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.

 

Gay Marriage Ban=State Sponsored Discrimination?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I know there are a multitude of threads that discuss gay marriage, but i would like to focus on one part of it.

Currently in the US it is illegal for two people of the same sex to enjoy the same rights and privleges that a "traditional" couple has.

It is 2006, and on this issue it seems as though people have gotten back into the 1960's mindset. Substitute "gay" for "black" and you will see my point.

The ban on gay marriage is flat out state sponsored discrimination. Is this what i spent 12 years of my life defending? I almost regret the time i spent in the military over issues like this. (dont get me going on the gay in the military thing either)

In fairness though, we have a representative government (ideally) and in most states this issue is handled on the state level, so it is the people of the US that are responsible for this not the govt per se, yet, they are trying to make it a constitutional issue. I think thats a crock of....well you get the point.

I ask supporters of the ban, why? why do you care who steve marries? is it really any of your business? invariably they say "oh god made adam and eve not adam and steve" but yet, did got not also make steve? did god also say "judge not lest ye be judged"? one person even went so far as to say "well, in most cases where young boys are kidnapped its by a gay man" ok, by that theory then how does ANYONE allow young boys into a catholic church? double standard anyone?

you are allowed to think that being gay is wrong, but it is NOT your right to tell gay people how they can live.

For the record.

Damo=straight
Damo's brother = gay
Damos sister in law = gay
Damos wife = "open minded"
Damo was raised catholic



DAMO DOES NOT CARE IF STEVE AND BOB GET MARRIED!!! i hope they are very happy together and have a long and happy life.

So, can ANYONE tell me why a ban on gay marriage is right? is our right to impose? or even makes any sense whatsoever?



and since it invariably comes up in these types of conversations: damo disagrees with abortion but doesnt believe its his right to tell anyone what to do, so in protest of abortion he will never have one.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Damocles]




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I hope you get an answer. I have never been able to get one, myself. In my opinion, a ban on gay marriage IS state-sponsored discrimination. It's directly against the idea of equal treatment under the law.

And NO ONE has ever answered "How does gay marriage affect your marriage"?

I feel much the same way you do about gay marriage and abortion, too. There's something going on in certain people where they feel they have some kind of right to force their morals on everyone else.

I'll be checking in on this thread.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
It is discrimination, true. But the voters seem to support it. Personally, I couldn't care less who marries who. Much happiness, and a long productive life to you both, or more than both. I do not care. Government needs to get the hell out of our private lives and stay the hell out.

As long as it appears on the ballets, and the voters support it, I don't see how it can be changed. I wish it weren't, and personally I wouldn't support it. Voters do seem to though.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I believe marriage was and is mainly a religous affair, and spiritual one.
I dont understand why guy's would want to get married when it is clear these kinds of unions are a abomination to god.
To be married is simply religous purposes or the added security for raising a family. ijust don't get it why do gay's want the blessing from a god who does not love them.
And if the ceremony has nothing to do with god, then why do it when most men have to be dragged to the alter, there are also no kids involved so why? both partners probably work if not then why and how do you devide the assets when one has contrbuted more than the other.

They are beeter of cohabiting as they always have.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Oh, pishtosh. God's got better things to do than worry about whether two people who love each other get married. Marriage is about the union of two halves of the same soul in the eyes of God. Male/Male, Female/Female, Male/Female; it matters not in the least.

As I said, Gods got more important things to worry about.

Just out of curiousity, why an abomination? Marriage isn't, or shouldn't be anyway, just about procreation. It's about the joining of two people in a spiritual union that transends mere gender.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by seagull]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Marriage is the fulfillment of the first commandment that God gave to humanity to be fruitful and multiply. Homosexuals cannot fulfill that commandment through marriage to another of the same gender. Infact, they contradict it by refusing to marry a woman, which is the only way the commandment can be fulfilled.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I'll concede that point. However, marriage isn't merely about procreation. There is much more to it than that. If that's all there was to marriage, I'd have married years ago. There has to be more than that to a marriage, otherwise what's the point?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Oh, pishtosh. God's got better things to do than worry about whether two people who love each other get married. Marriage is about the union of two halves of the same soul in the eyes of God. Male/Male, Female/Female, Male/Female; it matters not in the least.
As I said, Gods got more important things to worry about.
Just out of curiousity, why an abomination? Marriage isn't, or shouldn't be anyway, just about procreation. It's about the joining of two people in a spiritual union that transends mere gender.
[edit on 9-11-2006 by seagull]


What bible are you reading it's clear in the beggining god created them male and female, a man for a woman and woman for man and came the blessing go fourth and multiply.
Gays connot multiply therfore cannot get gods blessing not least for the incident call sodom and gomorah were the city was destroyed for sexual depravity, homosexuality being one of the main causes cited.
So if gays cant procreate and god destroys gays according to the bible then how and why should they even try to get married. ?????



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
I'll concede that point. However, marriage isn't merely about procreation. There is much more to it than that. If that's all there was to marriage, I'd have married years ago. There has to be more than that to a marriage, otherwise what's the point?


I agree that there is more to marriage...this is why people choose to marry one person over all others. However, procreation is the most crucial part of its purpose.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Sorry Damo but I don't get how your sister in law can be gay lol.. if gay marriage was ilegal and all.......

The problem is this.. the way I see it anyways.

Gays want rights, well there is nothing wrong with that huh? But they want your "average" - which you have to say average because the vote was a majority - your average person to bend over backwards and give them the same titles for something that they feel defines straight relationships, be through god or what ever.

I personally think there should be a compromise.

Gays should get every right a married straight couple gets, including the right to adopt a child, all the tax breaks, all the other good stuff. The bad stuff to! Like say, divorce.


They should however not be given the same title (that is "husband" or "wife" and should not be a "married" couple in the sense of straight folks are called. Nothing should change in there right to be with who they want to be with, they should get every single protection, right and privaliage a straight married couple gets, just call them selves partners or what ever else makes them happy.

It is ok to want equal rights, and equal rights should be given.. but you should not come on the scene and expect everyone to bend over backwards and give you everything you demand.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Skyway. We agree to disagree.

Rockpuck. I think the point I am making, and others, is this. Why should you or I care if two people who love each other get married? Honestly, I just don't get why it is such a big deal. From a legal standpoint, alls marriage does is enable the spouse to get their spouces retirement monies, medical, etc... I'm sure there is more to it than that, but you get the gist?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Seagull.. I wish I could answer that for you lol.. but I don't know.

I personally don't care if gays get married. They live together, fornicate together and essentially do everything a married couple does anyways so why not just finish it off and be legally bound to eachother.

I was simply saying that maybe a compromise like the one I suggested would make all the anti gay people a little happier? Maybe it wouldn't though who knows.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
It is discrimination, true. But the voters seem to support it.


So, majority rules on discrimination... Does that mean that if the majority wanted blacks and whites to use separate drinking fountains, that would be ok?


Originally posted by reaper2
I believe marriage was and is mainly a religous affair, and spiritual one.


YOU believe that. Fine. Then have YOUR marriage be about that. Mine isn't.



I dont understand why guy's would want to get married ...


It's not necessary for you to understand everyone else's reasons for getting married. I'm married and it's not a 'spiritual or religious' thing. And frankly, it's none of yours or anyone else's business why I got married or what it means to me. But it's not religion or kids.



To be married is simply religous purposes or the added security for raising a family.


Maybe to YOU, but not to me...



And if the ceremony has nothing to do with god, then why do it when most men have to be dragged to the alter, there are also no kids involved so why?


I have my reasons and I owe NOBODY an explanation. Marriage means something to me, just as it means something to you.



They are beeter of cohabiting as they always have.


But who are you to tell them what they're better off doing? You had the choice, didn't you? Nobody told you whether or not you could get married... YOU chose.


Originally posted by SkyWay
Marriage is the fulfillment of the first commandment that God gave to humanity to be fruitful and multiply.


I can't have kids. Are you saying that I (a straight woman) shouldn't be allowed to be married to my husband?


Originally posted by reaper2
Gays connot multiply


Neither can I.



why should they even try to get married. ?????


For the same reason EVERYONE else does. Because they want to.


Originally posted by SkyWay
However, procreation is the most crucial part of its purpose.


NOT TO ME!!! In fact, procreation has NOTHING to do with my marriage. Who are you to tell me that because I can't and don't want to have children that I shouldn't be married?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic. I didn't say they were right. I said the majority of voters felt that way...I'm in no way agreeing with them. People should be able to marry the ones they love. Simply that.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Benevolent Heretic. I didn't say they were right. I said the majority of voters felt that way...I'm in no way agreeing with them. People should be able to marry the ones they love. Simply that.


Oh, I know.
I'm asking if you think it's OK for the majority to decide whether or not to discriminate against certain people. I know how the voters feel, I just don't think the voters should have the right to vote to discriminate.

You said:


Originally posted by seagull
It is discrimination, true. But the voters seem to support it.


I'm just wondering if you think it's right that voters can vote to discriminate... For example, if voters (a majority) voted that women can't vote anymore or black people can't enter certain establishments, would you be saying, "Hey, I disagree, but the voters apparently want it that way."

See what I'm saying?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
What its marriage? well nothing more than the rights of a man to their slave wives back in the time, when fathers will make money out of their daughters marriages.

But then it changed into something more meaningful like perpetuation families blood lines and business deals to keep it within the families.

Most often women were envolve on marriages that they didn't wan for life.

Then it came to the point that it was seen as a the legalization of men sexual rights over the women.

Now is nothing more than a religious symbol and a business deal within the couple.

It means not much anymore now that divorces are easily obtainable.

I really don't see the harm of unions be man and woman or otherwise. But religious rights will think difference because is nothing more than pursing their agendas.

Still in this time and age it seems that the morality issue is nothing more than trying to control what adults due in their bedrooms and with who.

That is why when a fake idol and pusher of morality goes down like Haggart it makes you wonder that it seems that is nothing than denial of some about their true nature.

Still no government can ban any adult from living and sleeping with another adult of their choosing.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SkyWay
Marriage is the fulfillment of the first commandment that God gave to humanity to be fruitful and multiply.


I can't have kids. Are you saying that I (a straight woman) shouldn't be allowed to be married to my husband?


Of course not. Your inability to have children is not of your doing, unlike a homosexual marriage where the inability to have children is due to the deliberate choice to marry someone of the same gender.



Originally posted by SkyWay
However, procreation is the most crucial part of its purpose.


NOT TO ME!!! In fact, procreation has NOTHING to do with my marriage. Who are you to tell me that because I can't and don't want to have children that I shouldn't be married?


I'm not telling you that. All I said is that the MAIN purpose of marriage is to have children and care for them until they are able to care for themselves. But this is not the same as telling you that because you can't have children that you shouldn't be married.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by SkyWay]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
I'm not telling you that. All I said is that the MAIN purpose of marriage is to have children and care for them until they are able to care for themselves. But this is not the same as telling you that because you can't have children that you shouldn't be married.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by SkyWay]


Hum that is a point, that seems to be also in the minds of the religious rights . . . but it doesn't make sénce.

When couples man and woman marry but decide that they will not have children.

My brother and new wife are in that group, while my brother has a son by previous marriage his new brided have no children and want none.

My neighbors across the street has been marry for 22 years and never wanted children.

So it kind of sounds lame don't you think? When the issue of children is by choice?



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
@reaper: well, i guess you and i have read different versions of the bible also. the one i read says "love the sinner hate the sin" IE god does NOT hate gays for being gay. he hates the sex act between them. but that is between the gays involved and god. not between me and god or them. the bible also says not to judge your fellow man, that is also gods domain and for you or i to do it is also a very serious sin. (if you are a religious bloke that is) god did destroy soddom and gamorrah, but then he also destroyed the world by flood, after which he promised never to do it again. flood can be interpreted as water, fire, disease etc.

so ok, if the catholic church as a body says it will not marry two people of the same sex, then thats the catholic churches business. like any organization you are a member you abide by their rules.

but if the unitarians ARE willing to perform the ceremony, what gives the US govt (we believe that all men are created equal...) the right to deny them the same legal rights as my wife and i have? tax breaks, insurance benefits etc

Besides, in the eyes of the govt, a marriage is a legal contract, not a spiritual one. its as binding as a business partnership. and as far as the govt is concerned, thats all it is, a business partnership. as it should be, so again....discrimination.

@ rock lol good question. she is my wifes sister, not my sister through marriage to my brother (who's gay remember?)



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by SkyWay
I'm not telling you that. All I said is that the MAIN purpose of marriage is to have children and care for them until they are able to care for themselves. But this is not the same as telling you that because you can't have children that you shouldn't be married.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by SkyWay]


Hum that is a point, that seems to be also in the minds of the religious rights . . . but it doesn't make sénce.

When couples man and woman marry but decide that they will not have children.

My brother and new wife are in that group, while my brother has a son by previous marriage his new brided have no children and want none.

My neighbors across the street has been marry for 22 years and never wanted children.

So it kind of sounds lame don't you think? When the issue of children is by choice?


Again, I must make a distinction between those who are unable to have children and those who choose not to have children even though they can. The first are innocent, the second type are, by choice, aborting the primary purpose of marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join