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.

 

Sexual Preferences

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Who cares? Why not just define a civil marriage as being a joining between two consenting human adults over the age of 18?

If gay people pay their taxes, abide by the laws and don't hurt anyone, who cares?

Pedophilia is a whole 'nother story because it involves children under 18 who cannot make decisions for themselves under law.




posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Amuk. I fail to see how getting married is a basic human right.

Really it is just a recognition of something religious.

____________________________________________

So if two gays were married in the "Church of the Gay Union" it would be OK to call their union a marriage, and not a civil union, right?





posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
iF YOU CONDONE GAY MARRIAGE, THEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR TO A WHOLE LOT OF UNPLEASENT THINGS! Being GAY is a CHOICE against the norm....It is nothing less than looking for your 15 min of fame! IF BEING GAY WAS CORRECT, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD HAVE DIED OFF A LONG TIME AGO!!!! tO CALL IT A CIVIL RIGHT IS TO OFFEND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY!!!!!! Being GAY is a choice!!! Something to go against the establishment! IT IS A MINORITY OF SOCIETY SEEKING ATTENTION!!!!! They have the same right as I do........MARRY A MAN OR A WOMEN........NOT MAN MARRY MAN, WOMEN MARRY WOMEN!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CSRules
IF BEING GAY WAS CORRECT, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD HAVE DIED OFF A LONG TIME AGO!!!!


_____________________________________________

The studies and statistics have shown that the percentage of gays in a society has remained relatively constant over the years, around 10%, so that proves that your conclusion is incorrect.

The rest of your post makes no sense at all.




posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by CSRules
iF YOU CONDONE GAY MARRIAGE, THEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR TO A WHOLE LOT OF UNPLEASENT THINGS! Being GAY is a CHOICE against the norm....It is nothing less than looking for your 15 min of fame! IF BEING GAY WAS CORRECT, THE HUMAN RACE WOULD HAVE DIED OFF A LONG TIME AGO!!!! tO CALL IT A CIVIL RIGHT IS TO OFFEND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY!!!!!! Being GAY is a choice!!! Something to go against the establishment! IT IS A MINORITY OF SOCIETY SEEKING ATTENTION!!!!! They have the same right as I do........MARRY A MAN OR A WOMEN........NOT MAN MARRY MAN, WOMEN MARRY WOMEN!!!!!!


As already pointed out, the gay population is relatively small compared to straights. They are not going to make your kids gay.(that is if they are not already gay) It sounds like you do not know any gay people. It is definitely a born thing. Yes, everyone(straight or gay) has a choice to act on sexual behavior, but gays are definitely born with their preferences.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Several people tried to equate gay marriage to a civil right, it is not.

The abillity to get married is gaurenteed to no one gay or str8....it is not my civil right to ever have a bride/spouce....and no one will be obligated to provide me with one.

The fact that anyone is/is not married has no bearing on the rest of their life, one can still have a successful career, live with someone they love, drive a car and do anything else a non married person can. There is no right to a marriage for anyone.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 01:41 AM
link   
ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. Right or wrong, the culture has the right to decided that this is what they want as a boundary/definition for them.

If in a democratic society they decide to not legitimize gay marriage/civil unions...then they HAVE THAT RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE...right, wrong, or debatable.

While a person can choose to act upon their sexual urges or not, or to get married or not, that does not mean that this choice would be acceptable (in his society) or that the society overall has to condone this choice.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustAnIllusion
I was arguing with my mom the other night about legalizing gay marriage, (Im for it), and she brought up a point that made me think.

She said "Well being gay is a sexual preference, something that cant be helped. So if you condone homosexuality on the grounds that it is an uncontrollable sexual preference, then you also condone child molestation. Its a sexual preference."

I certainly do NOT condone child molestation, (child molestors deserve to be shot), but it made me think. If we allow gay marriage, are we opening the doors to other things?

Also, if we legalize gay marriage, will taxes be higher? Im not sure...

Consensual sex among adults is completely different than child molestation. Adults should be allowed to practice any kind of sex they want, as long as both (or all) parties want it. What they do in their bedrooms is none of my business. You can't tell people who to love, nor how to love.
You're either pro-choice, or you're pro non-choice. There is no in between.

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Amuk. I fail to see how getting married is a basic human right.

Really it is just a recognition of something religious.

____________________________________________

So if two gays were married in the "Church of the Gay Union" it would be OK to call their union a marriage, and not a civil union, right?




Is it not obvious I was talking about the long lasting institution from the Judeo-Christian/Muslim religions.

Not some hokus pokus religion imagined up just to get by the technicalities.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
So Hinuism and Buddism are hocus pocus religons? Wicca is a hocus pocus religon even though it is based on a religon thousands of years old? The oldest religon in the world? Indian religon is hocus pocus? Since you don't like the religon it is hocus pocus? It only a religon if it has one all mighty powerful invisable male person that lives in the clouds? If it female, more than one, or doesn't live in the clouds it not a real religon? Sorry, millions, actually billions will disagree with you. Hinduism is the main religon in China, usually the only one allowed.

Sorry, just cause you don't think it a religon, doesn't mean it isn't. Hindus have marriges, buddists do to. Wiccans have marriges, aka hand fastings. Indians have marriges. Of course, I think only Wicca, Buddism and Indians allow gays to exist. Unlike christianity, jews, or mauslims who believe in death to anyone who doesn't agree with our belief. But we don't allow that in this country, we believe in freedom of religon.



posted on Apr, 8 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by jsobecky
[

So if two gays were married in the "Church of the Gay Union" it would be OK to call their union a marriage, and not a civil union, right?




Is it not obvious I was talking about the long lasting institution from the Judeo-Christian/Muslim religions.

Not some hokus pokus religion imagined up just to get by the technicalities.


____________________________________________

So the religion you talk about is the only true religion? Any other religion is hokus pokus, not to be tolerated?

This is the religious freedom our country grants to us, the citizens?

Kind of HYPOCRITICAL and intolerant coming from a genious (not my spelling, BTW), isn't it?
____________________________________________




posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Will someone please put the religious arguments aside, they are ALL unprovable and subjective to ones beliefs...

lets talk about tangible arguments here

WHY WILL NOONE ATTEMPT TO DEFEND GAY MARIAGE VERSUS THE 2 QUESTIONES I POSE IN MY LAST 2 POSTS ON THIS THEAD?

I feel that there is no responce as THERE IS NO REASONABLE PRO GAY ANSWERS to these questions.

Go ahead, try it....



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 06:08 AM
link   
OK, CazMedia, I'll give it a shot.


Originally posted by CazMedia
Several people tried to equate gay marriage to a civil right, it is not.

The abillity to get married is gaurenteed to no one gay or str8....it is not my civil right to ever have a bride/spouce....and no one will be obligated to provide me with one.

_____________________________________________

We need to define marriage so that we can have a common ground on which to debate. Here is my definition:

Two consenting adults, with no consanguinity, that have decided to dedicate their lives together for the opportunity to enjoy all the benefits that two such people should be able to enjoy together.

If you agree, then OK. If you have a different definition, then OK. We need to have a definition that we both agree on before proceeding, do you agree?

The ability to get married is something everyone has. But I think you meant the right to get married. You have a right to get married, but no guarantee. Nobody has the obligation to provide you with a spouse, I agree.

_____________________________________________

The fact that anyone is/is not married has no bearing on the rest of their life, one can still have a successful career, live with someone they love, drive a car and do anything else a non married person can. There is no right to a marriage for anyone.

_____________________________________________

Here's where it is more complicated. It certainly does have a bearing on the rest of their lives, insofar as there are some places where a gay partner cannot visit their loved one in a hospital because they are not married.

But if we could eliminate those barriers, give gay couples every right that today's married couples have, what would be the difference between two gay people as opposed to two married people?




posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 06:50 AM
link   


The abillity to get married is gaurenteed to no one gay or str8....it is not my civil right to ever have a bride/spouce....and no one will be obligated to provide me with one.




No it is not gaurenteed to any one but it is allowed. What laws are stopping you from getting married?

Are the gays asking for a law GAURENTING them a spouse? NO.

They are just wanting the same rights as the rest of us.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Finnally some good attempts

NONE that adress this one

ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. Right or wrong, the culture has the right to decided that this is what they want as a boundary/definition for them.


Aside from that,
JSOBECKY
Marriage is already defined, what you are asking for is a RE-definition of marriage. So we cannot agree as I am starting with an established cultural norm and you are starting with a request for the culture to make a change....we are not starting with a fresh new idea here
so trying to agree on a mutual definition is not applicible.

AMUCK asked "What laws would stop me from getting married?"

Immigration law, age restrictions, some states have time limits for a license, some have waiting period, some require medicle exams, and some require that both seek pre marriage counciling. at some point, just living together will make you a common law couple, even if thats NOT your wish.
You cant marry if your already married. (poligamy)
You cant marry a close relation.

The priest you ask to marry you can just say NO, i dont think you 2 should be married, and so can a judge, based on mental capasity, criminal status...ect

As you can see, there are many rules/laws concerning IF i could get married right now. So the fact that there would be another would not shock or suprise me, and the fact that our culture has defined marriage in this way is an acceptable choice.

FROM the legal infromation institute...
marriage: an overview
In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry, and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations.

All states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marraige as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" (1 U.S.C. 7). DOMA further provided that "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship" (28 U.S.C. 1738C)


Ok try again people
you know i might just be pro gay marriage and playing devils advocate with this issue to sharpen the gay marriage argument?

Ok im not, but you think their arguments would be getting better after all this wrangling back and forth.
But still the same ole list of demmands, no plan of action for implimenting this, and no concept that this answer might be NO on this issue.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   


ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. Right or wrong, the culture has the right to decided that this is what they want as a boundary/definition for them.



Is that not what they are doing right now? By your own statement you are saying that our culture has the right to legalize gay marriges.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
Several people tried to equate gay marriage to a civil right, it is not.

The abillity to get married is gaurenteed to no one gay or str8....it is not my civil right to ever have a bride/spouce....and no one will be obligated to provide me with one.

The fact that anyone is/is not married has no bearing on the rest of their life, one can still have a successful career, live with someone they love, drive a car and do anything else a non married person can. There is no right to a marriage for anyone.



Cazmedia, I'm trying to rack my brains to think of one person or couple I have known of sound intellect, with no major criminal record (actually is that even a bar? You can be a serial killer and still marry even in prison but God forbid a poof gets the chance) or who does not belong to some ecclisiastical/religious vocation (by choice), who has ever been blocked from taking the marriage vow. I can't think of one off the top of my head.

As for your last statement if it's so surplus to requirments shouldn't we consider doing away with marriage alltogether for everyone.



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   
OK, CazMedia, so we cannot debate this because there is already a definition that you have that automatically excludes gays.

Maybe another topic, sometime.

But before I bow out of this discussion, a few points:

Remember that at one time in our history, the definition of a free man did not include the black man.

Secondly, and finally, I agree with you that society has a right to set acceptable limits of behavior. But remember, we do not accept discrimnation, so what is allowed for person A should be allowed for person B.

___________________________



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I can answer that Caz, let's look at the reason 90% of the anti gay supporters use as a basis for their opinion. religion!!!

When you look at it that way it doesn't so much look like a free society but a controlled one doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 9 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
One more thing, Caz: instead of locking yourself into an inflexible definition, maybe you should ask what would be a good reason for not changing it to include gays?

_________________________________________




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join