It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Are you for or against Gay Marriage?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:54 PM
I'm all for it simply because it has nothing to do with me nor should the freedoms promised to anyone else be denied another, for whatever reason.

I'm actually quite surprised at the replies thus far. I figured there would be at least one gay basher in here by now.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:09 PM
I think the issue is the word marriage. Marriage certificates should be outlawed, banned or whatever you want. Government has no right to meddle in a religious pact. Give the word, marriage, back to the religious and let pastors, clerics, priests, and rabbis give that "honor" out. With over 50% divorce rate I consider it a complete failure so something needs to be done. Let any two people do this but only after some kind of test or course as long as there is a deep thought process going into it. There should be a license to have children or to join your finances together like two companies merging, legally binding like it is now but harder to get. My only concern is the mess of government assistance needed after a divorce or broken family, the (women or men) who can not take care of themselves and the (insert sex here) that do not want to take care of their children are to blame. I do not like to pay for other people's mistakes, mine cost enough.

To answer the real question, any two people that need a way to get the 2000 or so government and/or insurance breaks and privileges should be able to....ruin your own lives, more power to you. The word you use is a religious one and I do not subscribe that the idiots with hats have to change because someone is whining about not being in the cool click. Where it all went wrong is the government trying to license something that is not fairly given out. Change that and I am with you but leave me out of crying about wanting a 50/50 chance to fail in life.

I am all for two adults joining together for life as long as it isn't mandatory or subsidized....

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:10 PM
What I think should happen is to give them a marriage like institution with all the same benefits and problems that come with it, but give it a different name than marriage to differentiate between same sex and gay marriage. I think that those against gay marriage would back off then.

Personally why anyone would want to get married is beyond me . Been there that, have the scares from the lake of fire to prove it.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:28 PM
First its Gay marriage, then its underage marriage and then its marriage to an animal ? where do you stop decency ?

The degradation of society is hastened by allowing immoral acts to become legitimized by law such as Gay Marriage. Last time I checked semen does not fertilize excrement and to condone acts of sodomy legally does not actually contribute positively in anyway to the gene pool of humanity, in fact I would argue that most of the homosexuals I know have severe mental issues that come with their sexual preferences.

I would put forward that I worked for 10 years closely with a Homosexual and his explanation of what turned him on made me sick to the stomach. Its not love like its been portrayed in the media to make it appear normal and healthy but perverted and the fact he was closeted showed even he felt it was not something to be proud of and he admitted as much.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:34 PM
reply to post by mazzroth

Obviously, rape (statuatory) laws and the like must be still preserved.

I personally don't care a whit if some twisted person chooses to marry an animal. They just can't blame the animal for improperly filling out their taxes, nor sue them for infidelity.

You see? I think this kind of arguement centers around the very, very extreme where most of those wanting to get married are much more around the center -- they are like us. They ARE us.

Would you deny -- if you had the power -- two people in love who wanted to commit to each other the right to be legally wed?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:44 PM
Pro Gay Marriage. For one, there is not a single study or scrap of evidence to suggest that sanctioning gay marriage has unambiguously or substantially negative effects on a society. Homosexual unions which function as marriages have always existed in human society, whether hidden or tolerated but unrecognized. The only thing that will change, is that a few more segments of the population will be allowed a more equal level of basic human dignity that the rest of us enjoy.

There are many reasons beyond that on which I could argue the point in favor of supporting gay marriage... but, really, what more reason do I need than the desire to see the promotion and preservation of basic human dignity?

Note: This only applies to marriage as recognized and granted by the State and Federal Government. Organized religions are private institutions, and therefore can hold whatever criteria they deem appropriate for their sanctioning of marriage. I am for gay marriage, but not for forcing the church to sanction a marriage against it's will.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Lasheic]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:49 PM
Watching gay men wearing wedding frocks walking down the isle is a bit much for my fragile psyche to take! So I say NO!!!

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:51 PM
I'm against homosexual marriage.
I'm against heterosexual marriage too.

Actually I'm just against the State having anything to do with it. It's none of their business who I marry, what I put in my body, or what I do with my body, so long as no one else gets hurt (who doesn't want to).

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:52 PM
I think it's ok. I mean who really cares... mmm right other people! But why people why do you care soo much about what other people do with there lives, its not your life, and I agree it's none of your business. I think as long as your happy with your life and your satisfied then its fine.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:59 PM
Gay marriage is an an issue of legality.

It's only truly ethical to outlaw something that's harmful to society. Since gay marriage (as distinguished from homosexuality) is little more than a legal agreement between two parties, what negative effect does that have on society at-large? Little to none.

Most people that oppose gay marriage do so on the grounds that homosexuality is immoral. Well, as long as they base their morality upon a rigid and unyielding concept of right and wrong, it shall be immoral for them. But how rational is that?

The bottom line is that homosexuality, and issues like it, should be debated with regard to ethics. That is, their contribution to or detraction from the survivability on all levels.

For simplicity, let's examine three levels: the individual, their community, and their planet.

Individual: homosexual activities (among men) put the individual at higher risk of contracting HIV, decreasing their ability to survive. However, an individual free to act in accordance with their own considerations, especially with regard to love and sex, is more "alive" then he would be if he did not have that freedom.
Taking into account that the risk of infectious disease can be mitigated, homosexuality is positive for the individual who chooses that lifestyle. Regardless of what anyone wants to allege, homosexuality does not effect the individual who does not partake in that lifestyle.

Community: homosexual couples can adopt children in their communities. Is it better to be raised in an orphanage (at high cost to the community) or by two parents, regardless of their sexual orientation?
Maybe someone could suggest a potential negative effect that homosexual couples have on their communities, but I cannot think of one.
I assert that homosexuality, for those who choose to practice it, has a positive effect on a community.

Planet: homosexual couples cannot currently reproduce. On a planet with a population problem that's a positive.

Overall, the freedom to be a homosexual does not have a negative effect on your survival, so why spend time and energy trying to restrict another human's freedom?


[edit on 7-1-2010 by randolrs1]

[edit on 7-1-2010 by randolrs1]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:17 PM
why would ANYONE care about gay marriage? I mean, WTH ... dont u have anything else to do

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by coolhanddan

I agree. Marriage, was initially a religious pact. Then a century or so ago the governmental powers took it over by giving out legal documents etc. All of that is BS, those licences of marriage should indeed be banned etc.

But we all know here on ATS, TPTB want exactly this- to keep the people fighting each other over petty things. And to use religion is a great way. Don't think for a second that they don't control religious institutions. That's how they made a religious pact a governmental one in the first place.

Ideally, it never would've been a governmental thing anyway.
Then homosexuals would have the free choice to choose their own religion and if they don't like the idea of not being able to get ''married'' under that religion, then simply walk away from that religion.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:24 PM

Originally posted by agent00duece
gay marraige, i dont really care,but im only against because i believe its one of the elites plans for the depopulation agenda. the more gays the less the population

Were that the case, then why allow for the development and public release of technology pertaining to the bioengineering human tissue? Specifically, the development of gamete cells from skin cells.

Skin Cell in Sperm/Egg.

Further, there has been a discovery of a single "on-off" gene sequence responsible for determining the development of gender traits. What's striking is that even in adult mice, flipping the switch will start the development of opposite gender specific organs & features. So the only thing keeping you male, or keeping you female, is a flippable genetic switch. Research on this gene is being done to find a better solution than current gender reassignment methods.

We have reached the threshold of rendering gender an arbitrary state, as speculated by SciFi stories like Ghost in the Shell.

Quaint and small-minded notions of "marriage being 1 man and 1 woman" are now meaningless and inapplicable. It only works if one assumes that what makes a man, or what makes a woman, is some fundamental and immutable essence. The reality of the matter is quite different however, and technology will render the current shackles of ignorance as arbitrary and moot as they are antiquated.

Read more Here.

Note: Gender Identity Disorder sufferers are not a subset of Homosexuality, even if they tend to be lumped into the same cultural category. The underlying issues are very different. Further, don't confuse Transvestites, who indulge a sexual fetish, with either of the above who's orientation is integrally tied to their identity. Do NOT make the mistake of thinking it would be "Ok" to force gender changing gene therapies on homosexual couples against their will.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Lasheic]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:25 PM
Under the U.S. constitution all men and women are to be treated equal and have the right for everyone to have absolute liberty. This part of the constitution was spit upon for nearly 2 centuries until the civil rights movement ended that and gave blacks equal rights. Now we are refusing equal rights and liberty to another group of Americans, the gays. How can we say we are a free country who will always defend people's rights when we won't even defend our own peoples liberties by giving all Americans equal rights. Isn't it bad enough that we are stripped of our privacy in the name of counter terrorism? But the same Americans who always love and charish and talk so highly of how we have more respect for human rights and freedoms than any other country will turn around and say, 'them gays don't deserve equals rights as you and me'. This pisses me off how the majority of Americans are serious hypocrits.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:54 PM

Originally posted by agent00duece
gay marraige, i dont really care,but im only against because i believe its one of the elites plans for the depopulation agenda. the more gays the less the population

Funnily enough I don't remember the day when i was given the "depopulation pill" perhaps I had another pill to make me forget that day? or hypnotised?!

Originally posted by sr_robert1
If gay people want to get married, they should call it something else. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It always has been, always should be.

Also, after a few minutes of searching online, EVERY religion I can think of defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. To any church true to their faith, gays are pushing themselves onto the church, the people therein, and deity for said religion. And ya can't just push yourself on God (or whoever).

Now, I know nobody wants to offend gay people for whatever reason because we're all PC and civilized. (sarcasm)
But, for gay people to get "married" , using that term, would most definitely offend a wide variety of people. Since we can't offend gays, we also shouldn't offend people of faith. So...FIND ANOTHER TERM! I heard something about civil unions before? I think that would be a good term.

Even though your post is generally homophobic I agree with you, only for the reason that religion and churches are involved in getting married, its just so required for many things including next of kin etc plus it's socially expected to give your life to someone, the only way to get married is by involving "god" ... so they give it a different name and call it civil partnership, but it comes with almost the same legal rights, yet that still is not enough to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by mazzroth
First its Gay marriage, then its underage marriage and then its marriage to an animal ? where do you stop decency ?

The degradation of society is hastened by allowing immoral acts to become legitimized by law such as Gay Marriage. Last time I checked semen does not fertilize excrement and to condone acts of sodomy legally does not actually contribute positively in anyway to the gene pool of humanity, in fact I would argue that most of the homosexuals I know have severe mental issues that come with their sexual preferences.

blah blah blah.

You sound SO last century...

EDIT: I would also like to add that YES more gay men & women would lead to less population problems, maybe that's what Mother Nature wants?

[edit on 7-1-2010 by viber8]

EDIT: To add I am FOR GAY Marriage

[edit on 7-1-2010 by viber8]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:58 PM
Originally a 'man' was not a male but a man was the union of a male and a female.

Male + Female = Man.

Originally 'marriage' was the act of consummation between a male and a female.

A male person would take a female person by consent into his tent and 'know her' or 'come into her'...
...and united together they were Man or Mankind...
...and they had within this union the potentional to new life.

So then it was a mutual agreement to physical union and co-dependence...
...that could bear the fruit of new life from within itself.

Rights and ceremomies came much later and were usually linked to power and property...
...and eventually religion got in on it.

Definitions drift with misuse and to satisfy personal and power preferences.

Eventually 'marriage' became focused on the ceremony rather than the consummation of 'Man'.

Same sex friendships with benefits of sexual stimulation have never been considered more than multual masterbation or sodomy...
...'man' is not formed by the mutual inter-orifice connection or stimulation of same gender persons... strictly speaking 'marriage' is not possible.

If such friendships require a mechanism for mutual financial security that's fine...
...but it should never be called nor can it ever be 'marriage'.

[edit on 7/1/10 by troubleshooter]

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:05 PM
Gay or straight,man or woman,every person should have the right to marry whoever and whatever gender they please. Im all for it,because homosexuals are still human beings and nothing less than you or me. Besides,if their serious and happy about who they're going to marry,who are we to take away and protest against their happiness?

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:08 PM
Reply to post by Phlynx

Don't care who or anyone else marries. None of my buisness. IMHO.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:14 PM
I stand by my original post.
from the records the poster was online less than 1 hour ago and has not contributed at all to his own thread.

If you where at all concerned with what people believe, you would engage in the topic rather than just watch the stars and flags appear.

I really think there are more important topics rather than a washed out topic such as this which has been done to death.

Good to see the star and flag patrol are out in force though, we would hate to read a topic about Gaza being attacked again or 5 people using diplomatic immunity being let go from the Iran boarder region.

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:16 PM
I personally have nothing against homosexuals per se. That is their choice. I do not approve, but I cannot stop them. However, there is no need for "same sex marriage" as they are provided the same protections as a married couple through domestic partnership. You also have what's called a will in the event of death which you can leave your belongings to the other party.

Marriage is between a man and a woman and it's simply wrong for them to change the meaning of something that is a long standing tradition whether or not recently it became an "institution." It's the same reason you cannot legally be a polygamist. Marriage is sacred. So if they want to be gay more power to them, but don't make that your life! Why do homosexuals feel the need to make their sexuality everything that they are? Please tell.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in