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.


NEWS: First Gay Couple Marry in France

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 08:50 PM
Hoo boy, is this a powder keg if there ever was one.

Number one, I am completely in favor of gay marriage, and hope it is legalized everywhere. I really hate that the first place it was to happen was France, since there are enough Franco-racists in this country without adding this to the issue; I moved to Los Angeles last year after growing up in Europe, and I must say, that as both an American and a European, I am completely appalled.

Getting back to the issue, I have this to argue:

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.

What? Who cares if a precedent hasn't been set; it's called "progress". A hundred and fifty years ago there was no precedent to use antibiotics, and we all know how the # hit the fan when we changed that. I find it very difficult that someone can so strongly refuse homosexual union if not for religious reasons. Homosexuality is not a "threat" anymore that "masturbation" is a threat.

The main thing to ask in a situation like this is, "Who is it hurting?" In the case of sexual molestation, the child is the victim, but in the case of two consenting adults, male or (especially) female, it hurts no one.

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 10:13 PM
Obviously asked and answered, as people that it is put to that don't like it cannot, or will not reply logically, because there is no logical reply. It is ignorance that they are not willing to face. Thank you for your reply Don.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 05:08 AM
My views from another gay marriage thread....but the same holds for the French culture as it wold for the USA....(I laughed that France was the first to become a gay nation....why was i not suprised?)

Define Harm.

The problem is, when asking "who/what does this harm?" You first need to establish what constitutes harm....this will depend on which side of this issue you ask as to the answer to where harm is being percieved. BOTH sides can cite "harm" on this issue. A decision either way will "harm" the other side.

My basic question boils down to harm against democratic principles.
When the minority is allowed to circumvent the will of the majority in a democracy, how is this democracy? (even a democratic republic like the USA)

Because a society of free willed people decide upon something thru democratic means.......does not mean they chose the best course of action.

But because the choice could be made "wrong" dosent not mean that using the democratic method to get there was wrong.

Under democracy, someone is always the loser...whether its 75%/25% or 49%/51%....there can be only one winner. This doesnt make the losing side any more "right/wrong" mearly the less desired or the choices of the population.

If we are not utilizing democracy here, then exactly what mechanism do we use to organize our society? Exactly who in the minority is making these decisions for the overall majority. It seems clear what a majority constitutes, but which minority view should become adopted? how do you determine which minority....vs the other minorities? (the ole slippery slope argument where someone asks "why not NAMBLA in stead of/as well as gays? Or why not use the KKK's minority view to decide this issue?...THE SLICK SLOPE ARGUMENT IS WHICH MINORITY VIEW IS NEXT, NOT WEATHER KKK OR NAMBLA HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON!!!!!!))
Democracy seems to be the fairest way to resolve social issues.

Im sure i could and have listed other "harms", but the FIRST harm is to democracy...things trickle down from there.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 05:20 AM
People have tried to equate gay marriage to a civil right, it is not. The abillity to get married is gaurenteed to no one gay or is not my civil right to ever have a bride/spouce....and no one will be obligated to provide me with one. The fact that anyone is/is not married has no bearing on the rest of their life, one can still have a successful career, live with someone they love, drive a car and do anything else a non married person can. There is no right to a marriage for anyone. (obviously once married, there is no garuntee of success)

Several people mentioned that its not the governments business to interfere in this manner....i agree to a point.
while id prefer that the government stay out of my personal affairs....government interaction is nessisary for certain things to balance out for everyone (public safety) or the society overall (cultural definition).

ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. IF that culture decided no to say.....smoking in public places, then its NO, and all of us that feel left out in the cold (literally) or feel like our freedoms have been taken away face few choices, right or wrong, the culture has decided that this is what they want as a boundary/definition for them.

A few people have also mentioned that "2 concenting adults doing nothing illegal" well, for the past several decades at least, the physical acts involved in gay sex have been illegal....(SODOMY LAWS, ORAL SEX IN SOME CASES) Gay marriage is not illegal, its just not legally reccognized.

If in a democratic society they decide to not legitimize gay marriage/civil unions...then they HAVE THAT RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE...right, wrong, or debatable. While a person can choose to act upon their sexual urges or not, or to get married or not, that does not mean that this choice would be acceptable or that the society overall has to condone this choice.

In fact if a person that wants to be legally gay married does not find that capasity in the society they reside in, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO MOVE TO ONE THAT DOES!! Why with so many choices on this topic have the gay marriage folks come out with "were soo oppressed" ?
Why do they feel the need to force change upon those that have done nothing against them (except relax their cultural standards already)

Dont forget that what you do in the privacy of your bedroom becomes PUBLIC once you get to the courthouse to get your marriage/civil union license....If this has to do with legal issues in the public domain, then it affects every citizen. weather they feel any impact or not.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 05:39 AM
(NOTE: this is in no way meant to use religion as a defense of my arguments, mearly an amusing situation i found while researching)

Kiss the Devil....kiss the devil....

Just for a frame of referance for proponents of gay marriage, here is an ALLY for you.

Any reactions here?

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 09:03 AM
As mentioned earlier, I don't think the government should interfere with marriages. If any couple wishes to be marries, let them have a religious ceremony.

YOu talk about rights? Why should gays have to marry to collect benefits? Why should straights have to marry to collect benefits? Just another jumping-through-hoops people have to do to protect their mates. I have lived with my "husband" for 12 years, thats common law in many states, but not where I live. It stinks...big time.
BTW, I don't think France was first with gay marriages--they've been doing them in various areas of the US for weeks now.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 11:58 AM
I was using information from don
"....hope it is legalized everywhere. I really hate that the first place it was to happen was France, since there are enough Franco-racists in this country without adding this to the issue;" I realized it could be in error but gave the bennifit of the doubght.

Yes a few gung ho places in the USA have tried to actually marry gay couples, but i believe thats ALL tied up in courts right at this point France seems to have at least become a gay nation before the USA if they have it legalized.....Way to wave those white panties up the flagpole first France! (Before the USA anyway)

Again, when did it become wrong for a culture to only recognize traditional marriage? Why cant France be gay and the USA be straight? Why cant a democratic society say no to adjusting its cultural values?

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:22 PM
African Americans sitting in the back of the bus, women not being allowed to vote, we look back at this and am dumbfounded by the ignorance of the people at the time for being so prejudice. It is the same sad thing here. 20/30 years from now, people will look back and think the same things of us.

Now I understand that this is a bit different because of the religious ramifications, but doesn’t the bible also say time and time again that women are not on the same level as men? Then why should they have the same rights as men like voting? It is really all the same ‘You are not like us so we do not want you in our club’ nonsense. Things will change in time, but it is just a shame that some individuals are going to have to suffer until that time.

posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 01:10 PM
I do not see this oppression you seem to think will become rampant enough to warrent a new civil rights movement.
You said you could see gays being denied voting...being forced to sit in the back of the bus...keep extrapolating... have seperate schools, resturaunts ect...This view implies that you predict that new laws will come about that restrict gays in some ways. And also that people in society (overall) will become more openly "hostile" in their attitudes to want to enforce such restrictions. I do not believe that any of this is occuring or even likley to occur...

Yes there have been incidences of gay bashing and in some cases open discrimination by hard core bigots...but in general, most reasonalbe citizens do not really feel motivated to take any restrictive measures against gay people. In fact law enforcement has been more vigiorus and understanding of this issue. (here in Philadelphia it was just revealed that there is a male to female trans gender cop on the force)

In fact, I do not see with your premise that the gay marriage issue is oppression either.

Weather or not to get married is a choice not a right. I as a hetero have no right to be married/have a spouse...and can choose NOT to marry as its not being FORCED upon me, nor is it nessisary for me to function as a productive citizen.

Oppression is forced upon a person, how is marriage being forced on anyone?

The gay rights movement is not being silenced or repressed. It is activly engaging the overall society to make adjustments to its core system. The society wasnt going around trying to push an adgenda or surpress gay rights....again, where is the oppression?

How is it that the gay rights people blame the society their asking for acceptance get angry when you beat on the door to the house and say "let us in on our terms", and the door doesnt open for you.

Whos ideals would really be being repressed if a majority of a democratic society was forced to submit their ideals to a vocal minority viewpoint?

Wouldnt that be reverse discrimination?
Wouldnt that violate basic democratic and sociological principals?
Whos violating who?

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 10:52 AM
Jonna mentions, "‘You are not like us so we do not want you in our club’ nonsense. "

Wow, that sounds EXACTLY like what the "politicaly correct" people tell me all the time, because I refuse to swallow the PC crap thats just as devicive as open discrimination in some cases. Except that your boss (human resource/corporate evil empire) is the one MOST likley to be enforcing PC on you..the ones holding your pay checks....

hmm sounds like ideological corporate extortion of the workers if you ask me.

Didnt some one just defiantly ask for a logical answer?
"Obviously asked and answered, as people that it is put to that don't like it cannot, or will not reply logically, because there is no logical reply. It is ignorance that they are not willing to face." Intrepid

Hmm 3 days after I put one on the table, no responce?

Well Jonna did bring up that stale old oppression thing again, but couldnt seem to get by "Oppression is forced upon a person, how is marriage being forced on anyone?" Are there still shotgun weddings?

I guess since my last rebuttle stuned the crowd to silence, Ill borrow a quote and say.....

Obviously asked and answered, as people that it is put to that don't like it cannot, or will not reply logically, because there is no logical reply. It is ignorance that they are not willing to face.

(yes i was already on standby, ready for someone to respond as Jonna did.....yes im awaiting the other major responce i normally get to my position too.)

I await non religious, non emotional, rational discussions about the points/questions ive asked concerning gay marriage.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 11:01 AM
If you want to know why I haven't answered, see my signiture.

OK, I'll take this from a different angle, let's not call it a right, let's call it an "option." Straight people have 2 options, A- to marry, B- to remain single. Gay people do not have access to Option A, thus it IS discrimination.

Meant Option A

[Edited on 10-6-2004 by intrepid]

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by CazMedia
Well Jonna did bring up that stale old oppression thing again, but couldnt seem to get by "Oppression is forced upon a person, how is marriage being forced on anyone?" Are there still shotgun weddings?

You are looking at it from the wrong angle. It has nothing to do with people being forced to marry and I really don't know why you thought the statement had anything to do with that. It has to do with one 'type' of person being denied something that another person is not. The right to be treated as an equal human being.

posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 11:50 AM
Well i guess all i can say to that is.........THATS REALLY GAY

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 01:59 AM
indeed you hit exactly the point i was awaiting, which is the D word...Discrimination....
Jonna not far behind with an equality question, which is also directly tied to the big D.....


Discrimination is LEGAL!
A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.

We have laws (in the USA) that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....Drivers license, drinking age, ciggarettes purchases, heck even some laws and punnishments are different if you are a minor or an adult. (someone please explain how you can go to Iraq in the army and kill people, yet not buy a beer afterwards, but you can smoke your brains out....if the law says at 18 yrs your an adult legally, shouldnt the drinking age be 18 too then?)

The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs.

We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Arnold Schwartenegger can only ever become a member of congress...He'll never get to be President here, because he was not BORN American.

Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...How fair is that?
qualifying religous institutions pay NO taxes. (legal bennifits for some religions but not all)

Criminal status.....Once youve been convicted of a felony, you lose your rights to vote and bear arms. (even if you didnt use any weapon.....Once youve sevred out your sentance, why are you then still discriminated against when your "debt to society" has been fufliied?) If your a convicted sex offender, you never regain your liberty either, big brother will require you to register so they can track you FOREVER...even tho youve served out your sentance...Why dont wedo this with murders? Id rather have a perv that wants to give a 12 yr old a BJ walking around, than a guy that would just kill the 12 yr old. our 2 party system, anyone thats an independant doesnt get to have any say in voting during the primary elections....I thought all votes were equal....ohh only if you sign up to the 2 "official" parties?

Hell on a really basic level, we've got segregated bathrooms by sex....
we all need to go....were all doing the same thing...why are some toilets for one sex or the other? Yet we say men and women are equal? Could I be arrested for using a womens rest room?

There are TOO MANY private groups that have "exclusionary" status/situations, these situations have not been struck down and in fact have been upheld in most cases...the biggest difference between the legally sanctioned discrimination and private groups discriminating is that a private group HAS THE RIGHTS TO DO THIS under their right of freedom of association and freedoms to gather with whom they choose to. (See supreme court ruling for the Boy scouts vs gays)

Examples, cant attend unless your "smart" enough to pass an entrance test...."We here at Harvard have high standards that you dont meet, but there is the community college down the street for you."
Hmm colleges do recieve federal funds, yet can exclude based on an intelligence quotient

How about the hippocrits at he United Way? Theyve got exclusive programs for all kinds of "member only" niche groups....womens health programs, elderly programs, childrens programs, programs for the poor...all dolling out "bennifits" that others cant get (because they are not part of the exclusionary criteria)....and then they have the balls to pull funds from the scouts AFTER the supreme court sides with the scouts...The UW says the scouts are discrimitory??? Whos discriminating now against whom? They used to give $$ to the scouts (for decades!), but after the public stink (which the scouts WON) they still chose to pull funding....but they'll still support other "exclusive" groups under their wing. Some example of tolorance there eh?
I will not, no one in my extended family, my grand kids will not EVER donate anything but spit to the 2 faced bastards at the United Way EVER AGAIN! Ill find other charities to be generous with.

I could go on and on about the private forms of institutionalized discriminations but these examples should MORE than suffice...speciffically the ones in the laws.

So now that we've toured US culture and can see where things arent fair, and that some "gropus" can and do get bennifits that others do not.
Why is marriage any different of an "exclusive" situation? If its ok to have an affrican american club or scholorship(bennifit), why cant we have a male/female only club/bennifits?

2 specifics to replies
The ATSNN site doesnt show sigs, so Ill have to find another post from you to read your signature. you say, "Gay people do not have access to Option B, thus it IS discrimination." well i dont have access to the Negro college fund, thus it is discrimination. One less opportunity for me to fund a higher education based on my race?

"It has to do with one 'type' of person being denied something that another person is not. The right to be treated as an equal human being."

I just gave you lots of examples of this unequal behaivor in action and institutionalized by this culture. Explain how any of these or NO to gay marriage, makes any individule any less of a human. Does that mean that those that get these bennifits are MORE human?

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 10:32 AM
That is the most inane arguement I have ever seen. To equate:
Drinking age,
Cigarette age purchase,
No Girls in Boy Scouts, ever heard of Girl Guides,
Criminal status, etc., as discrimination, is ridiculous. To use this as an arguement to discriminate against gay people goes beyond the ridiculous.

Drinking and cig. purchase is in place to protect kids. The Guides is self-explainitory. Sex offenders are a continuous danger to our kids, so we must be informed to protect them.

I couldn't believe what you said about bathrooms. They are seperate, not because of discrimination, it's civillity.

[Edited on 10-6-2004 by intrepid]

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 12:21 PM
Seems you can't use the Biblical aspect of it because if one adheres to the Bible strictly, we all came from Adam and Eve, which means we're all related and therefor we're all involved in incestuous relationsips anyway.

I don't see the slippery slope. Marriage can be defined as an exclusive union between two consenting human adults. No chickens, triplets or children. I just don't see the big deal. Religion has no place in the discussion unless you are living in a theocratic society.

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 12:39 PM
Caz- you are barking up the wrong tree in your debate. There happens to be a solid argument against gay marriage and I am surprised no one here has brought it up. In lieu of my better judgement and against my own views let me help your side out a little bit so that this argument can be brought to a different level:

Above argument is a solid argument against gay marriage and how it will effect marriage between a man and women upon becoming legal.

*Narnia shakes her head and wonders why she is bringing this to the table*

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 01:09 PM
Yeah, I've read that before. It should be noted that he also attributed the decline of marraige to women in the workplace, and other contributing factors. He said that it was common to have the first child out of wedlock, but be married for children that followed. I think that it is just that people are leaning toward a more liberal view of marraige.

posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 01:14 PM
Intrepid we are in agreement, and have been in debates where that conclusion was made. It is the only piece of work IMHO that even comes close to being a valid argument against gay marriage, however.

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 05:35 AM
I appreciate that you can express your opinion for gay marriage, yet be reasonable and openminded enough to share info, especially one that runs counter to your point....This is the sign of someone that is contributing to "deny ignorance!"
I also understand that you were trying to shoot down my points by doing so (diversion is an excellent debate tactic) I have not yet have had time to read that link fully and digest its points yet, so i will refrain from comments on it for now. Again tho, attempting to open your detractors mind by at least giving them info to ponder is notable.
P.S. Narnia...I had actually typed out the 2 big weak points in my arguments and THOUGHT about posting them to aid the opposition to continue the debate, but then I thought, if they cant figure it out for themselves, why should I shoot myself?

Lets see what the world community thinks....And ill use a source that normally id despize, in the spirit of a robust and open forum on this topic.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.... here is some exerpts.....

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Lets notice a few things
(1) says men and women, not men and/or women. It doesnt say people, citizens, or any other gender nutral says men and woman.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

OMG...the UN has decreed that the family unit is NATURAL and entitled to be protected??? Furthermore, this man/woman/family idea has been determined as a FUNDAMENTAL UNIT in a society by the UN!!!

Doesnt that bring me back to my original idea?
ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. If the society or state wish to protect traditional family values then the UN thinks this appropriate.

More internation opinion thru the UN,
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

brings us back to another of my points,
some "groups" can and do get bennifits that others do not.
Why is marriage any different of an "exclusive" situation?

The US supreme court supports this contention....Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Dale

The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.

Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed. He said for the court majority that applying a state public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a gay troop leader violates the group's constitutional right of expressive association.

He added, however, "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teaching with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong." (something ive said MANY times defending my position, go find where i said gays were wrong/bad/immoral ect...its not there.)

(back to me here) This appears to be 20/(2) in a reverse one can be forced to become a part of the group, THUS the group then cant be forced to accept someone either.

If groups can "legally discriminate" in this fashion,
then again, why is the "group" of marriage any different? (not everyone chooses to marry nor is it manditory or nessissary in life)

There was a HUGE celbration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1999, and they remain the same to this day....

Ive only tried to apply these ideas to one democratic nation (the USA, as others have the right to determine their cultural values themselves)
I was EXTATIC when i came across the fact that the worlds "savior" organization had put these same ideas INTO,
So im not alone in the WORLD with these ideas eh?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in