does seem to me to be something that can be looked upon with proofs as something that should be done. I cant wait for the comments folk, especially from our gay members, I think its a pretty balanced answer to this current problem so how bout it?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectChaos
To me it seems awful backwards, marriage (sp?) is a binding of two people which as we know it today has evolved from Christianity, which for the most part rejects being gay as a sin.


I hate to break it to you but Gaelic/Pagan weddings far outdate Christian weddings in any sense of the word ...only they called them Hand Fastings....its where many of the core concepts about marrige were stolen by the early Catholic church in its attempts to convert non-violently....commonly used and not excusive to Catholics. en.wikipedia.org...


HOWEVER, there is a seperation of church and state in the US, so I feel that straits should also not be allowed to be legally "married". Marriage should become something that is strictly religious. Civil Unions which is something done by law in the government should due to seperation of church and state be given to both gays and straits with all the same benefits current legal marriages have.


I totally agree with you on this one....and it is a valid point. Churches should not have to marry gay memebers if they dont want to....same argument....and I think you would find that most if not all of the Homosexual community would agree with you too....


I think its a pretty balanced answer to this current problem so how bout it?
I agree with you here as well.....thankyou



[edit on 22-7-2006 by Elsenorpompom]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I guess that I have to say that I am against gay marriage. When one considers just how much homosexuals and lesbians, as a community, have suffered; the discrimination, the blind hatred, the prejudice, I have to be against gay and lesbian couples from marrying -- after all haven't they suffered enough?
:bash:



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
hehehe It took me a minute to get that, but that's funny. But really, if they want to suffer like the rest of us why should we stop them? Why withhold the suffering of marriage?
Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with two people getting married regardless of gender, or sexual orientation. It's not hurting anyone if homosexuals get married any more than it hurt people when I married my husband.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
To me, gay marriage isn't a real issue, its just a crusade by a certain demographic to try to have their behavior and lifestyle accepted.

That said, marriage is a religious matter, not a political matter. The government should always uphold the right of the independent religious body. If one's church says two people can't get married, then they shouldn't. If the church says two people can get married, then the government must ensure that the two homosexuals do get married.

Legally, every marriage should be referred to as a civil union.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   


To me, gay marriage isn't a real issue, its just a crusade by a certain demographic to try to have their behavior and lifestyle accepted.


Or maybe they just want to be, I don't know...married? Do interracial couples get married just to have their "lifestyle and behavior" accepted as well?


That said, marriage is a religious matter, not a political matter.


It is a political matter when a secular government is denying something to 1 legal group of people and allowing it for another legal group of people because of religious reasons.


If one's church says two people can't get married, then they shouldn't. If the church says two people can get married, then the government must ensure that the two homosexuals do get married.


Um...wrong. I don't know where in the Constitution it says this.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I think it's still very much an economic issue. A married couple with no children may get fewer tax breaks, but they qualify for spousal benefits. After the gay marriage bill was passed, veterens who couldn't afford to live on their pension, but had been sharing accomodations, got married, with the increase in benefits, they were able to maintain their homes. But more than that:

Women do alot of free labour in the market-place. A recent study concluded the annual price for all the cleaning, nannying, cooking, etc, if it had to be hired out would amount to 120,000. The assumptions and premises underlying the expectations that women work for free in marraige are threatened by greater rights for gays.

It releases society from old stereotypes of sexuality and the inherent disparity of power and possession therein. Marriage, after all, was really begun by the wealthy as a way to insure children were the rightful heirs of a father's fortune. With wage disparity still a reality and statistically women make 60 cents to every male dollar, marraige between two men is likely to be prosperous.

I think alot of the resistance has less to do with how 'offensive' a person may or may not think homosexual relations are and more to do with how offensive current social paradigms really are. Unfortunately those issues remain unaddressed, with single mothers still functioning as a brunt for societal scorn and a burgeoning powerful white gay male lobby group willing to 'pass' for advantage, when needed.

It's all about the money and the power.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Seen this tons of times on another forum I go to, but its still a classic. =P



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   
.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Ohh how I hate this topic. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone who is not gay cares whether or not gays get "married". Now, marriage is a tradition, a legal institution and a religious rite. If a particular religion doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, fine. You know, Catholics don't recognize divorce, either (unless you can pony up for the annulment, which technically means the marriage never happened in the first place).

You can have a legally binding marriage without benefit of clergy, no? A legally recognized "partnership" that affords protection for things like hospital visitation, medical treatment, employee benefits, etc etc. Why why why does any non-gay person really care whether or not two same sex people have a legally recognized union? I know I don't.

It's all part of the big diversion creating an "issue" where there shouldn't be one. Those brainiacs in government who are going to protect us from gay marriage and flag burning.

Hey gubmint- how about working on something like a sane energy strategy or an affordable health care policy, and allow people to live their lives as they choose with equal rights and protection?



posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I was going to give you a WATS too, and look, you've already been given so many.

Then I read Kacen's post.

Then I googled the first line of your post and guess what I got.

I agree with your position one hundred percent. I think this way of sending up the ridiculous arguments used by bigots against homosexual marriage is wonderful.

If only you'd mentioned somewhere that it was a crib...

I'm all disappointed now.

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Astyanax]

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Astyanax]


JAK

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Same-sex marriage is an absurdity and serves no social purpose. Glib justifications won't make that fact any less true.


An absurdity?



    absurd

    • adjective completely unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.


Unreasonable? Two people are in love and want to proclaim that devotion in a way that is to them deep and meaningful. Hardly unreasonable.

Illogical? A gay marriage holds am much logic as a hetrosexual one as far as I can see. A man and woman have no need to be married. They can produce children out of wedlock, and not all married couples go on to have a family so that's obviously not a logical justification for marriage. What is then? Love? See above.

Inappropriate? Not suitable for what? Because...? You have a problem with it? The idea of Gay marriage threatens your idea of how society should behave?

I'm failing to see how you came to the deeply considered conclusion that Gay Marriage is inappropiate. Marriage is for many not a religious thing any more but a public and meaningful personal affirmation of a couples love and devotion for each other. It has moved on from purely religious connotations. So again the fact that marriages are performed along those lines could rule out that argument.

That it could be seen as hypocritical taking into consideration the churches views on Homosexuality I can see, then again though no more hypocritical than a couple with no real religious beliefs marrying in a church. Your same-sex point alludes to no such distinction so I assume you prescribe none. Even taking that into account though as mentioned above many today (even those married in Church) do see marriage as a civil thing more than strictly religious.

No social purpose? See 'Unreasonable?' What indespensible social purpose does any marriage serve? To bear children? Why then aren't such views enforced? A register, a date given, couples who fail to produce offspring in marriage automatically having their marriage declared invalid and automatically divorced by the courts? Because a childbirth argument would be a ridiculous. The family unit? No marriage is required for that, mankind seemed to do ok before the idea of marriage came about. I'd strongly suggest that any statistics on a childs wellbeing in and out of the married family unit has more to do with parents than any sanctioned cermony.

So how does Gay marriage qualify as an absurdity (glib justifications and bigotry aside of course). I don't see the justification for that comment unless of course you were just airing a personal opinion.

Jak



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   


This has become such a non-issue in the civilized world.
Gays have been banging each other for the entire history of humanity and nobody really cares what goes on in the neighbours bedroom, unless your a voyeuristic pervert.

If the Catholic Church forbids gay marriage, so what, that's their right.
They can stick to diddling alter boys in secret while they preach to the faithfull about the evils of a union between two grown men that love each other.
No church should ever be required to perform a marriage for anyone that isn't following the precepts of that religion, but governments have to allow gay couples to marry because they are not a religious body, they're our
government.
They belong to us, and we don't serve them.

Canada's political system is far superior to anything the Americans have managed to scratch together over the last couple hundred years, and they're so behind the rest of this world when it comes to this issue.
They need to get religion out of their government and let people live their lives as they see fit.


For some reason I thought there was a seperation between church and state in the U.S., but I guess I'm mistaken..................



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I really don't see the big deal about gay marriage.

If a gay man wants to marry a gay women, by all means they should be allowed to!



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Again I think all should have civil unions because I raise this question to you. So some people are strait, some are gay. But what about people who are just not sexual, if you arnt sexual and have a best friend whom is a life partner of sorts why should you not be afforded the same rights as gays and straits?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
my view on gay marriage is this:

any person of any sex should be able to marry any other person of any sex if they feel like it. I really think we ( in the U.S.) need to seperate church from state COMPLETELY! even though our country was founded (mostly i think) by christians doesn't mean that our government should be christian. isn't that what the founders of this country were trying to get away from in the first place? the same people who want the kids to be forced into praying in public school are the ones making a big deal about gay marriage. i say that if you're not gay or bisexual then you don't have any right in denying people who are marriage. ( i think we should elect a gay president : D lol )

argue my point



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join