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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
What is wrong with gays living in a civil union as opposed to marriage? They can enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage that way.

As far as the origins of marriage, it was not from a religious basis. The institute of marriage is over 4,000 years old. Originally, it was intended to:



How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

What was it about, then?
Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.
Origins of marriage



But, we can all agree that marriage has evolved over the years.

Marriage's purpose is to bring a certain stability and order to a society. Now, the question is, does society have the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman? I say yes, they do, as long as the institution of civil unions is available to same-sex couples.




posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
There is no need to marry since you can love just as much without being married as you can married.

Yes, you can have love without marriage. You just can't have the same legal rights as married people.

Which is kind of the point of the whole thing. There are legal rights associated with marriage. If there weren't any legal rights given to married people, then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Its not so much the religious reason as it is financial. There are many benefits to getting married.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

Originally posted by SkyWay
There is no need to marry since you can love just as much without being married as you can married.

Yes, you can have love without marriage. You just can't have the same legal rights as married people.

Which is kind of the point of the whole thing. There are legal rights associated with marriage. If there weren't any legal rights given to married people, then it probably wouldn't be an issue.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Duzey]


Then this is not about love but about the law. But if you grant the same rights to homosexual couples why not grant the same rights to all people who are living together such as heterosexual males who share one apartment. It amounts to the same thing as a homosexual couple. Neither can produce children.

The reason that hetersexual couples have special status over other social arrangements is that they sustain the population of a society, a nation, the world. Societies of human beings cannot survive without this vital contribution, but it is beyond the capability of two men or two women living together whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. This is what entitles a married heterosexual couple to special considerations that are denied to other living arrangements between people, which can include sorority clubs and friends that share living expenses. Though they live together, such living arrangements contribute nothing to the maintenance of the human population of society, nation, world.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Then this is not about love but about the law.


All this time it's been about the Creator and his intention for people to procreate and now you're changing it to be about the law? I'm so confused by your argument. I do agree with you that marriage is a legal union. Even if you get married in a church for religious reasons, you have to sign legal documents or else you're not legally married.



The reason that hetersexual couples have special status over other social arrangements is that they sustain the population of a society, a nation, the world.


Not all of them. Yet, they aren't separated into groups of fertile and non-fertile.



Societies of human beings cannot survive without this vital contribution, but it is beyond the capability of two men or two women living together whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.


It's also beyond the capability of 2 75-year-old people. Should they not be allowed to marry? They can't reproduce.



This is what entitles a married heterosexual couple to special considerations that are denied to other living arrangements between people...


Yet married people who cannot have children still inheret their spouse's belongings, can make medical decisions for them and visit them on their death bed.



... which can include sorority clubs and friends that share living expenses. Though they live together, such living arrangements contribute nothing to the maintenance of the human population of society, nation, world.


They also don't have a loving, monogamous, legal relationship in which they wish to share the privileges of marriage. Sorority members don't get to decide whether or not to take their fellow sorority members off life support. That's a right of the family (including the spouse)...

I'm glad to see that you admit that heterosexual couples have special status. And then we hear all this crap about gays asking for "special rights" when it's really the straight people who want to hang onto their "special rights"...


I'm sorry, your argument is chock full of holes.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Then this is not about love but about the law.

I never said this issue was about love. There are plenty of loveless marriages. The reason gay people want to have the same rights is so they can enjoy the same legal protections as a heterosexual couple.

If you want to have special, religious marriages that have absolutely no legal standing whatsoever, then ban gay people from them all you want. That would be within a religious groups rights. Marriage, in the context that we are talking about, is about legal rights granted by the government and has nothing to do with the beliefs of a select group of people. Or sorority sisters.

The Native Americans were here before the founders of the US, and they had gay marriage. It's not like it's been purely boy-girl all over the world forever.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SkyWay
Then this is not about love but about the law.


All this time it's been about the Creator and his intention for people to procreate and now you're changing it to be about the law? I'm so confused by your argument. I do agree with you that marriage is a legal union. Even if you get married in a church for religious reasons, you have to sign legal documents or else you're not legally married.


I was responding to the post by Duzey in which he brought up the legal rights issue. You people say it's about love one minute then you change it to legalities.




The reason that hetersexual couples have special status over other social arrangements is that they sustain the population of a society, a nation, the world.


Not all of them. Yet, they aren't separated into groups of fertile and non-fertile.


That is because it is through no fault of their own. They did not choose to not have children. Infertile couples do not deserve to be penalized because they CAN'T have children. It's not as though they CHOSE, as homosexual couples do, an arrangement that doesn't produce children.



Societies of human beings cannot survive without this vital contribution, but it is beyond the capability of two men or two women living together whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.


It's also beyond the capability of 2 75-year-old people. Should they not be allowed to marry? They can't reproduce.


Again it is not their choice to not have children. Besides they may well have already contributed at a younger stage of their lives.




This is what entitles a married heterosexual couple to special considerations that are denied to other living arrangements between people...


Yet married people who cannot have children still inheret their spouse's belongings, can make medical decisions for them and visit them on their death bed.

Hey you don't need to be married to inherit those priveleges. Just make out a will and sign the documents to whomever you choose. Homosexuals can already make those kinds of arrangements. Marriage is not necessary.




... which can include sorority clubs and friends that share living expenses. Though they live together, such living arrangements contribute nothing to the maintenance of the human population of society, nation, world.


They also don't have a loving, monogamous, legal relationship in which they wish to share the privileges of marriage. Sorority members don't get to decide whether or not to take their fellow sorority members off life support. That's a right of the family (including the spouse)...


Oh..now we're back to the love claims again. You want the right to take someone off life support? I'm not sure that is a right that anyone should have...including heterosexuals. But if you insist on it, then make out the legal documents entitling whomever you choose to have that right(?) to decide whether you live or die.


I'm glad to see that you admit that heterosexual couples have special status. And then we hear all this crap about gays asking for "special rights" when it's really the straight people who want to hang onto their "special rights"...


Heterosexual couples DESERVE special status. Without them the human race would perish!


I'm sorry, your argument is chock full of holes.


Not as many holes as your argument that homosexual couples should be considered equal to heterosexual couples. Really, there just is no comparison. Heterosexual marriage is essential to human survival. Homosexual couples are antagonistic to survival because they cannot produce offspring.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
If homosexual couples were given the same rights as heterosexual couples what's to keep heterosexuals from exploiting such a law that entitles couples composed of two men or two women to the same priveleges as heterosexual couples? You could end up with a bunch of heterosexual men and women pretending to be homosexuals just to obtain the special rights of married heterosexuals. This is almost sure to happen.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by SkyWay]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Alright man, this looks like for a few members this might be a touchy subject. Im against gay marriage. I think its morally wrong. However who am I to judge it? Thats just my opinion. Do I want to see gays holding hands? No... But then again, you already see that. Why is marriage such a big deal to these ppl? Hey If they pass rights for same sex marriages can I go back home to the farm in colorado and marry my horse maybe a cow? (No offence to ppl in colorado)



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
So we should deny homosexuals equal protection and benefit under the law because heterosexual people lie? It's not like there aren't already marriages of convenience. I could marry a friend of the opposite sex and achieve the exact same thing.

Why is it a big deal - here's a scenario. Two men have spent 25 years in a monogamous relationship. Partner A, whose parents haven't spoken to him in years because they don't like homosexuality, is in a horrific car accident. He is dying and nothing can be done to save him. All the doctors can do is make him comfortable for his last days. Partner B shows up at the hospital and is unable to visit or spend any last moments with his spouse, because he is not family. Partner A's parents can swoop in give permission to let him visit, but they don't because they don't like gay people.

Partner A dies without the comfort of seeing the person they consider their spouse. Partner B has no right to be a part of any funeral planning that may go on and could possibly even be barred from attending by the parents, who would have all the rights in such a situation.


Edited to add this: At no point have I made this about love and I have not switched back and forth between love and legalities.




[edit on 9-11-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
So we should deny homosexuals equal protection and benefit under the law because heterosexual people lie? It's not like there aren't already marriages of convenience. I could marry a friend of the opposite sex and achieve the exact same thing.
Why is it a big deal - here's a scenario. Two men have spent 25 years in a monogamous relationship. Partner A, whose parents haven't spoken to him in years because they don't like homosexuality, is in a horrific car accident. He is dying and nothing can be done to save him. All the doctors can do is make him comfortable for his last days. Partner B shows up at the hospital and is unable to visit or spend any last moments with his spouse, because he is not family. Partner A's parents can swoop in give permission to let him visit, but they don't because they don't like gay people.
Partner A dies without the comfort of seeing the person they consider their spouse. Partner B has no right to be a part of any funeral planning that may go on and could possibly even be barred from attending by the parents, who would have all the rights in such a situation.
Edited to add this: At no point have I made this about love and I have not switched back and forth between love and legalities.
[edit on 9-11-2006 by Duzey]


Oh jesus!.... Your kidding right? look your entitled to your own opinion as am I. But the above post...... Your reaching buddy.

Im not trying to offend, but are you a homosexual? If all the ppl of the world would some how turn gay, what happens to humanity? its not natrual. Its not how things are supposed to work. Its ADAM AND EVE... Not ADAM AND STEVE. And if your curious. Im not a concervative and im not a liberal. But its the truth. Man was not made for man. Same for women. Our very survival depends on penis in vagina... Sorry... Im still not convinced by your lil attempt above either....



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Im still wondering if this thing falls through (same sex marriages) Can i still marry my horsie?

You know there are some nut f### wackos out there that would be pushing for that?...


Edited

[edit on 113030p://444 by semperfoo]



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey


The Native Americans were here before the founders of the US, and they had gay marriage. It's not like it's been purely boy-girl all over the world forever.

They did have gay marriages? Well since I wasnt around and im assuming you werent either.... Im calling BS on this one.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Fisrt off, even though it is absolutely none of your business, I am a straight female.

Second of all, my example is not reaching at all. In such an event, the parents would have all the rights and the 'spouse' would have none.



Just such a situation landed a lesbian couple in the national spotlight 20 years ago, after a drunk driver slammed into a car driven by Sharon Kowalski, then 27, leaving her comatose. Kowalski's longtime partner, Karen Thompson, then 37, a physical education teacher at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, sued Kowalski's parents for guardianship after they refused to recognize the women's relationship, blocked Thompson from visiting Kowalski, and disagreed with Thompson on Kowalski's care.

...

Two years ago, a Baltimore jury rejected a claim by Bill Flanigan, 38, of San Francisco, who sued Baltimore's Shock Trauma Center of the University of Maryland medical system after it did not let him visit his partner, 32-year-old Robert Daniel, as he died of AIDS. "By the time he finally got into the hospital room, his partner had lost consciousness and never regained it, and they never had a chance to say goodbye," said Buckel.

...

Two of the women involved in the landmark lawsuit that led the Massachusetts Supreme Court to clear the way for same-sex marriages last year said they were prompted by medical concerns. When 59-year-old Linda Davies learned that she required double hip replacement surgery, she and her partner of more than 30 years, Gloria Bailey, 63, discovered that there was no guarantee Bailey would be allowed unfettered access to Davies during her 11-day recovery.

For Gays, It Happens All the Time


Third, there is a Native American history of what they term Two-Spirit or Berdache marriages.



Beyond its role in same-sex friendships, homosexual behavior among many aboriginal tribes was also recognized in the form of same-sex marriages. However, the purpose of marriage was to promote close ties between persons of different genders, so that one spouse could focus on "masculine" labor (mainly hunting and warfare) while the other on "feminine" labor (mainly plant-gathering and farming). This division of labor by gender was not absolute, since food preparation, domestic work, child care duties, and craft work varied by culture and even by individual preference. Such activities were often shared by both spouses. Nevertheless, a major purpose of marriage was to provide both meat and plant foods for the survival of the family and for child rearing.

With marriage partners complementing each other's labor roles, it is not surprising that marriage between two masculine men, or two feminine women, was frowned upon. Nevertheless, rather than prohibit same-sex marriages altogether, many Native American cultures recognized homosexual marriages when one partner took on an alternative gender role. Thus, an androgynous or feminine male was expected to marry a masculine man, while a masculine female most likely took a woman as a wife. By this pairing, the mixed-gender aspect of marriage could be preserved, while still allowing those with same-sex inclinations to fulfill their erotic desires.

In many tribes, the feminine male had a special role as a "berdache," while the masculine female took on an "amazon" role. These androgynous roles were seen by society as being different and distinct from the regular roles of men and women. Some scholars suggest that this pattern is "gender-mixing," others as a form of a unique "alternative gender." Current researchers reject the older notion that berdaches and amazons were hermaphrodites, transsexuals, transvestites, or gender-crossers because American Indian cultures allotted more than two gender options.

In the concepts of spirituality in many Native American religions, the person who was seen as different by the "average" tribal member was thought to have been created that way by the spirit world. Berdaches and amazons were respected; their "spirit" (i.e., what Westerners refer to as their basic character) was more important than their biological sex in determining their social identity. In fact, they were considered exceptional not abnormal.

Humboldt University of Berlin


Finally, as your horse is unable to comprehend what marriage is or express a desire to join into a union with you, I would doubt interspecies marriages will ever become law. So no, I don't think that's going to happen.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by Duzey]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I fail to see where there is discrimination when the right was never extant in the first place. Furthermore, equality is a vague concept at best in any aspect of civil rights. Do we all earn the same income? No that is allowed but we are equal in every other way?

Civil marriage offers to gays what they primarily need while maintaining the sanctity of marriage which is designed to build the family which is the cornerstone of the civilization.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Civil marriage offers to gays what they primarily need

I agree with this part of what you said.

But the only time people start talking about civil unions being OK is when homosexuals ask for the right to marriage. I view it as an excellent negotiating tactic.

We're both Canucks, so I'll mention that in Canada there was a gay movement for civil unions over a decade ago. People freaked out and said no, paving the way for a challenge of the Charter of Rights, which led to same-sex marriage being legal in Canada. If we had just let them have the civil unions without all the whining and hand-wringing, Canada would have same-sex 'civil unions' intead of same-sex 'marriages'.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Duzey...


Why waste your time? Its pretty obvious I dont care... What are the chances? thats the risk they take. Why not go after the law that prohibits them from seeing there "partner" when on there death bed?



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Why not go after the law that prohibits them from seeing there "partner" when on there death bed?




You mean the law that says only family members can make desicions over their loved one in a life and death situation? Yeah, don't let gay people get married, but let just any Tom Dick or Harry come in and decide wether or not some guy they had a beer with 12 years ago should have their feeding tube removed



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
It's a good thread, Damocles. I didn't bother reading any replies because the question is pure by itself.

In a #ed up world like this where people are lucky if they die quickly... if two people can manage to fall in love....hell, who's it hurting to give 'em marriage? What else is it but discrimination to not allow it?

As to the "religious" who say "GOD Blah blah..." yeah, by your own book, gays aren't going to heaven anyway, so why does it matter and how's that a dire threat to the sanctity of marriage. That's like saying me putting spicy mustard on my burger is a threat to burger joints everywhere.

Astygia = straight, likes spicy mustard, hates mustard-profiling-discrimination.

EDIT: It's painful to share, but probably one of very few people I could call a friend, died in Afghanistan in 2004, and was gay. So remember that homosexual soldiers are dying for their country just like straights while the hardline religious and/or right-wingers denounce them.

Good enough to bleed for the constitution, but not good enough to live free under it.






[edit on 10-11-2006 by Astygia]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pink_Cola

Originally posted by semperfoo
Why not go after the law that prohibits them from seeing there "partner" when on there death bed?




You mean the law that says only family members can make desicions over their loved one in a life and death situation? Yeah, don't let gay people get married, but let just any Tom Dick or Harry come in and decide wether or not some guy they had a beer with 12 years ago should have their feeding tube removed


Right.... that makes no sense. But then again so does trying to get same sex marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join