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.
Hence the point made about issues that trancsend love and laws that do not allow equal access to marriage. I think studio's analogy albeit ridiculous as it was, is ridiculous for a reason, that for some, one must take things to extremes before they those having a problem understanding the concept of equal access, can fathom what would under other circumstances, be easy to understand.
Originally posted by Studious
Second Idea.
I do not understand the "love is love" and you have to allow it idea. What about 50 year old man and a 5 year old girl. Hopefully no one here would say that they should be allowed to get married even if they loved each other.
If you believe that a law that would allow a 50 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl is wrong. Then you must agree that there are standards that transcend love when dealing with marriage.
Originally posted by americandingbat
Hence the point made about issues that trancsend love and laws that do not allow equal access to marriage. I think studio's analogy albeit ridiculous as it was, is ridiculous for a reason, that for some, one must take things to extremes before they those having a problem understanding the concept of equal access, can fathom what would under other circumstances, be easy to understand.
Perhaps I'm just obtuse, but the example left me more perplexed because of its extremity.
The girl will eventually be 18; the gay couple will never become a heterosexual couple.
The girl is incapable of understanding the responsibilities of a marriage due to her age and immaturity. Two gay adults are just as capable of understanding the responsibilities of marriage as two heterosexual adults.
The example is not extreme; it's inapplicably disparate.
Originally posted by cybertroy
But, I am being tolerant where need be. If you really want to be gay and all that stuff, then ok. It is your life. If you are a contributing member of society, then that means a lot to me, no matter your sexual preference.
Troy
Originally posted by Studious
I am saying that there is more to marriage than just love. Love is just one of the many prerequisites for marriage like age, understanding etc...
Originally posted by Annee
I'm really lost in all this discussion.
This is purely and simply an Equal Rights issue. Consenting adults want to join their lives and households in a committed relationship.
The government license to do that is named: Marriage License. It has nothing to do with religion. There are many words that we commonly use today that come from antiquity - - when religion was rule. But we now have separation of church and state - - and religion is not rule (at least it shouldn't be).
The marriage license has nothing to do with Love - Religion - Sexuality - or anything - - except protection of persons and property.
Period!
These semantics over a word are ridiculous.
Originally posted by Studious
Whatever your position on same-sex marriages, unions etc...
A bigger issue here is the elimination of the legal status of a word.
Back on Page 5, I explore this in depth.
(I would post it again but I would be repeating the same ideas I already had written.)
Originally posted by Annee
Here's how it should have gone down.
We are gay - we have the same committed relationships hetero couples do.
We want to get married too and have the same equal rights by law.
OK - - here is your marriage license. Congratulations!
-----------------------
It is the word used for the license. The word can not change.
Originally posted by Annee
Here's how it should have gone down.
We want to get married too and have the same equal rights by law.
OK - - here is your marriage license. Congratulations!
-----------------------
It is the word used for the license. The word can not change.
We are gay - we have the same committed relationships hetero couples do.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I like this!
On one hand, fair is fair. If two homosexuals wish to partner for the social and tax benefits, I have no right to deny them that. I only have the right to disagree with their lifestyle, not the right to deny them the ability to live it equally. On the other hand, as a Christian who understands the sanctity the religion places on marriage, I cannot condone the calling of something obviously outside the basic tenets of the religion by the religious name.
If the word marriage is struck from all legal codes and replaced with something like 'domestic partnership', then as far as the law is concerned, there is no marriage. A marriage is then something performed in a church, similar to a christening or a Bar Mitzvah. As it should be. I assume from the wording of the source that a marriage performed in a church with a 'domestic partnership' license would be accepted as a legal domestic partnership... same thing as happens now, but with a legal separation between the religious ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of domestic partnership.
I have been proclaiming this route as the only real way to hammer out a compromise since the whole Prop 8 thing began (before actually). I am relieved to see it is being taken seriously finally by someone.
The thing that worries me is Annee above. Why in the world would anyone oppose this? The only reason I can see is that they either want to force churches to perform gay marriage by law (which I believe some people do wish to do, out of bitterness toward Christianity), or they simply like the present fight going on. And even more amazing to me, Annee, is that we have had some pretty good debates over this issue in the past. I would never have suspected you of being in either category.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear about this. It's about time some common sense came out of California.
TheRedneck
Just to be clear,? are advocating suggesting changing the defintions of marriage to mean civil unions?
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by googolplex
Arghhhhh!!!!!
Either you are trying to be sarcastic and humorus in a way that failed, or you actually believe the pablum you just wrote!
First idea: Not funny.
Second idea: Might be one of the most disgusting, ill-informed hateful "rants" I've seen lately, on ATS.
Either way.....fail.