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.

 

Marriage and double standards

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Hello everyone. I would like to share this video with you here. Please take a few moments to fully watch and understand the point to this.


Besides the "cute" factor of this video I think it makes a very good point.
When I got married I really never considered this. And how it affects everyone in this world.

I've come to wonder why on this is too?

Please feel free to express your feelings on the point of this video.
I would be happy to here every point of veiw from all sides.

From my stand point now after thinking about this. Ive come to the fact that I can not support an institution that is clearly so unfair and excludes people just becasue they are different.

How would you feel if you where told you cant do something becasue you are somehow different. Skin color, faith, or lifestyle.
It all boils down to the same point IMO.
This video lays it out very well!

How is it that ethical people that wouldn't support things noted in this video can still get married and not even think twice about it.
Why is that?

I would like to here your feed back.
Becasue I am without a clue. And I am guilty of this myself.
But after watching this video, I will think twice before ever getting married agin, in an injust institution that excludes people becasue they are different.

How does excluding gays from marriage differ from telling blacks they can not live in an all white area? Or any different than telling a muslim they can not walk down a christian street, or vise versa?

The only place I stand is that I think its very unfair, and needs to be looked at threw the eyes of an ethical person.
No more double standards!

[edit on 20-3-2008 by zysin5]




posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Don't look to cartoons of talking cats for your moral values.

Racial apartheid and same-sex marriage are as different as cats and dogs.

I can understand a cat thinking like that.

I can even understand a cat coming to the conclusion that if people of the same sex can't marry, no one should get married, but I can't understand an intelligent human being thinking that.

This is just immoral propaganda for the naive and the gullible.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Don't look to cartoons of talking cats for your moral values.
But I can't understand an intelligent human being thinking that.

This is just immoral propaganda for the naive and the gullible.


Thanks for your input Grady.. I will take note of what you said and log this into my research.

Like I said besides the cute fator of this video it has a clear message.
And besides it being a cartoon, that wasnt the point.

So you are noted as saying its naive and gullible to even think gays should have equal rights when it comes to marriage.

Yeah I dont try to get my morals from G.I joe or cartoons, but in this and age its a good way to get threw to the younger crowd.
A crowd you are not part of.. Well at one time you where but did they have cartoons back then?? I dont think cave drawings counted as cartoons, hehe J/K.


Just to note, I remember my granddad saying how immoral it was to have all those darkies drinking from white folks water fountains.. Just sayin

Yeah times change.. And IM glad they did! Hopefully times will change agin. And what is thought to be immoral now, is looked at by a later generation and said, wow.. People where really like that?

Yep I can recall my grand dad saying how immoral it was to even let blacks eat in the same place as whites.. Immoral to you is a POV, and I repsect that!
But to say you dont understand how a person could think that.
Are you to say Im dull, or stupid? Please if you want explain what you are really saying? (As I wouldnt want to put words in your mouth.)

I happen to think besides it being a cartoon, it has a clear message.

And no I dont think people should totally stop getting married..
Just to stop and think about it for a moment is all.
If people could stop and take a couple mins to think about it. We might get somewhere peaceful. Where humans have equal rights!

[edit on 20-3-2008 by zysin5]



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
First off let me say..sometimes you need the cuteness of a kitty to get a message across..as we tend to tune out other people quite often.

Iam not racist. Iam not anti-gay.
I believe in freedom of choice.

As far as racism goes..I find it highly ignorant. There is no color to the word HUMAN. I respect all as brothers and sisters of the one race..HUMAN. So as it should be. My skin is white, my heart is Native American, my mind is Asian....
Does it make me less human to be so?

As for those who chose to love the same sex..
Love is love. Again there is no gender specifics to the word Love. It is a feeling whether you are male or female.
Who am I to judge whom another person loves or does not? I would rather love be spread than hate.
Iam more afraid of a soldier back from duty in the middle east than a gay man.
Zysin is correct. Not just too many double standards..too many standards period.
Marriage is really nothing more than a legality and truly has zero to do with love, and in my experience and MHO, should be avoided.
A piece of paper does not prove love or fidelity. It is only worth it's weight in it's own composition..ink and paper.
You want to argue the value of a wedding ring?
Gold and diamonds..dirt of the earth. Worth nothing more than sand to me.
Only given value by man himself.
If man gave value to dirt you would buy it? You already do..in spades. Sad waste of money.
Far too many arguments over those who chose a lifestyle different from what society dictates as normal.
And my god in this day and age the word RACISM itself should be banned, let alone the acts of.
My 2 cents worth.



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


Thank you for your input AccessDenied! Your words have also been noted in my research! Its a great post IMO. And will help me add to my work here! Im glad to get 2 different POV here so far, and look forward to hearing more.. That is if you all here are willing to help me in my quest for knowledge!
Agin what ever you feel I will respect what you think.. As I am simply here for knowledge.. NOt to say what is right or wrong..
I have my own feelings on this subject, but I will wait till later to talk about those feelings. I just want to get as many veiws as possbile.
Ive learned here at ATS that the more input you get.. The better idea of a subject you can get.. Thus all healthy and postive replies are welcome!
Yes even Grady reply was the very type of stuff I was hoping to hear.
POV is important.. And one can not learn if he only sees things threw a narrow spectrum!
Thanks guys for listening.. Look forward to hearing more!

peace



posted on Mar, 20 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The cartoon did have a clear message.

It used as a pretext racial apartheid and asked whether we would eat at a white-only restaurant or live in a white-only community, or swim at a white-only beach.

The answer provided to us is that we would not because by doing so we would be promoting racist institutions.

Then it asks us to apply that same logic to the institution of marriage.

What it does not bother to investigate is why persons of the same sex should be given the rights that are given to persons of the opposite sex who marry.

We may assume that in our enlightened age that all humans have equal rights and eating, swimming and living in the same places are protected rights.

The assumption that we are led to believe follows from that is that a man who marries a man is in the same league as a man who marries a woman or vice versa, if the previous phrasing offends you.

The answer to that question is an unequivocal no.

Men and women who marry one another might be in love, but it is not that emotional factor that gives the state the impetus to grant certain rights and benefits to the married couple.

The state is not interested in your love for your spouse. The state is interested in your setting up a family within which you will, it is hoped, raise good responsible citizens to carry on the traditions of our society.

This is not an option for those of the same sex who marry, unless of course they adopt, or artificially inseminate, neither of which is a necessary task for two persons of the same sex in the eyes of society.

So, the clear message that there is some sort of moral equivalency between racial integration and same sex marriage seems like it might be logical, except to those who have the knowledge, experience, and education to understand why societies find it beneficial to promote strong marriages and families.

Thus, the little cartoon with cute little characters is meant to offer in a charming way a set of logical fallacies.

Lest you think that I am a hopeless troglodyte, let me explain that just because I know the reasons for marriage and the family and why they are not the domains of same sex couples does not mean that I am unsympathetic to the emotional and legal needs of homosexuals.

There are ways to legally protect the relationships and the property of those who choose to enter into a partnership of virtually any kind and these should be instituted, fostered and protected, but they should not be equated with marriage.


[edit on 2008/3/20 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   
There truly is a "double standard".......I think gays should be allowed to get married; why should they be spared
the pain and misery the rest of us have to endure?

www.divorcemag.com...

It's a brave new world, welcome to the monkey house.




[edit on 21-3-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
There truly is a "double standard".......I think gays should be allowed to get married; why should they be spared
the pain and misery the rest of us have to endure?


Right! Thanks for the input Whaa!! I have to say.. All these happy go lucky gay souls are just to happy!!! Id love to see the rate of divorce if this came to be!
And just think of the money the courts could make off all the divorces that would happen for sure..
Gays are no different than you or me.. They cheat, they get into things just like everyone else..
It would be great to so them join the rest of us in the misery of marriage. hehe.
I know I wont be getting married agin.. I thought marriage was about love. But as it seems I was wrong.. Its just a piece of paper that gives you sertin rights.. Marriage IMO is nonesense anyway..
If you love someone, thats all there is too it.

You either know you are in love, or you know you are not.
Its a wonderful thing that everyone should exp.
So the whole deal here is that love isnt being banned.. Its the process..
And what a crappy process IMO agin.. What is paper compared to the power of love..
Yeah monkey house.. heheh so right on that comment!



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zysin5
 



Thanks for posting.

I just want to point out though that even if you don't decide to marry, after a certain amount of time living together, heteros are still considered spousel in the eyes of the law.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by zysin5
 

heteros are still considered spousel in the eyes of the law.


You are welcome Griff
Yes I have heard that if you live together for like 8 years it becomes like a legal marriage?
Not sure of the time, if anyone else knows for sure, please share that info.

My grandmother and grandfather got divorced, but then lived together for the rest of my grandfathers life. It was like 15 years.. So after that I guess they where remarried considering that law..

And I cant say never.. One never knows what tommorow will bring..
I just keep an open heart and open mind for such things. I wouldn't want to shut the door completely if something worth while showed up in my ilfe.
Anyway thanks for the reply.
This is all being logged in my research files



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
The issue surrounding gay marriage is whether or not it denigrates the concept of marriage in the eyes of the law and religious institutions as a union between a man and a woman.

In my opinion, it does not denigrate marriage. I couldnt care less who gets married to whom. A man could get married to a horse for all i care, it does not affect me personally hence i wouldnt try to stop the man from committing a fallacy.

I actually have the inverse PoV to Grady. I have a problem with "gay pride", and yet i have no problem with gay marriage. I have no problem with gay people whatsoever, as long as they do whatever they want in private. Its when stuff like the gay pride parade comes along and forces it in my face that it becomes an issue for me. I dont go running down the street shouting "yay look at me im a hetero", so i assume the courtesy of gay people would lead them to do the same.

They have exactly the same footing in the law at the moment, there is no institutional apartheid against gays- so what are they protesting at? Gay pride parades are akin to the white pride parades or black panther parades of yore. You are what you are, what is the sense in banding it about and shoving it in peoples faces?

There is also an issue surrounding gay adoption. Will a hetero child brought up by gay parents feel uncomfortable because he/she isnt gay? Will the gay parents bring up the child with the same access to information about heterosexuality as the child would in a "normal" household?

So in conclusion, i have no objection to the gay marriage movement, as long as their activities are concluded in private, and further psychological research is carried out into the effects of gay adoption.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The state is not interested in your love for your spouse. The state is interested in your setting up a family within which you will, it is hoped, raise good responsible citizens to carry on the traditions of our society.


The state is not interested in whether or not people can have children. Procreation is not and never has been a prerequisite of marriage. I can not procreate, yet I was allowed to marry.

I could adopt, however, the same as a gay couple.

Promoting strong marriages and families is fine, but denying marriage to someone simply because they can not or choose not to have a family is discrimination and denial of equal rights.



Lest you think that I am a hopeless troglodyte, let me explain that just because I know the reasons for marriage and the family and why they are not the domains of same sex couples does not mean that I am unsympathetic to the emotional and legal needs of homosexuals.


Procreation is NOT the ONLY reason for marriage. If marriage is not the domain of same sex couples, tell me why I was allowed to marry, knowing that I could not have children...


but they should not be equated with marriage.


Why not? You have yet to give a concrete reason.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Precisely.

Also the more fundamental issue here, and im approaching this as a classical conservative is:

If the marriage of two other people (who may be gay) takes place, how does it affect me and why should I get a say in it?

In my opion I should not. Their business is their business... live and let live.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

The state is not interested in whether or not people can have children. Procreation is not and never has been a prerequisite of marriage. I can not procreate, yet I was allowed to marry.


I didn't say that procreation was a "prerequisite" for marriage, but in reality it often is, or at least used to be, when having children out of wedlock was considered tres gauche.

I guess the marriage institution is in such a shambles and we have become so ignorant of our institutions that we don't know what they are for or in some cases, what they are.

In a thread on this subject some while back, one member announced that marriage isn't an institution, but rather, a relationship between two people.

Marriage is supposed to be for the foundation of the family, which is by the way, the foundation of society.

When children are born into strong families, their likelihood of growing up to be good citizens are considerably better than when they are born into other arrangements.

The statistics bear this out and anytime some celebrity gets into trouble or there is some kind of heinous crime committed, we hear all about broken homes, "single moms," poverty, and a host of other related social problems.

The ideal of marriage is the reason it is an institution and it remains an institution because for millennia that institution has worked, even in various forms.

We don't require married men and women to procreate and we also allow those men and women who are infertile to marry, but these are gestures that pay homage to the orderliness of society and the part that marriage plays in maintaining that order.

Marriage between members of the same sex is just an absurdity. Such arrangements do nothing to strengthen society nor do they pay homage to the institution.

You may argue all the other points until the cows come home, but there are no rational reasons to allow people of the same sex to get married.

In our society, people may live together, or not. They may form certain contracts between themselves for business purposes and otherwise live with the reasonable expectation that they will not be harassed for living in those arrangements.

That same-sex couples do not meet any criterion at all for marriage is not being discriminatory, but simply being realistic about the institution of marriage, about what it is, and why it exists.

That I would have to write these things so often is reason enough to believe that the institution of marriage is moribund.

It appears that even among those men and women who enter into that institution, many don't understand it themselves.

Since the government began subsidizing illegitimate children and their mothers, the slide has been precipitous to the point that I am making this suggestion.

Let us abandon marriage completely in the eyes of the state.

Any two or more beings may live together, or not, call themselves by whatever appellation they choose, and call their arrangement marriages if they so choose. They may have ceremonies and take possession of certificates, have blood tests, if they so desire, and travel to exotic places after the fact in what is often called a honeymoon.

However, such practices will have no standing in the eyes of the state.
If we are to go down, we should do so in a blaze of glory. Well, ignominy would be the better word, but is not nearly so pleasant to the ear.


[edit on 2008/3/25 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Marriage between members of the same sex is just an absurdity. Such arrangements do nothing to strengthen society nor do they pay homage to the institution.

You may argue all the other points until the cows come home, but there are no rational reasons to allow people of the same sex to get married.


Neither are there any rational reasons to prevent it.

I dont agree with homosexuality and i find it "distasteful", but who am I to impose my will upon other people?

While marriage as the bedrock of society is a valiantly noble concept to put forth, in reality we see marriage really counts for nothing these days. I think you touched on this when you mentioned single parents, divorces etc. Marriage as a state-sanctioned institution is worthless in its current state. Surely allowing it to slip a further rung down the ladder is of no concern any more.

Even if you do not wish to grant the tax exemptions, adoption rights etc that heterosexual married couples get, on paper what possible justification could there be to actively de-bar homosexuals from getting "married".



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
we also allow those men and women who are infertile to marry, but these are gestures that pay homage to the orderliness of society


Are you kidding me, man? My marriage is just a "gesture"? An homage to orderliness? How dare you determine what my marriage is? Really. How do you presume to say what my marriage means or the purpose of marriage itself when my marriage certificate given to me by the state shows no such distinction? Is your opinion above the states'? My license doesn't say that that my marriage is a "gesture" or an "homage" marriage and not a "real" one like all the breeders' marriages... I wonder where you get the authority to say whose marriages are justified and whose are just gestures... That right there is discriminatory!



You may argue all the other points until the cows come home, but there are no rational reasons to allow people of the same sex to get married.


Well, according to you, there was no rational reason for me to be married either until you came up with this "gesture" business. Certainly, you can have the opinion that people who cannot or do not add to the overpopulation of this planet have no business being married, but to presume to categorize MY marriage as a gesture is beyond arrogant. You have no business assuming anything about my marriage. Not only that, you have not been appointed by the state to make this decision.



That same-sex couples do not meet any criterion at all for marriage is not being discriminatory, but simply being realistic about the institution of marriage, about what it is, and why it exists.


Same-sex couples do not meet YOUR criteria for marriage. And your criteria do not matter to anyone but you. You don't get to say what the universal criteria are for marriage. Only what your single opinion is about it. And you ARE discriminating, by simply saying whose marriages are actually adding to societal structure, whose marriages are just gestures to that institution and whose marriages have no right to exist. That, BY DEFINITION is being discriminatory, sir.

You do not get to determine what the institution of marriage is OR why it exists for anyone but yourself. It is there for us all, whether for love, money, family, convenience, companionship, security or any other reason we choose.



That I would have to write these things so often is reason enough to believe that the institution of marriage is moribund.


Thank God that your narrow view of marriage is near death. I hope it dies swiftly and without commotion.



It appears that even among those men and women who enter into that institution, many don't understand it themselves.


And you... You understand it, right? How's your marriage doing, by the way? Mine, which I understand perfectly, is strong, long, stable and real. Not just a gesture. I do not pay homage with my marriage. It IS marriage. One of the best marriages you will ever encounter.



Let us abandon marriage completely in the eyes of the state.


Why do you care? I don't want to abandon marriage. By the state or otherwise. You abandon it. It works for millions of people. You certainly don't have to participate, but keep your hands out of other people's marriages! You don't have a clue about my marriage. and it's not ONE bit your business.



[edit on 26-3-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Nicely said BH. Marriage is there to show that there is a loving bond between two people which is recognized by the state. To say it's a religious institution is false because although it was originally ordained by a religious leader, so was everything in society before the separation of church and state, when the church was the state.

Even more simply, atheists can get married.

And to the point of marriage being an unchanging means of enforcing society's order by telling us what is a family, and what is not.
(that's three, count 'em, three eye rolls). If that were the case, then why change the rules of marriage to allow interracial couples to marry? Or to allow marriage between different religions? Remember when the color of the population was the measure of a society? Or the religion of a population?

Aside from that, Grady hasn't actually made any points saying why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed other than he thinks it's not normal. Well, normal is boring. Normal is for those who are afraid of change. And I'll also point out that societies that don't change, and remain stagnant die.

It's sad to know that some would prefer the entire institution of marriage be destroyed rather than let people who's lifestyles they don't agree with enjoy the bonds of matrimony. It seems extremely selfish if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Are you kidding me, man? My marriage is just a "gesture"? An homage to orderliness? How dare you determine what my marriage is? Really.


You need to take a deep breath and consider the intent of the post, instead of seizing upon one sentence to rail about.

I'm not speaking of "your" marriage.

I'm speaking to all those who clam that marriages between infertile men and women are justification for marriages between homosexuals.

God, I hate it when people don't read a post to determine the intent or even the content, before launching a red-faced diatribe.

It's impossible to attempt a rational discussion when the first words are deconstructed to meaninglessness.

As for whose business it is who gets married, it is the business of those who will subsidize that marriage.


[edit on 2008/3/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
...Grady hasn't actually made any points saying why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed other than he thinks it's not normal. Well, normal is boring. Normal is for those who are afraid of change. And I'll also point out that societies that don't change, and remain stagnant die.


This statement is completely untrue. First of all, I know the meaning of normal and I don't use the term in the form you do.

I actually made some well founded arguments against same-sex marriage, but apparently, you didn't bother to read them, or you would have stated my arguments in an accurate manner.

As I have said before, when the majority of the population has lost the meaning of an institution, it is time to abolish that institution in the eyes of the state.

I actually don't like the idea of subsidizing anyone's living arrangement, but that doesn't mean that I'm incapable of understanding the meaning of the institution of marriage and why it exists and why it is sanctioned by society.



[edit on 2008/3/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Grady are you speaking from a purely economic viewpoint, in that you do not wish your tax dollars to go to a homosexual "married" couple?

Are you saying that you are happy to subsidize marriage between two heterosexuals regardless of context?

Because I have to say, if i had the choice of when to withold my tax money, I wouldnt let any of it go to anyone with an IQ below 100, I wouldnt let any of it go to anyone who hasnt completed basic schooling and I wouldnt let any of it go to any couple who has a criminal record.
The reason? I dont think they are capable of forming a stable family environment for any children.

If you want to disenfranchise anyone from the institution of marriage, how about you debar criminals, retards and drop outs before going after homosexuals?




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join