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.

 

NEWS: First Gay Couple Marry in France

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
In a world that denies gay couples the simple union known a marriage, a French couple defy the law and marry anyway. A day after the Prime Minister warned that homosexual unions would be "null and void" a gay couple got married anyway...
 

Guardian

BEGLES, France - As gay couple said ``oui for the first time in France, days after the prime minister warned that the homosexual union would be legally ``null and void. Stephane Chapin, dressed in a white suit and dabbing tears of joy from his eyes, and Bertrand Charpentier, in deep gray pinstripes, embraced, kissed and smiled broadly Saturday after the brief civil ceremony in the Begles town hall in southwestern France, near Bordeaux. The justice minister quickly said that the Bordeaux court would be petitioned to declare the marriage null, while the interior minister said the mayor who performed the ceremony - a Green party politician known as a provocateur - would be sanctioned....

Please visit the above original source link for the full report.

Ok the kiss part made me feel ill.. I am not gay and it seems like a very unusual way for people to act. But that is my view alone! Now saying that I also think that having laws that only let heterosexual couples marry is stupid to say the least. Who are we to choose who is worthy of marriage or not?

I can't believe that true love is only exclusive to heterosexual couples, In fact I have seen some gay couples stay together far longer than others.

No matter what I may think of gay people, they should not be denied the simple right to marriage if that is what they wish to do, and laws against it seem just plain stupid.

[edit on 6-6-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Let me start by saing that I don't hate gay's But I don't equate not allowing them to marry with denying their rights either. They don't have the right. and there is no precident in our 7000 year + history. So, we cant actually deny someone of something that does not exist in the first place.
If we allow this present threat to set prcident, there will be no way of stoping any other combinations for marrige, because we will have denied an absolute. That's not to say that the absolute will not still exist, because it will, but we will have hardened our hearts and scared our minds.
After we have successfully changed the definition of marrige can any one truely say that we will in noway entertain the idea of polygomy. What about marrige between syblings. or between children and middle agers. Let's slip a little bit further and say between a human and some other mammal. As sick as that may sound, it really isn't that far off once we begin to slip down that slope; gravity and momentum will be unstoppable!
I suggest we not pretend to be enhancing marriage by lowering the standards instead lets raisie the bar by holding accountable those who are married to a higher one.




posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Adsense got sense :


Ad by Google :


Same Sex Niagara Weddings
Chapel Overlooking Niagara Falls Hotel, Dining & Limo Tours Included
www.niagara-fallsview-weddings.com


Gay Adoption Guide
A directory of websites offering information on adoption legalities.
www.legaldirectory.ws


Tomorrow the weedding will be declared unlegal by the ministry of justice anyway. And Noel MAMERE (The mayor who married them, in france weeding are pronunced by mayors) will have some problems with the french justice...

Gay marriage in France is not for tomorrow, the fight is only begining for gays to have the right to marry in france.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Graystar
it really isn't that far off once we begin to slip down that slope; gravity and momentum will be unstoppable!
I suggest we not pretend to be enhancing marriage by lowering the standards instead lets raisie the bar by holding accountable those who are married to a higher one.


exactly who's standards are being lowered here? I think most heterosexual marriages of recent times has more than proven that marriage is not sacred.. in fact with the infidelity and divorce rates marriage as a whole is a joke. But to say that because of who one chooses as a mate for marriage is of the same sex they should be denied to show their commitments to each other is just wrong. and to me the same as the days when blacks were denied the right to vote or denied access to white only places. Marriage is not just a right to the religous. Many people who marry are agnostic or have no faith in God or religion at all.

And as for the argument that if we let gays marry we may as well let children and adults, siblings ect. is pure crap!

I do not think fondly of gays, I will admit it, to me it is repulsive.. but I am not their judge and humanity as a whole has no right to deny ANYONE the happiness they seek in life.

Gazz



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I'm sure I'll get flamed on this statement.

The fact is there is no such thing as a "right" for gays to marry just as there is no "right" for many things that people seek. What people equate as "rights" is merely a drive to achieve their self-centered desires. Masking such desires as a drive for "rights" is simply an attempt to justify what is not legitimate on its face value.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
I'm sure I'll get flamed on this statement.

The fact is there is no such thing as a "right" for gays to marry just as there is no "right" for many things that people seek. What people equate as "rights" is merely a drive to achieve their self-centered desires. Masking such desires as a drive for "rights" is simply an attempt to justify what is not legitimate on its face value.


Do you mean such things as women's rights and Aboriginal rights? Or just Gay rights?



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Take your pick. But please, don't over extend the issues. Do I believe in women's rights, aboriginal rights and african-american rights, of course! Does that include everythhing one could dream up and place under each of those headings - of course not! That's what my post was about in the first place.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Well, it's been argued here that the KKK has the right to free speach. Why is it that everyone in the world has rights except gays? As one raised homophobic, I see where you're coming from, but here we are to deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My apologies I put reply in brackets after each quote


Originally posted by UM_Gazz

exactly who's standards are being lowered here? [Everyones standard; an absolute standard between right and wrong, good and evil.]

I think most heterosexual marriages of recent times has more than proven that marriage is not sacred.. in fact with the infidelity and divorce rates marriage as a whole is a joke. [That is why I said we need to hold those who are married to a higher standard. And if I might add we don't need to ask what that standard is because it is deeply encoded into our very being. It only sounds like crap when we have breached the threshhold between right and wrong enough times. At that point I agree evil is good and good is evil and all is relevant to our own perogitives.]

But to say that because of who one chooses as a mate for marriage is of the same sex they should be denied to show their commitments to each other is just wrong. [A mate? that is an oxymoron!]

and to me the same as the days when blacks were denied the right to vote or denied access to white only places. [ I'm sorry, but there is not a moral equvilancy between onces perogitives and the color of ones skin. Furthurmore, one is genetic and the other is not. Sorry no gay gene.]

Marriage is not just a right to the religous. about right to religeous alone. Many people who marry are agnostic or have no faith in God or religion at all.
[Idon't believe that either . No one is saying anything I'm saying that society as a whole cannot survive the redefining of marrige to include gay as well. Many will diagree with this statement but I don;t think that we should use the next twenty or so years to test out this hypothesis when we already have many thousands of years of hard core fact to back up the ideal heterosexual marrige. ]

And as for the argument that if we let gays marry we may as well let children and adults, siblings ect. is pure crap! [ if it's crap then please tell me what justification do you have for not allowing those other groups to marry? All they need is one disobedient mayor and a few fanatical judges to back them up. And after all, isn't their right to seek happiness in this life? Who then are we to deny them of their rights? Do you see the logic here. But I honestly don't believe we will get that far once we condone an open homosexual lifestyle, infact no past society has ever survived such a moral landslide.]

I do not think fondly of gays, I will admit it, to me it is repulsive.. but I am not their judge and humanity as a whole has no right to deny ANYONE the happiness they seek in life. [Everyone has the moral obligation to judge between right and wrong. There is nothing bad or wrong about that. After all, destroying the Jews would have brought Hitler happiness but we judge him and found his desire to be wrong-or was it?!

Gazz [/quote



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
With all due respect Graystar, we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter. Debate with someone so set in mind is pointless, you can shred my post as you wish and try to make it look as gays are all out to trample your sacred institution of marriage as a group of nazis planning the destruction of all that we see as moral and good.. for you the line between good and evil is the same as the line between hetero and homosexuals so in your world all Gays are evil.

How can I ever argue with that logic? I mean damn these gay people will bring destruction to the world if we let them have a damned paper that shows they are married.

Please


Gazz

[edit on 6-6-2004 by UM_Gazz]



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Why is it that everyone in the world has rights except gays? As one raised homophobic, I see where you're coming from, but here we are to deny ignorance.


Intrepid,
You're missing my point. No I'm not homophobic, my sister-in-law is gay. I love her. My point is about rights. What is a right and what's not a right. Our society today has really confused the issue. Try this one, do we have a right to prescription healthcare benefits? The answer is no - we don't. Certainly it is laudible for a society to provide such a benefit, but it's not a right.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   
NO I'm not missing the point. This is discrimination, people are being denied what you and I are allowed, just because it's same sex. Reverse this, let's say that society accepted only gay marraige, hetro is merely for breeding. How would you feel if you were told you can't marry because it's "different sex?"



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Intrepid,
Same sex "marriage" is not a right, nor is poligamy, nor are a bunch of other things that people claim as rights. When I say you've missed the point, I referring to your continually bring this back to a gay issue. My point is much broader and has to do with the misuse of the term rights. Show me anywhere where it's written that gays have a right to marriage. Show me where people have a right to poligamy. Show me where the North American Man Boy Love Association has a right to pedophelia.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Give me a break! Right to same sex "marriage"? The first reference to marriage comes from the Bible. It is the union of a man and a woman under God for the procreation of the human race. The only "rights" we have are those given by God!



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Being a person who has MANY gay friends, I think what those two men did was great. Defying everything to get married. I mean, even though the marriage will "technically" be considered a null, to those two men their marriage will still be. I believe that marriage when you REALLY love someone is more of a spiritual thing. I say kudos to them, they're human just like everyone else is and they should be able to be happy and get married as well.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Cripes, when did this become a revival meeting. We've crawled out of the middle ages, come join us. CS, you didn't answer my previous question, care to?



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Intrepid,
I really can't give a legitimate response to your question since I'm not in that position. The fact is however, that there are many things we simply can't do because they are wrong. Notwithstanding how nice we may think something is or how much empathy we may have for someone's position, it is what it is. When we start adoring niceness to pity someone else or being politically correct for its own sake or accepting things because they seem good at the time, what we are really doing is adoring false idols. Enough said. How about answering the questions I posed. How does that differentiate from your position? You still haven't accepted the point I was making concerning "rights". And finally, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. This doesn't change whether it today or the middle ages.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
OK, I'll answer your question if you'll answer this one. Do you think that straight people have the RIGHT to be married?

And please say EXACTLY what your question is.

[Edited on 6-6-2004 by intrepid]



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
This is an amazing step towards equality for homosexuals in the world.

Commonsense, please use some commonsense, Man/boy relationships and poligamy are very very different then homosexual relationships, which involve two consenting adults.



Quite the flawed logic much used to detract homosexual rights.




The first reference to marriage comes from the Bible. It is the union of a man and a woman under God for the procreation of the human race. The only "rights" we have are those given by


Quite wrong, marriage is more than an institution, as a repsected member, BYRD, had put it, its a kinship and relationship ( Vaugely on those terms ). Marriage predates the Bible, the Hindu culture predates the Christian doctrine by 2000 years, and marriage is seen here.

Again...


Deep

[edit on 6-6-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
ZD
Your logic is flawed. What we'll see in the future are the same arguments being made for the "rights" of these other groups to act in any manner they desire. Would we even be having this debate if it were forty years earlier? I think not. The reason we are here is because of the human minds desire to rationalize behaviour they wish to engage in. While Byrd is certainly a respected member of this community, Byrd's definition is merely Byrd's opinion. I wasn't aware that one person was responsible for the redefinition of marriage. No offense to Byrd. And finally, if you go back to the book of Genesis, I don't think you will find anything that predates that.

Intrepid,
Yes a man and and a woman have a right to be married because it is consistent with the natural law - that established by the Creator. With regard to exactly what my questions were, please re-read my posts, they are quite straight (pardon the pun!) forward.

I think this is an issue where we will simply need to agree to disagree. But I am curious with regard to your answers on the issues of rights for other, shall we say, non-traditional lifestyles.

I think with that this will be my last post on this thread.

ZD
When you said Hinduism predates Christianity by 2000 years, were you just looking at New Testament writings? I don't know why so many people tend to ignore the Hebrew scriptures and simply refer to everything as Christianity. Roughly 2/3 of the Bible predates Jesus. ZD - your facts
your logic


[edit on 6/6/2004 by CommonSense]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join