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 be Legal?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Damn, I've been de-closeted!!!


He he,I think my wife and child would notice if I started bringing men home.




posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I posted this on a BTS thread, but since I have yet to see anyone propose such an idea as an option, I will post it here as well.

Here's a solution to the whole problem and it will also force those who claim not to have a problem with "civil unions" they just don't want to allow "gay marriage" to admit their hypocrisy.

Ready? How about we do away with the government's recognition of heterosexual marriage? How about admitting that "marriage" is a spiritual decision and the legal rights granted to a married couple, since the government shall make no laws regarding religion, should be granted for "civil unions" only. Civil unions would be any legally recognized contract between the state and 2 consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation. The status of marriage would be a personal vow of commitment made between 2 people in accordance with their personal beliefs, and have no bearing on their legal status. If 2 wiccans/hindus/christians/etc. want to marry in a wiccan/hindu/christian/etc. ceremony, they are married, but only in the sense that they pledged their love to each other. If 2 people want the legal status of a civil union, for example, a man and woman want to marry for the financial benefits but do not love each other, they can apply for recognition as a civil union. Then they don't have to lie and make fools of themselves by pretending to be in love, unless they are.

This would eliminate the need for a legal definition of marriage, which is religious by nature, by the government. It would make everyone equal under the law and place the decision to be married back in the hands of the people where it belongs.


Any response to this proposal?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Gay Marriage should be legal. It is wrong to tell someone who they can and cannot marry. I am extremly pissed off that bush does not support Gay Marriages. I guess he does not support equality. It is legal for someone in a guy/girl marriage to have an affair but it is illegal for 2 gay people who love each other to get married. There is no logical reason why gay people should not be allowed to get married. Religion is not a logical reason because you are forcing your ideals onto people which is really wrong. I know this may sound hars, but I wish Bush would rot in hell for opposing Gay marriages. I do not mind if you are against gay marriages, but when you start enforcing that idea onto other people it makes me mad. Bush burn in hell


[Edited on 21-2-2004 by ilovepizza]



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Gays should not be married. Homosexuality is a psychological and mental illness. It can be cured.

Nature made man and wife. We rape nature by allowing man+man or woman+woman.

This is not a racist post. It talks about the truth noone wants to say any more.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Ignorant f*ck.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   


Gays should not be married. Homosexuality is a psychological and mental illness. It can be cured.

Nature made man and wife. We rape nature by allowing man+man or woman+woman.

This is not a racist post. It talks about the truth noone wants to say any more.



Before you make anymore ludicrous claims, please back the ones you have with hard evidence.
Homosexuality premise is virtualy unknown. Homosexuality is quite common in nature aswell.

blue.butler.edu...

In the early 1980's a Science article described the first documented instance of female orgasm in an infrahuman species, the stumptail macaque. The researchers observed the behavior during a female-female sexual encounter. As an undergraduate, I worked with Stumptailed macaques for two years in an ethology lab. Stumptails are somewhat unique among primates as they have a distinct facial expression that accompanies orgasm. The mouth forms a big O (pun intended I guess). Anyhow, I saw this face exhibited by males quite regularly during heterosexual encounters. I was always watching the females though, because there was controversy in the literature as to whether non human primates females experience orgasm. Well, one day I clearly observed the expression in a female during a sexual encounter with another female.

www.rnw.nl...

Animal Queeries


By our Internet desk, 11 August 2000


You may have been told about the birds and the bees when you were younger but it's unlikely mum and dad ever told you about the elephants, monkeys, goats and guinea pigs, and exactly what they get up to. Because, contrary to what many people think, it seems group sex, gay sex and lesbian sex is very common among our furry friends.




Thier is nothing wrong with Homosexuals, love is love. The body is a mere vessel for the soul to experience the physcial human phenom. To take away this irreducible element is heresy and, anyone who trys to stop Homosexuals from engaging in homosexual behavior is an ignorant biggot.

THIER IS NO HOMOSEXUALITY, ONLY HOMOPHOBES

Deep



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
ILP, your opinion is based upon what? Personal opinion. That is worth no more than the person. That is to say, it changes with the wind, and it changes with knowledge and wisdom. Wait ten years, my young friend, and if you pursue knowledge and combine that with experience, wisdom will cause your opinion to change.

Zzub, you are the weakest link. Goodbye!


Jez, you have drawn up an interesting point. It really does fall into my constitutional studies, and you have brought up something I've had a gripe with for some time. The government, which is no longer a republic as the forefathers intended, demand a liscence for everything. Does anyone find iritation at that, too? You must purchase a marriage license, even though that is a Divine institution. You have to purchase a "drivers" license, a pistol permit, etc. The citizenry have no clue how it "ought to be", therefore they have no idea how they are enslaved by a "democratic" government.

As far as this nation, as it was intended, as it was founded, and as it "ought to be", your rights were given to you by God, and protected by the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Law does not contradict the Bible, whereas statutes, which are manmade and commercial, are not based upon the same thing.
Someone mentioned "civil" rights earlier. An understanding of civil rights would lead a reasonable person to understand that civil rights are not a good thing, and the longer time goes, the worse it is. This is because eventually, as society deteriorates into humanism and the government takes away the citizenry's "civil" rights, the people will have forgotten tha ttheir rights were given to them by God beforehand, and that the man made civil rights mean nothing. This is already happening.

Again, let me say that I've spent years studying my nation's foundation. I understand that this is an international board, and my points pertain to my nation only. Since, however, this turmoil is in reference to the ongoings in my nations, I speak.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
As I have said many times on this board...... who cares?

I have too many problems of my own to worry about whither two people of the same sex might be happy togather. As far as the kids go I am sure that there are kids in an orphanage right that would love a home and would not give a # WHO the parents are as long as they are caring. And satisticaly the avarage child molester is a hetro male so the molesting arguement does not hold water.

The only way I see a problem is religiously and this country still has freedom FROM other peoples religion as well as freedom FOR yours.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
TC, I don't know about any of the constitutional side of it. I just hate ignorant hate-mongers. Your views, however offensive to me, are at least reasoned. However, you do seem to be hiding under legal mumbo-jumbo to hide your homophobia.

I'm signing out of this argument, you have your views, I have mine.



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Jez, you have drawn up an interesting point. It really does fall into my constitutional studies, and you have brought up something I've had a gripe with for some time. The government, which is no longer a republic as the forefathers intended, demand a license for everything. Does anyone find irritation at that, too? You must purchase a marriage license, even though that is a Divine institution. You have to purchase a "drivers" license, a pistol permit, etc. The citizenry have no clue how it "ought to be", therefore they have no idea how they are enslaved by a "democratic" government.


I am glad that you understand what I was trying to get across. No one else seems to. I wonder if you would support this idea as a solution to the whole legal debate? I know that our personal views of homosexuality are extremely different, so I would like to know if you think people who share your ideals would be open to this. I think that it is a logical solution, as well as the only truly Constitutional one.

There are only a handful of states left that recognize common-law marriages. My state of California is not one of them. I have taken issue with the whole concept of having to get permission from the state in order to be married for several years now, much to the dismay of my "husband's" mom and my own parents. I do not believe that the state has any right to demand we buy a license showing we have their permission to marry. I am a free individual, an adult, and do not need the permission of the state or anyone else in order to vow my life and love to the person of my choosing. My boyfriend and I are every bit as married as someone who has gone through the legal process, more than some since we actually love each other. Yet, if I were to be seriously injured mOjOm would not have any rights to act on my behalf, or even ask for information about my condition.

That is what the whole civil union argument is about in the first place. Equality for everyone in the eyes of the law. The "separate but equal" theory that says, "We recognize your legal rights as a couple but not your emotional commitment, even though we recognize it for everyone else", is wrong. Everyone should be exactly equal as far as laws are concerned. I think that if there were no laws regarding marriage, only laws regarding the legalities involved in civil unions, that it would save the country a lot of grief and save the Constitution from being further dismantled.

Marriage is, after all, a vow to love, honor, and cherish someone until death do you part. How do you make a law controlling that?



posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
There is another thread that I am posting on this in the mud pit I think, same arguement.

I'll repeat a little here.

The Constitution requires only the rights be given, not nessisarily the priviledge of title.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I don't particularly care what the gays do.

As long as they don't bug me



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I want science to prove to the world that being gay is a biological condition.

Until it is thusly proven I am not in favour of extending a lot of rights and financial obligations to citizens for them.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
why is it ok to hate gays but not ok to hate blacks? probably because gays arent a minority anymore. you just dont know it.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scat
why is it ok to hate gays but not ok to hate blacks? probably because gays arent a minority anymore. you just dont know it.


Actually I thought the reason it's not 'ok' to hate blacks was that people realized how pointless and destructive it is to act in such ways. I didn't realize it had something to do with number value or percentages within the population.

In fact, being hateful toward anything based upon a comparison of quantities seems like the actions of a fool who lives a life of fear and insecurity. If an individual harms another individual who is smaller and/or weaker simply because they can, we view them as a bully and is punished for their actions. Logically the same should apply for groups of individuals as well. If the reason to 'Not Hate' is based upon a Majority vs. Minority comparison, that just makes the Majority into a Tyranical Herd of Cowardly Pussies, doesn't it??

Besides that, where are you getting your facts about 'unified hatred' anyway? Is there an established Majority to which you belong that collectively agree and comply to the rest of your opinions and ideas as well, or just that one?

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by mOjOm]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Society is not completely certain of the origin of the concept called being 'gay.'

I want to know if it is legit or not. It has nothing to do with numbers.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Society is not completely certain of the origin of the concept called being 'gay.'

I want to know if it is legit or not. It has nothing to do with numbers.


What do you mean by 'legit'? Are you questioning whether or not those who claim to be gay really are gay? (Gay being the attraction toward Ones own gender in a sexual manner.)

If they are all doing it as some kind of trick against all those who aren't in on the joke, I'd say it is certainly one hell of good organization and teamwork of liars. Not to mention the purpose of such a time consuming and life altering joke doesn't make much sense either. So I'd say it's fairly legit.

I mean would you choose to be sexually active with another person of your gender if you didn't honestly want to?? I don't think they are all admit one day in a some joking way, "Ah ha, we made all of you people believe we were gay and liked it. Ha Ha, we fooled you!!"



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Gay marriage is disgusting!! Couples should only be male and female (just like magnetic attractions --> positive and negative). I don't even have to put forward my side of the debate as its clear, gay marriage it morally wrong and have many bad effects on the evolution of mankind and psychology and learning of future generations. End of story.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Not so long ago it was against the law for interracial couples to marry. Many were imprisoned. Gays and lesbians are now the minority fighting for their civil rights. Of course they should be allowed to marry! Simply by changing the definition of marriage from "man and women" to "couple", would legally accommodate everyone. Naturally the "Church" disapproves. With their long history of intolerance this is to be expected. But today most agree, religion and government should be separate. Uncle Sam has no right imposing Dogma. Although the church will continue it's reign of control, the oppressed must never give up the fight for equality heir to all Americans. Power to the people!
By the way. I'm not homosexual. Working at a trendy restaurant in the San Francisco Bay area, I encounter them on a daily basis. Living closer to Berkely then San Francisco, lesbians are more dominant here. Many of the younger ones are quite radical. Camouflaging all traces of their femininity, they act out in defiance openly groping and kissing each other. In my experience, gays are not as demonstrative as lesbians. Maybe thats because they've been out of the closet longer. Anyway, after you get to know them, you see only their humanity. People are people so why don't we just live and let live!



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
I was arguing with two of my friends, debating whether or not same-sex marriages should be legal.

I really think gay marriages should be legal. Can you really place a gender on someones soul? I think its hypocritical that we, as America, do not have legal same-sex marriages. Who is it hurting, if two people of the same gender get married?



It should really not even been an issue. I just love how our "betters" feel that they must dictate what others should do with their lives.

For someone reason people believe it will be harmful for any children brought into the relationship. Which I find funny since many serial killers, murderers, stock swindlers, corporate criminals and politicians have come from heterosexual parents.

It's a blind, mindless fear. Nothing more. It is and should remain none of a heterosecuals business if gay people want to marry one another...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join