Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

page: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RRconservative
 


So you are endorsing loveless marriages? It's just about the plumbing??? So much for the whole 'sanctity of marriage' argument! And what ever happened tp civil rights being a 'conservative value'? Oh, I remember now! It went out the window with the baby when the Christian Right (i.e. Moral Majority) hijacked and took over the Republican Party!




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Helmkat
 


after writing that g-sting comment, I was thanking God I am straight. I would scare folks in a g-string. Think wholly mammoth wearing a rubber band. I should wear one for my wife. She would get a kick out of that. On second thought.....



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
Think wholly mammoth wearing a rubber band.

I had to go get some paper towels and wipe the Diet Coke off my monitor after reading that line! Quite the visual! ROTFLMAO!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Jebus H Chist Jaxon!

You sure have opened a can of worms in this one haven't you? It's always interesting to see the Gay threads evolve. It's like there's some sort of conspiracy on ATS about it.

In any case, I've made my view ont he subject very clear, love is love, and the plumbing in between should not matter.

Those who don't wrap their heads around this simple concept are the ones who are lacking something, not us.

I agree that marriages should be left to straight people. It is after all a religious affair and always has been. So if the churches don't want to marry gays, they should have the right to do so.

However, civil unions should provide all the rights that marriage does. That's all we want, equal footing. Doesn't matter what it is called.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


You can't go fishing for knowledge and enlightenment without opening a can of worms once in a while!

As to the religious aspect, I disagree from two standpoints. First, there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are married. Should marraige now only be between one religious man and one religious woman?

Second would be that there are plenty of religious and spiritual homosexuals who attend Church weekly. Should they not be allowed to marry because the religious majority disagrees with their sexuality? I'm sure that the clergy from the Metropolitan Community Churches would disagree with you on that one.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


It's about compromise friend. I understand the frustration, I get the whole " No we want it called marriage" thing.

But it's just not realistic, and we know it deep down. And to tell you the truth, would you want to be married by an instution whose majority does not accept you?

Do you require that religious folks to be in acceptance? No, we never have and they never truly will.

That's why civil unions which provide all the same rights as marriage are the true answer forward. It leaves those who don't want it their precious marriages and those who don't care, well they still won't care.

Democracy is about compromise, not barging through and taking it all or nothing. I've watched this debate evolve for over 30 years now and it's the same place it was in the 80's. The only difference is that some states have leaned in our favor, the vast majority still don't.

Sad but true.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I hear you, but this leads down the slippery slope of 'separate by equal' nonsense. Hence why I deal in absolutes. Same thing for everyone. Now if it were 'civil unions' for all in regards to the state, and only marriage in the Churches, I could go for that.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


That's pretty much what my idea is on the matter. Let them get married and churches and have the civil unions done for everyone through the state.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


True. The big problem I see in the gay community (this is coming from a straight guy) is that you perpetuate your own stereotype.

Just be people.

Big whoop.

This dressing up like nuns, the gay pride parade stuff embarrasses other gays, those that I have spoken to at least, and gives a false representation of the community.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Geez straight out of the middle ages, have you ever stopped to think that those same civilizations were based on old world ideals??? Quit living in the middle ages.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I'm actually one of those non-stereotype homosexuals. You would never know I'm gay from meeting me, and I never broach the subject first. No feather boas in my closet, etc. The thing is we are all judged on the actions of just a few. The flambouyant queens are actually just a small fraction of us, and they do get on my last gay nerve at times!



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


Try more like out of the Dark Ages! Just goes to show you that Ignorance is alive and well here on ATS!



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Every civilization that has embraced homosexuality has been destroyed.

Actually, that should read .... every civilization has been destroyed.
Eventually every civilization comes to an end. It's just the way it is.
Era come and go. Kingdoms come and go. ALL of them.
I doubt the 'homosexuality' thing has much to do with it.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Absolutely
, these people on here get more and more ignorant by the day, whats good for me isn't always good for you mentality is sickening. Double-Standard anyone?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Nice!

I just hope the Polygamist get to have as many partners as they want now, and the pedophiles get to lower the legal age of consent to 13, and let’s not leave out those who practice beastality.

Its all normal rght?


This is what I am thinking, the road onwards is downhill. the elites are promoting this to sustain populations



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by influx.destruction
 


In your brain right now there is a warning light going off. It is the 'severe logic error' light. Since this 'position' has been addressed ad nauseum, I won't do it yet again.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK
 


LOL

I support equallity for all sexualities, I must be gay!!!

I support rights for women, I must be a woman!!?

I support black rights, I must be black!!!?

I support feeding the starving, I must be hungry!!!?

Wrong on all counts.

You were joking, right?

Your argument is beyond retarded, and i know I shouldn't laugh at you for being of a lower intelligence, but you are funny in a disturbing way.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Wow! Congrats Jaxon! I know how much this means to you especially.

Is it too soon to sing "OH happy day!"

Thanks for the information too. I didn't know that provision existed but it makes total sense.

So if someone goes and gets married in Vermont then the state they live in, say...Idaho (mine)...has to recognized them as married and extend the same benefits other married couples receive like filing joint returns, visiting in hospitals, life insurance, etc.?

What about the federal government? Do they have to recognize it too. Especially in the case of filing a joint return?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GEORGETHEGREEK
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


NO NO !


I am FOR FREEDOM !!! Its the foremost right of every being.

Apart from the ones you don't like?

i wouldn't call gay defect but not normal either. IF gay was normal the race wouln't be a case in the first place.

There is no "normal", it's just social conditioning, anyone with different conditioning to ourselves will appear abnormal, just as we will appear abnormal to them. And what race are you refering to?

In my village not normal is practiced behind the corner where unseen.
I am ok with that. Is that not enough freedom?


No, having to hide what you are for fear of repercussions is no freedom at all.No, having to hide what you are for fear of repercussions is no freedom at all.


Sorry if i break hearts or hurt feelings...
No, you just make yourself look ignorant.
George The Straight. (All ways.)
Apart from the ones you don't like?There is no "normal", it's just social conditioning, anyone with different conditioning to ourselves will appear abnormal, just as we will appear abnormal to them. And what race are you refering to? No, having to hide what you are for fear of repercussions is no freedom at all. No, you just make yourself look ignorant.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I know right! Just like all those Christians who play with snakes at their services and blow up abortion clinics. They really just perpetuate their own stereotype.

And what about those white guys, huh? Parading around in white sheets/hoods and burning crosses. No wonder no one likes white guys.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join