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.

 

Ireland's Unbelievably Good Commercial for Marriage Equality

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The commercial is good and straight to the point.

Let anybody get married to anybody, as long as they keep the children aspect a separate issue.

I don't think laws over children should be there for either straight or gay marriages. It has caused too many problems that civil marriage and child's rights are mixed together.

Children are being denied their rights due to marriage laws. That, however, is a separate issue from this thread.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Great commercial. It's good to see the overall attitude towards gay marriage in the developed world is finally starting to hit a tipping point. I would never have thought I'd see a commercial for gay marriage anywhere 10 (or even 5) years ago.

Kudos, Ireland! Equality for all


I find it strange how homosexuals feel they have less rights than heterosexuals. Marriage - until very recently - has always referred to the legal union between a man and a woman. ANY man and any woman of ANY sexual orientation, colour or creed has the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex. This is what has defined the tradition of marriage for so many years.

Two individuals of the same sex cannot marry. This is why when ever they do it is called a "Gay Marriage" or a "Civil Union" or whatever. What some people want to do is change the definition of marriage to appease the lifestyles of a minority. I do not think this is justified.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by northexpedition
This video does not speak for all of Ireland.

Translation: "Good" propaganda for family-destroying gay marriage



Oh if I could give you an award...

It would be for "most ignorant Human of the week", of course.


How is it destroying any family to allow others to have a "CIVIL UNION"!!!!!

The first time a same sex couple had "relations" did it "destroy heterosexual relationships"?
The first time a same sex couple went to see a movie together, did it "destroy" movie-going for straight people too?
The first time a gay man ate an apple, did it "destroy" the ability for heterosexual men to eat apples?


I'm shocked, and I never realised the truth.




posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
The commercial is good and straight to the point.

Let anybody get married to anybody, as long as they keep the children aspect a separate issue.

I don't think laws over children should be there for either straight or gay marriages. It has caused too many problems that civil marriage and child's rights are mixed together.

Children are being denied their rights due to marriage laws. That, however, is a separate issue from this thread.


Yes, I agree. It is disgusting to have any child living in poverty, without love, in foster homes and orphanages. Especially when there are plenty of gay couples out there, people in stable relationships who have been together for decades, wanting to adopt.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Yes, I agree. It is disgusting to have any child living in poverty, without love, in foster homes and orphanages. Especially when there are plenty of gay couples out there, people in stable relationships who have been together for decades, wanting to adopt.



Sorry, but you missed the point on children's rights when you tried to make it gay's right.

You'll have to be more selfless than that.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
What some people want to do is change the definition of marriage to appease the lifestyles of a minority. I do not think this is justified.


The definition of marriage was already changed when the government and people added privileges to being married.

For example, married people are able to claim a joint tax account where people who are not married are unable to do so unless they are a business entity.

Another example, married people are able to claim benefits of their spouse, which is not easily done if there is no marriage. These benefits range from insurance, military, and death.

Either let people get married for those reasons, or make it so that people don't need to be married at all in order to have such privileges.

Oh... and I haven't even gotten into penalties after divorce. I would love to see the gay community start to share in such penalties that heterosexual couples have shared in for quite awhile. It actually might balance a few things.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by detachedindividual
Yes, I agree. It is disgusting to have any child living in poverty, without love, in foster homes and orphanages. Especially when there are plenty of gay couples out there, people in stable relationships who have been together for decades, wanting to adopt.



Sorry, but you missed the point on children's rights when you tried to make it gay's right.

You'll have to be more selfless than that.


I didn't miss the point at all.

The fact is, some people would see children suffering, because of their own bigotry.
It has nothing to do with gay rights, and everything to do with what is moral and right when it comes to the care of children.

It's insane to believe that any child would be better off in the care system, instead of in a loving home, regardless of the gender of those at the head of that home.

The idea that it is okay to leave kids in this system just because one doesn't agree with gay relationships is what is truly sickening.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost


I find it strange how homosexuals feel they have less rights than heterosexuals. Marriage - until very recently - has always referred to the legal union between a man and a woman. ANY man and any woman of ANY sexual orientation, colour or creed has the ability to marry somebody of the opposite sex. This is what has defined the tradition of marriage for so many years.

Two individuals of the same sex cannot marry. This is why when ever they do it is called a "Gay Marriage" or a "Civil Union" or whatever. What some people want to do is change the definition of marriage to appease the lifestyles of a minority. I do not think this is justified.


The gay marriage movement is just one front of many by the Left to assault the foundations of Western Civilization.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
OK, first of all to the OP, great video. One would think that it would make the point clear to all, but as the subsequent posts have proved, it didn't.

Second, to those who keep bring up the 'poor, poor children', I would inform you than many of us have children already. Good luck taking them away! (Some of us, ahem, even have Grandchildren!)

Third, since when did equal civil rights become a 'leftist propoganda' issue? When did supporting the Constitution become the perview of the left? I seem to remember it being a 'core conservative value'.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I didn't miss the point at all.
[...]
The idea that it is okay to leave kids in this system just because one doesn't agree with gay relationships is what is truly sickening.


If that is how you feel, then you truly did miss the point. Maybe consider why those children are in such care in the first place.

You tried to provide a solution as a leverage in order to establish gay's rights. Your solution uses children as pawns. Children are not pawns! How dare you!

Did you know there are many children that get into that situation of care because of how messed up divorce laws have become? When you realize that, then you'll realize that your solution is not a solution at all. Leave the children out of it.

Anybody can adopt. You don't have to be married.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I find it disgusting that it should even be dicussed. I am not gay nor do I appreciate getting hit on (which has happened at least twice, once in highschool and once on a train) by gay people. But I don't get angry at them nor expect them to be taboo'd. I hope they do get their rights.



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Now this thread is obviously about marriage equality, however a poster brought up the fact that gays should not be able to raise children based on the "social" stigma associated with it, as well as with the gender roles of mother and father.

Now, as a gay man who is currently raising 4 kids with another man, I will have to disagree with both arguments.

My eldest is 19 and my youngest is 4. These children were raised pretty much from birth with two fathers and are outstanding members of society.

I'll first answer the quam about gender roles. You are correct, there are things that two men cannot provide to let's say my teenage daughter when she was going through certain issues.

However, we do have ALOT of female friends (there's a steretype) as well as a multitude of siblings, grand mothers etc that provided such support when we tried our hardest but could not.

In the same argument some claim that single parents have the same proble, that a single mother can't do as good as a mother and father could, I beg to differ on that as well, and so would the millions of people who are raising kids without a partner.

As far as the child having a hard time in school with this issue, that's the parents responsibility to teach their child about equality and to ignore such ignorant behaviour from their peers.

That's what I have done with my children, and so far the two which have gone through highschool and the other in middle school have NEVER had a problem that they were not prepared to deal with themselves.

These arguments are moot.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
In the same argument some claim that single parents have the same proble, that a single mother can't do as good as a mother and father could, I beg to differ on that as well, and so would the millions of people who are raising kids without a partner.


Two people walk into court for a divorce. One gets the kids.

It isn't because of some crime the other parent has done, it solely is based on the whim of the court.

On that note, there are many non-custodial parents that would not agree to your claim above where you used "so would millions of people" that you tried to factor into your weight. There a millions of non-custodial that are perfectly capable and at times better parent that the custodial partner, yet it is only because of the court whim that makes them lose rights to their kids. That lost right is something that custodial parents have taken for granted.

Likewise, don't take that for granted and try to use it for your cause. It's abusive.

Note, I'm not the one that says that you don't have any right to your kids. I'm the one that says marriage and kids should be a completely separate issue -- even in court -- no matter of who you are and what you do.

Equal rights also means equal responsibilities.


[edit on 5-9-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


I don't understand?

You are saying that single parents cannot raise children properly? I was only saying that single parents can raise kids just as well as a married couple could.

I'm still confused???

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
You are saying that single parents cannot raise children properly? I was only saying that single parents can raise kids just as well as a married couple could.


I did say anything about who can raise a child the best.

Note my distinction that it is the court that makes people custodial or non-custodial, and that is done on a whim. To make someone a non-custodial parent makes them essentially lose rights that custodial parents and married people take for granted.

Someone is only suppose to lose rights when they are actually found criminal. A divorce is not a criminal action. Nobody is suppose to lose rights.

Get married to whomever you want, yet don't use someone else's loss like above to your advantage unless that someone else is truly a criminal.

Non-custodial don't get to raise their kids because of the courts whim, not because they didn't anything wrong. I'm not against you, this is an abuse that has gone on for many years by custodial parents.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
What some people want to do is change the definition of marriage to appease the lifestyles of a minority. I do not think this is justified.
[quote]
I have this to say, When prayer was outlawed in schools, when Merry Christmas was changed to Happy Holidays etc etc so as not to offend certain minorities, all the rules changed.
If you are offended by gay marriage, then call it what makes you happy but leave everyone else alone. Gay people will call it Gay marriage. Why dont you worry about your own business?? At lease you have to admit that Gay people respect the santity of marriage enough to fight for it. And just for the record....Gay and lesbians can have children if they so choose without being married, same as you.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Magantice]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


My point never spoke of custodial or non custodial, I was simply making the point that single parents can do the same job as a couple could without the child loosing out on anything.

I agree with you that courts should stay out of such business.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by leo123
What most gays forget is mosts striaghts could give a rats ass about them having a legal union, but they need to respect the fact homosexuals are not a procreating couple entering into a traditional heterosexual marriage in the sense of the term.


That is where the problems lies, gays don't seem to respect the fact they are equal, but different.
...

[edit on 5-9-2009 by leo123]


Sorry I havn't read the rest of the thread yet, but, I couldn't not reply to this.

Equal, but different....correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I heard that was when Hitler spoke about women... women who should mother at least 8 children for the father land. Equal but different is contradictory in every single sense...you are either equal or not equal.

The quote was crazed back then and, forgive me but is crazed now.

They are equal...not equal but different but equal.



Why should children with gay parents suffer at school, when children who are gay don't? In my secondary school there were plenty of lesbians and gay people, htye all kept it secret in fear, but when one boy was brave enough to let it out...so did plenty of other people. And sure there were a couple who hated it, despised it even, but the fact is so many people just accepted it that even they didn't say anything. Friendships didn't change, they wern't bullied, they didn't have to stick together...it was just a meh reaction to see two girls making out at school.

So why would it matter if their parents were gay or lesbians...when the child being gay or a lesbian doesn't? You can pretend its so wrong and the child will suffer, but only because people like you would try to make them suffer... ('You' is aimed at nobody in particular....just the stereotype who say they shouldn't have kids because of bullying. If thats you, then too bad I might've called you a bully.)


[edit on 5-9-2009 by StevenDye]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by StevenDye]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Equal but different is just ludicrous. If gays get married, that marriage has no effect on me either way. None. The whole argument against it is laughable at best. None of my 'rights' would be effected. Calling it 'gay marriage' is also ridiculous. Just call it 'marriage'. There's no need for 'gay' this, 'straight' that, etc...

It's all much ado about nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join