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.

 

Define Marriage? Insult to injury?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   
That's right. Marriage is a union of two souls before the sight of God. That's what it is. That's what it's always been. It's in the book that was written by the guy who invented marriage. GOD! If a gay couple wants that, they can pretend that's what they're getting. I don't think that's really what they're after, though.

Marriage in modern society has come to mean many more things. It is now mostly a union of 'a man and a woman' in the sight of the law, confering many benefits secular in nature. Like tax breaks. Like deals on insurance of all kinds. Like hospital visiting rights. These are the things that gay couples want, and who could blame them?

Hell, in the military, you see people that don't necessarily love each other getting married for benefits such as off-post housing, separate rations allowance, and separation pay should one or both get deployed.

The hospital visiting thing is something I think should be taken into consideration. Maybe marriage isn't the answer, but look, if a man is in love with a man, or a woman a woman, no one can tell them they're not. And if they truly are, I don't think anyone should be able to prevent them from seeing their loved one in the hospital. The emotions run the same, I've no doubt of that.

I really don't thing many gay couples care so much about being spiritually bound to one another, but there are some. Relatively few, though. I mean, if they were Christian gays, they should just go ahead and start their own church and get a tax break, and marry themselves too. It's a free country. If they were Muslim gays and they wanted to get married, they would most assuredly have to elope.

But seriously, you can't legislate love. If you feel it, no one can tell you you don't. Let alone write a law telling you you can't.

I don't know what should be done, but I do think amending the Constitution to define what marriage is would be a little too close in wording to the Bible for me.

Maybe civil union is the way to go. Anyway, I've seen some pretty healthy homosexual relationships. Of course, I've seen some pretty messed up ones too, but not more than heterosexual ones.

Let's hear from the gay members of ATS on this.

DC




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
First, why they have to be gay memebrs? Second, you are making sense, for the most part. Gays want the same rights as a straight couple that get hitched. A civil union doesn't give them that, so they go for marrige. But some do want to get married, and not just for the benefits. My freind Amber wants to marry Rae not for benefits, but because they love each other. And also, why civil union? CALL IT MARRIGE! Marrige is not owned by christians, jews, or mauslims. It is not owned by hindus, buddist, or atheists. What about all the people before christianity? Were they married? If so, then how could they if it wasn't a christian marrige? According to some that is the only marrige, and marrige belongs to the church. But guess what? It isn't owned by the church, but the state/ Who gives out the marrige liscenses? The state. But to define marrige, well, you can't, it would be like definening gravity, you can't define love, you can't define gravity. You can't make a law that says you can only have gravity affect you if you pay a 25$ fee. Doesn't work like that.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Right. Marriage isn't owned by the state, and the state shouldn't really be issuing marriage licences. God didn't say, 'then make sure you go down to the city/county building and get a marriage licence. Oh, and by the way, did you get your blood test".

Marriage was originally a religious instituion and had nothing to do with the government. We just changed the institution of marriage into a government sanctioned status image. Now it has more to do with statistics and money than for what it was originally intended.

Why don't we just remove marriage from the lawbooks altogether, and bring it back to what it really is, then we won't have this discussion about who has the right and who doesn't.


Oh, and by the way, it has to be gay members because I happen to want to hear what they have to say on this topic.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Sorry, I'm not especially homosexual but I'd like to contribute some words.

Marriage doesn't say you're in love and it never has. It's a piece of paper that was issued that guarentees you and your partner to certain rights and nobody else.

If two people of the same sex want those benefits, then they should be entitled to them. But it doesn't say you're in love and it doesn't say you'll be one forever. People are the ones who say that, not a license. It's mentioned in the bible, so what. Let Christians think what they want of themselves, but please not of others.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Again, marrige is not owned by the church! Marrige is older than the church in case you didn't know. One should not base marrige on one religous belief. What about the Jews? They had marriges before christianity. Witches had them, Druids had them, Hindus had them, and they all older than christianity.

Anyways, a marrige license comes from the state, not the preist inbetween child molestations.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
You guys can have this thread. I thought I was making a statement related to gay rights... but I guess it's all about what marriage is now.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

I mean, if they were Christian gays, they should just go ahead and start their own church and get a tax break, and marry themselves too. It's a free country. If they were Muslim gays and they wanted to get married, they would most assuredly have to elope.



It's not possible. A Christian or a Muslim can't be gay. Otherwise they aren't Christian or Muslim anymore. These religions are clearly AGAINST homosexuality and have both said that it was a major sin to be gay. So, reals christians and real muslims are not gay.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
You guys can have this thread. I thought I was making a statement related to gay rights... but I guess it's all about what marriage is now.


There are already several threads on the board, another one wasn't needed. If you go and read them, you'll find that there's alot of arguing, alot of flaming (pardon the pun!), every conceivable position is taken and nobody is swayed from one to another. Mercifully, the thread dies out.

There. You don't have to bother reding them all, I just told you how the story ends.



posted on Feb, 25 2004 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Of course the President and Vice President are going to define marriage as between a man and women... what else would you expect from Dick and Bush?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join