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.

 

Forget Your Morals: Why the Gov't Cannot Allow Gay Marriages

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
as an american you can travel to a foreign country marry someone there without any blood tests, then you come home, file the necessary paperwork and wait for your fiance to be issued a visa, which allows them travel to the usa, before even becoming a citizen. The citizenship process occurs while that person is living in the usa. The people who take advantage of this, do not have to wait to become citizens, by marrying a citizen, they have the visa and the right to enter this country.

btw, if we had an effective system in INS then this would not be an issue, but our INS is overwhelmed with issues that more than 5 years old, same sex marriages will only add to the instability of that system.




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
For gays to want marriage is like a woman wanting a penis enlargement. its simply not what is intended.

It's interesting that you should use this analogy, since the US does allow the marriage of post-op transsexuals, to their post-op opposite sex. In other words, if you WERE a female, but had surgery to make you a male, then after it's all done, you could marry another woman, legally. Isn't this technically the same as SSM, even though she is now a he? Are you opposed to this?

And besides, all this crap about inheritance and life insurance and stuff is bogus. For one, when you die, you can leave your estate to whoever the hell you want. People leave thier fortunes to thier pets for gods sake. And, in cases where a person is sick or dying, even boyfriends or close friends are allowed by the bedside, not just relatives. Bout the only thing they cant do is file jointly on thier tax returns or get medical insurance. If the govornment would allow the civil union to be legal, then it would apply to benefits and taxes.

In regards to the inheritance issue, there is a much higher tax on a person's estate if it is left to anyone other than a spouse, so there is a penalty for not being married when it comes to inheritance.

It also makes a difference when it comes to one partner being hospitalized. The next of kin is the one that has the right to speak on the behalf of the hospitalized party. If they are not married, they are not considered the next of kin, and have no rights to authorize actions that their partner wants done, if they are incoherent. Even if they are the only person who is aware of their wishes.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
thanks for you intelligent counter arguments, byrd, jezebel and gazrok I have NO problems with views that oppose mine.


Ok, I'm the Assh0le here, that's fine. Even though I am using the same argument as these other people. I'm being extremely sarcastic as well. Your discust with me is undertandable. I will leave you to continue your thread out of respect for the fact that it's your thread.

Skadi, in a weird sorta way you brought up the same point I was trying to show. There is NO major change happening here. Aside from the actual title of 'Marriage' being placed upon a Gay Couple, the legal issues have already been available through civil unions. The title of 'Marriage' in either case doesn't have anything to do with Law or Government Rule. Search the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is not one instance of the word "Marriage", "Love", or "Family" in there. No amendments need to be added or removed and no Religious Institutions need to be told who they can or cannot wed.

I don't know about the whole idea of Forcing their Lifestyle on us however. This seems doubtful or wishful thinking that, if true, will no doubt blow up in their face. Minorities and even Women have been fighting for equallity for much much longer and still haven't got it yet, so to think that the acceptance of Gays is going to happen any easier is foolish and most likely dangerous to assume. Plus the fact that there are a million various lifestyles already that are accepted by certain groups, regected by others and attacked by other groups as well. Goth, Punk, Hippy, Yuppy, Gang/Ghetto, Country, Bible Thumpers, Retro, Geeks, etc. As long as they don't get too close, nobody gets hurt. One more lifestyle, which is already here anyway, isn't going to throw the chaotic hurricane of intollerance into any more of a destructive spin than it already is anyway.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel

I guess what I don't understand is why you believe terrorists will choose to present themselves as homosexual couples? Why would they subject themselves to all of the scrutiny that comes from using marriage to become a resident? It is much easier to come here with a student or work visa then it would ever be to come here under the guise of marriage, straight or gay. I don't see how it would be to their advantage. If it is so that they could be permanent citizens, they have to go through a thorough background check and even if they cleared that they would have 2 years of being observed. Also, if they wanted to blend in with the majority of other marriages for citizenship, applying for a hetero marriage would be much more inconspicuous than applying for a gay marriage. Anyone seeing a SSM application coming thru for processing is automatically going to take notice, because no matter how much gay marriage immigrations increase, they will NEVER amount to more than a small percentage of the overall marriage immigrations that are processed every year.

I respect the fact that you are trying to see potential issues that may arise in the future, but I think that you may be somewhat off base on this issue. Criminals can get married in jail, even on death row, and terrorists have predominately been here as workers or students. The assertion that gay marriage will result in a massive increase in the fake immigration of dangerous people seems like a tool put out there by anti-gay marriage protestors to confuse the issue.


Jez, it is not about being Gay or not or acting as if they are gay or not. if you okay same sex marriage, any two people, regardless of their sexual preference can marry and use the system in ways it is not meant to be used.
Real homosexuals will also be negatively affected by this, when any 2 people can marry.

Again i don't look at it as being Gay or Lesbian, it is about the same sex marriages, without the relationships and the sex that will hurt this issue.

I don't mean to be stereo typical but this is just an example

Ali the foreign heterosexual student in the usa from Pakistan here on a visa. His visa is about to expire, and he has to go back to his home country, Ali same sex roommate can marry him and allow him to become get permanent residency now. There would be no big wedding ceremony, no one would know except, Ali, his friend and the court official that stamps the papers.

now for those who say Ali could marry any female and gain the same rights, yes that is true, but if you understand the mindset of most arabs who may be terrorists, they tend not to associate with females...and if you think that potential terrorists are not using this system already with marriages between male and females who are sympathetic to their view, then you are wrong. It is being used currently and same sex marriages will make it easier for those who wish to do the same.

let me put it in another way. Jose Padilla American citizen, could marry foreign exchange student Mohammed Atta, allowing Mohammed to get a visa. They don't make a big deal of it, simple signing of documents in a court house and the deal is done.

again those are examples, terrorists can be from any country and any nationality, I don't mean anything by it, just trying to show a point.


[Edited on 2-27-2004 by worldwatcher]



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
**Content deleted so as not to offend someone by violating their personal rules of discussion**

[Edited on 2/27/2004 by nativeokie]



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Do not bring religion into this argument.

I repeatedly stated, if Religion is the only negative to this issue, then gay marriages should be allowed. This is not about morals.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
as an american you can travel to a foreign country marry someone there without any blood tests, then you come home, file the necessary paperwork and wait for your fiance to be issued a visa, which allows them travel to the usa, before even becoming a citizen. The citizenship process occurs while that person is living in the usa. The people who take advantage of this, do not have to wait to become citizens, by marrying a citizen, they have the visa and the right to enter this country.

btw, if we had an effective system in INS then this would not be an issue, but our INS is overwhelmed with issues that more than 5 years old, same sex marriages will only add to the instability of that system.


Let's say you are right, and there are a whole gaggle of homosexuals that circumvent the marriage/citizenship system by getting married in Canada and then coming back to the US. Our government is still checking backgrounds, documenting and cataloging all visitors and immigrants to the US, so they can't just enter invisibly, no matter where they get married.
Also, is it fair to deny someone their equal rights because of the inefficiency and disorganization of the INS or any other beaurocracy? Is the inability of the government, to perform their job and handle their paperwork in a timely manner, the fault of the homosexual community? Why should they be penalized for the understaffing or ineptitude of the INS? I don't think we can deny someone their equal rights under the law, because of that.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
To answer your first question, jezebel, yes, I am opposed to such things. If one gets a sex change operation, the marriage should be annuled. Strange that you bring this up, it happened to an ex boyfriend. His father, who had been a transvestite for quite some years, decided finally to get a sex change. I dunno what happened in the long run, I do know it destroyed him, his younger brother, and drove his mother over the edge.

To answer your other postings, there are many situations, where you can get legalization, for certain parties to carry out living wills. There are also limited power of attorneys as well.

Civil unions that are legally recognized can grant similar legal benefits to a gay pair, such as inheritance taxes and the like. It happens quite often, actually. There are so many ways around or through the system. Marriage not required.

Marriage: union of someone who is genetically and physically female to a person who is genetically and physically male. Anything else is a joke.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
Let's say you are right, and there are a whole gaggle of homosexuals that circumvent the marriage/citizenship system by getting married in Canada and then coming back to the US. Our government is still checking backgrounds, documenting and cataloging all visitors and immigrants to the US, so they can't just enter invisibly, no matter where they get married.
Also, is it fair to deny someone their equal rights because of the inefficiency and disorganization of the INS or any other beaurocracy? Is the inability of the government, to perform their job and handle their paperwork in a timely manner, the fault of the homosexual community? Why should they be penalized for the understaffing or ineptitude of the INS? I don't think we can deny someone their equal rights under the law, because of that.


It will not be the homosexual community's fault and it won't be the homosexual community that will abuse the system. It will be the heterosexuals who will use the system to their advantage.

ok, I think I understand why no one understand my point, I should ask first, How many of you are familiar with the Immigration process and exactly what happens in these so-called background checks and balances that we should have in place.

nothing happens, without saying things that may incriminate me in anyway, I want to assure you people that the so-called system of checks and balances in INS is highly flawed. The system itself is overwhelmed. I know of people that enter this country with fake documentation on a regular basis, people who married for legal status only. Trust me when I say, those in the immigration scam industry are already considering how they can use this to their advantage, but that is all I will say, so don't ask me for specifics, I cannot provide them.

It is wrong to deny homosexuals of equal rights, because of the ineptitude of the our system. However our system cannot handle this and even though it is wrong to deny them the equal rights, it is necessary for this administration to do so.

many things in our system are considered wrong, but we are not changing them. this is one of those issues. I hate sounding like this, but I totally realize it.

if anyone has read any of my other posts, you will see that I am not a bigot, racist, homophobe or anything like that, but unfortunately logic tells me that even though the denial of equal rights for same sex couples is morally wrong, it is a necessary wrong to maintain this society. Keep in mind I advised everyone to forget their morals in this discussion.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
So, it's ok to deny people their privelages (sp?) because some people will misuse them?

So, if they are already using the marriage issue in hetero marriage, I guess we should just ban hetero marriage too.

What about student visas? I guess we should stop students from coming here to study because of a few bad seeds.

How about drunk drivers? I guess we need to stop everyone from driving then.

Sorry, your gay marriage will lead to more terrorism theory does NOT hold water in my book.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
oi vey! It's not just terrorism and I didn't state it as fact, I am trying to find all the negatives of the issue and my discussion is just one view (mine's) about immigration and how it can affect terrorism. In my opening post, I did ask others who oppose it to provide legitimate reasons as why it shouldn't be legal, but without bring God, Religion and morals into it.

btw, I noticed in other threads regarding this topic, that the same people who favor same sex marriage are posting their counter arguements

However not too many of those who expressed adamant views against same marriages are participating in this thread and it seems they cannot come up with any legitimate reasons as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

So it seems like this is a more a moral issue than anything.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
WorldWatcher~~
I can athink of another thing that will greatly change with same-sex marriages. Health care.
With more people put on as spouses, health care costs could soar. Many of these folks are currently without insurance and it's bound to have an impact of out-of-pocket expenses.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Arabs terrorists and Foreign Immigrants won't be gay, but they will act like it if it can secure them entry into this country, help them get driver license's and jobs. The same law that will benefit the gays will hurt everyone else.



Why not just act straight and marry someone of the opposite sex? Your logic does not hold up.

The fact of the matter is, anything less than marriage relegates homosexuals to a separate but unequal status. We tried that once before and it did not work.

These same arguements were being made when people did not want interracial marriages



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
It is wrong to deny homosexuals of equal rights, because of the ineptitude of the our system. However our system cannot handle this and even though it is wrong to deny them the equal rights, it is necessary for this administration to do so.

many things in our system are considered wrong, but we are not changing them. this is one of those issues. I hate sounding like this, but I totally realize it.

...logic tells me that even though the denial of equal rights for same sex couples is morally wrong, it is a necessary wrong to maintain this society. Keep in mind I advised everyone to forget their morals in this discussion.

I understand where you are coming from now, but if the real opposition to the debate did come from this problem alone, I don't think it would amount to much more than a pause, before legalizing gay marriage. The truth of the matter is that, if this is a serious problem, then we need to focus on solving the problem so that it's no longer a concern. If the choice is between denying someone their equal rights as humans, or using any resources available to solve the problem, so we don't have to deny anyone their rights, it shouldn't even be a question. Our automatic response should be to fix the problem. Especially if it is posing a risk already, without the legalization of SSM. There is no excuse for ignoring such a serious and potentially hazardous problem, with or without the added workload of SSMs.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
WorldWatcher~~
I can athink of another thing that will greatly change with same-sex marriages. Health care.
With more people put on as spouses, health care costs could soar. Many of these folks are currently without insurance and it's bound to have an impact of out-of-pocket expenses.


thanks for you suggestion, I did think of that, but I don't know much about healthcare or taxes, so I didn't argue those points yet.

I do believe that someone stated that the govt would benefit in the tax situation of more married couples, but I am not sure.

are same sex partners currently allowed to each other on their healthcare?



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
In alot of places yes.....in some places no. I don't see how healthcare could skyrocket anyway. The fact of the matter is most gay people have to have their own health care now because they are considered alone. A single person pays far less into healthcare than does a family. So actually sharing benefits would increase the amount that a person pays. Am I right in this or off my rocker?



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
In alot of places yes.....in some places no. I don't see how healthcare could skyrocket anyway. The fact of the matter is most gay people have to have their own health care now because they are considered alone. A single person pays far less into healthcare than does a family. So actually sharing benefits would increase the amount that a person pays. Am I right in this or off my rocker?

Well, I don't know how widespread domestic partner policies are. I think in Ohio, they have recently stopped covering partners of state employees.
I would think there is a considerable % of people who marry for insurance. If those folks are currently not insured, and an not in good health, they can be a real drain to insurance companies. Insurance companies work best when no one is seeing a doctor.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
True. But, look at it this way also. If 2 people have insurance and then decide to get married, 1 is gonna drop the insurance that they have to be on the family policy. Therefore the policy that got dropped is actually gaining because of the dropped policy. Happens with both straight and gay.

Yes, I think the government has now decided to drop domestic partner benefits.....you can thank Bush and the right wing religious nuts for that one also.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
If you legalize same sex marriage, think of all the other cans of worms that will be opened. By changing the definition of marriage, you open the doors to others, like polygamist who will cry discrimination for not allowing more than 2 parties being allowed to join a union.


How does allowing "marriage between two people regardless of sex" suddenly change the definition of marriage?

It's still a contractual relationship between two members of the species homo sapiens. Allowing marriage between people of two different races hasn't changed the definition of marriage -- though the arguments against THAT ran pretty much the same as the current arguments against homosexual marriage. Marrying someone of another race was going to cause the instant collapse of civilization.

I don't know that I'm in favor of pluralistic marriages -- though I can see a great advantage in having three adults in a household when you're raising kids (particularly if one partner stays home.)

If you'll recall, pluralistic marriages (one man and 4 or more wives or one woman and several husbands) was allowed and is still practiced in many areas of the world. Many of the Biblical patriarchs had harems. Pluralistic marriages didn't seem to cause civilizations to collapse, either.



Currently the rate being offered for someone willing to marry someone else for legal status is between $10,000 and $20,000. Consider if you could marry your same sex relative or friend without having to involve a third party and paying those fees, how many more people would be doing it. How many more people will go into the business of it, yes our govt is supposed to do background screening on potential immigrants, but I can assure the system is full of flaws and allows many undesirables with records to enter this country without even a glance.

Allowing homosexuals to marry won't change the immigration quota or the admission policy or anything else.

There's not any evidence that American homosexuals are eagerly hunting partners from abroad (and frankly, there would be a LOT of cultural issues that would make them fairly undesirable partners for your average American gay or lesbian.)

In some cultures, it can mean death for you or your family if you're revealed to be homosexual. Just because the US legalizes such marriages doesn't mean that your home culture will suddenly absolve your family of the taint.

And there hasn't been any great numbers of people rushing to marry folks in those countries that allow same-sex marriages.

Marriage is about love and committment. Yes, you might get a few who will try to enter the US that way -- but the numbers are low, and there are a lot faster ways to get to the US (including going to Mexico and getting a "Coyote" to smuggle you across. Hundreds of thousands of people enter the US like this. None of them are waiting for marriages and "coyote" smuggling is far cheaper than trying to pay people to marry you.)



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcherAli the foreign heterosexual student in the usa from Pakistan here on a visa. His visa is about to expire, and he has to go back to his home country, Ali same sex roommate can marry him and allow him to become get permanent residency now. There would be no big wedding ceremony, no one would know except, Ali, his friend and the court official that stamps the papers.


Once the roommate and Ali are married, they're married. There's a legal system. Ali's roommate can't get married until he divorces Ali. Ali has to renew his visa and if Ali can't get his citizenship, then marriage isn't going to help him.

Meanwhile, Ali's roommate can't marry the cute chick he's been hanging out with or his other homosexual lover or anyone else.


but if you understand the mindset of most arabs who may be terrorists, they tend not to associate with females...and if you think that potential terrorists are not using this system already with marriages between male and females who are sympathetic to their view, then you are wrong.

(sigh) Actually, they're extremist fundamentalist Islamics. This means they're also against homosexuality. They're into studying the Koran and excessive flaming rhetoric. The ones who do have relationships (lovers) in the past have been *heterosexual* ones and not homosexual ones.

Sharia law says that homosexuality is a form of adultery and the punishment is stoning or whipping (100 lashes is customary if they're unmarried):
www.ilga.org...

This is the law these people believe in. They're fanatics. The chances of homosexual terrorists marrying into the US for infiltration purposes is about the same as the chances of a homosexual fundamentalist Evangelical Christian marrying someone from Iraq to become a citizen-evangelist in Iraq.

You wouldn't have a homosexual fundamentalist evangelical Christian marrying because the few homosexuals who are of that faith are also celebate. They wouldn't marry... ever... and they try to avoid relationships.

Same with the Islamists.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join