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.

 

Why I'm Pro-Gay Marriage

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





There are NO negative reprocussions for allowing gays to marry,
as it would not affect anybody BUT gays.


Try to see it from the perspective of the religious.


I believe that religion should simply stay away from this topic. tale that from me, a religious person. There are a lot of things in the Bible I (and others) can object to; I believe in the Big Bang, man evolving from apes, that Noah's Arc was really a DNA bank, etc. My point being that even a very religious person can't base all their knowledge on the Bible. One little sentence in a book shouldn't be enough to start the huge controversy that it has caused.

A marriage shouldn't affect anyone but the couples being married, no matter who it is.




posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




so why did they get to decide in the first place?
What gives them the almighty power to decide?


Decide what? The people who loudly protest gay marriage are not the people who gave out tax advantages. These people had a nice little custom that they attached religious and emotional value to and then thousands of years later people in some random little country called the US decided that it was a good custom that they wanted to encourage so they gave out benefits to people who participated in it.

Why are you angry that you can't cash in on the benefits of somebody else's custom without actually particpating in the custom? That custom has rules that you don't like so you're trying to change the rules. So yeah, those people are unhappy.



We live in a progressive society, things change, people need to get over that.


But you're not the one being asked to change. You're asking...demanding that others change.



Straw Man Argument.


No. It's not. It's actually a very close metaphor for how they perceive you.



Dilute the meaning of marriage? Half of them end in divorce, there's nothing
sacred about marriage anymore, it's a piece of paper and frankly I could care less,


You, the person saying that you don't care, that there's nothing sacred about it, that it doesn't matter...are not in the best position to judge

It DOES matter to them.



Try to see it from the perspective of the religious.


I do, and the perspective is silly.



...right.



I don't give a damn what they call it, or what's on the piece of paper
provided, but it MUST provide the same rights to all consenting adults


Just don't call it marriage, and I think you'll lose most of the resistence. Champion the cause of eliminating tax benefits to married couples and I think you'll get less resistence. Move for "civil unions" to have all the same benefits, and again...I think you won't get much resistence.

But try to say that homosexuals are doing the same that heterosexuals are doign when they call thsemselves "married" and people will fight you to the death over that.

As you say...



it's an ideological argument.


Yes. It is. The people who oppose you are not fighting for "rights" or "laws" or money. They're fighting for their heavily-emotionally charged worldview.

Choose your battles wisely.




[edit on 11-7-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by nicolee123nd
 




You make it seem as if its all about what other people think. What it's really
about is the Gays, not our opinions. I believe everybody has the right to be happy.
I started this thread to in respect of the Gays, not what other people care of them.


It is all about what people think. Why else do gays want to get married? You don't need to have a little piece of paper to be happy. You don't need a little piece of paper to live with someone, or have sex with them, or to commit or relate or do anything else with them.

That little piece of paper that says you're married is totally about perception.


This is where people are wrong.

Aslong as the little piece of paper provides more rights to couples who have it, them there's no reason for same sex couples to be excluded from that.

There just isn't one. Period.

~Keeper


I agree.

Try putting it this way. Lets pretend that there's this couple, and each of them have absolutely no friends or family, no one to invite to a wedding celebration. Of coarse this couple would still want to marry! It's what would truly make them happy, so they'll marry even though there's no one who would care.

So of coarse Gays don't want to marry just for other people's opinions. They marry to become sworn together, and that itself should be enough.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   


Yes. It is. The people who oppose you are not fighting for "rights" or "laws" or money. They're fighting for their heavily-emotionally charged worldview.

Choose your battles wisely.


Then they are one the WRONG side.

The law should not be based on an emotionally charged worldview. It doesn't matter what they think about it, how it makes them feel or any of that sort.

The fact of the matter is gays are currently discriminated against as per the LAW as they are not receiving the same rights and benefits and "married" couples.

I agree that we should call it something else, I'm with you on that trust me.

Sure, the fight against giving blacks civil rights was also an ideological argument, so was the women's civil rights movement.

What if we'd just said: " Well, we've done it this way for so long, that it's just wrong to make all those people feel uncomfortable because some of these people want equal rights."

The ideological argument holds NO water when it comes to the rights provided by a marriage licence.

Until an alterntive form of marriage is available to same sex couples, then by all means, logically and lawfully, they should be afforded the same rights, which would be to marry.

Being bothered by something or offended by something is NO excuse to discriminate against people. It never has and it never will.

~Keeper


[edit on 7/11/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
My friend has a cousin from deep backwoods Appalachia, West Virginia. His cousin is in love with one of his sheep that he raised from 10 yrs old. He even named the sheep Ewe-leen. He wants to marry her.

Should the law say marriage can be given to anyone or anything one loves? Or just members of the same species? If so, why???



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 1SawSomeThings
 


You realize the both parties have to sign a marriage license, right?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 




You realize the both parties have to sign a marriage license, right?


Oh great, so now we're discriminating against those with disabilities!
Pfffft!



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicolee123nd
A marriage shouldn't affect anyone but the couples being married, no matter who it is.


"Marriage" is nothing more than a Union of two individuals proclaiming a committal to one another, no matter the religious connotations nor legal precedence certain individuals seem hellbent on dressing it up as.

It's a mere Union and nothing more. A Legal Right, afforded to All, which should be observed as such by the same.

For those seeking the sanctity of "Marriage" - which in and of itself is really nothing more than a mere faith-based moniker that only holds value to those who revere the same - I'd have to defer to the Mirthful one here ...

... find a church and/or otherwise recognized religious organization and "Get Married".

OR ... perhaps ... Legal Union & Marriage could once and for all be considered one and the same, Legally and Otherwise.


There sure as hell do seem a Myriad of more pressing affairs in today's day and age to be concerned about, especially when it ultimately boils down to mere social vernaculars.




Not to any sort of Utopian degree, butI tend to hold onto the belief that people have truly grown beyond being capable of having such irrelevant concerns ...

They just haven't realized it yet ... yet ... yet ...



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




The ideological argument holds NO water when it comes to
the rights provided by a marriage licence.


In the entire history of this argument, I have never encountered anyone who opposed gay marriage but insisted that legal advantages should continue to be reserved only for marriages and not for civil unions.

Let them have their sacred cow. If you really only care about the tax and legal advantages, I think on the balance they'd be thrilled to give them to you, just so long as you don't touch their precious little tradition.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by argentus
 




You realize the both parties have to sign a marriage license, right?


Oh great, so now we're discriminating against those with disabilities!
Pfffft!

Seeing as to how it's Appalachia, if her cousin makes his mark, that'll do . As for the sheep, if you read her the contract and she can simply state "Yes" to the Justice of the Peace, I'm sure she's also welcome to make her mark.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I believe in a separation of church & state.

I don't believe anyone should get legally married, at all, ever, gay or straight.

Marriage is religious. Only a church can marry someone.

Let the church decide who gets married in their church.

End of story.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yeah , a marriage license comes straight from a pen that has a viewpoint. Most say that viewpoint belongs to heterosexuals exclusively.



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Why do people think they need a paper document from the government saying "you are officially married"?

Tax reasons?

Probably.

Anyways, my lady and I do not need the government to marry us. We raise kids together and everything.

It is exactly like marriage, except I didn't waste a bunch of money on crap like signed documents from the government.

I don't recognize this government anymore anyways. So why would I want a document from them ?



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Nice to see some adult comprehensive analysis.
If there was no money in it, nobody would seek to be married if they werent afraid of having kids that could be called bastards. Religion being the origin of marriage at least from my prospective, I find it curious that those groups traditionally screaming separation of church and state are curiously contrary in this regard. Mostly I see it as profitable mutual parasitism, nontraditional outgroups seeking validation by an increasingly invalid state apparatus which survives on parasitism upon the majority which would simply like to be left alone with their own traditions and mores. Mostly I'd like the gubmint parasites out of EVERYONES bedrooms. WHoever wants, makes their contract as they see fit and deal with breaches based on that, and not gubmint interpretation for its own profit.
It's about the 'gubmints' money that can be accessed in SSI and other benefits. Thats all. There shouldnt be any for anyone, were broke.
Gay marriage, been done, and with a license and attendent benefits and responsibilites, Rock Hudson was married once, and he was gay.
Game set match.
He could do it, I could do it the same way, so there's the equality. I suspect most current marriages have more to do with the partners money than any deep affection, but that's the way I've seen it go time and time again. (The big secret in the gay community is that monogamy expected in straight marriages is far more flexible in gay relationships, so their literature suggests rather frequently, though sapphics are generally far less libidinous and promiscuous than all those randy candy boys.)
Did ole Rock marry a dude, no, and neither can I, so no intrinsic discrimination afaik.
Show of hands, folks, who expects marriage means happiness?
Actually, anyone not having to be married is better off than not, it's just a scam to get lawyers into your finances. ( as infidelity is grounds for divorce, watch your back boyez, better keep you valuables on the down low or you may get the pleasure to split them up in front of a judge TOO!". Imagine if you had to lose 1/2 of your stuff every time you broke up!)
WRT marriages, I pretty much know no guys and almost no women that would get married again if they could do it over, so boyez, although it seems like a good scam, best heed the advice of your local breeder who btdt before your BFF turns into
the take it and run bandito. It's far far better off playin and strayin if you can do it without payin and payin. We all know what money tends to do to relationships.
Best deal is call it whatever the f**k else you can but ANYTHING but marriage, and leave THAT rusty trap to the breeders and their brats.
Bottom line? wrt 'marriage' as currently practiced by the ptb, I wouldnt wish that on a friend, more likely to kill ya in the long run


[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]

[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]

[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]

[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
What about the right of hermaphrodites to choose a life partner?


Sri Oracle


everyone has the same rights in this regard - and any other, by virtue of being HUMAN.

at least that's the way it SHOULD be.


i agree 100% with the OP...love is the ultimate everything and everyone is entitled to love who they love without being permitted to do so or to pitch in together to fight the world's evil greedy ways...

you and me against the world

you and me could be anyone
should be anyone!

is anyone!

Hammill and Mida Wedding



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
i am not gay but i have many gay friends and the only time ive ever had a problem with gay people was one time at a movie(harry potter no less)a teen gay couple was making out and that its self didn't bug me but then it progressed to them actually blowing each other and i asked them to stop they called me a bigot and went back to what they were doing and by this point several small children(harry potter movie rember?)so probably illegally on my part i pulled out my knife and told them put the mouse back in their house or they would loose it permanently they then left and the parents applauded,so as long as there not having sex in public or shoving it down peoples throats i got no problem with it Love is love regardless of who is involved seems that some people just like to hate what they dont understand or fear

P.S to any religious zelots that have a problem with gays why dont you get your preists bishops cardinals etc to stop molesting the little boys and then we might be more inclined to listen to your religious views



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Religion aside, marriage between a man and a woman is a reciprocal relationship by which the state grants certain privileges in return for the general benefits that stable marriages and families provide.

Heterosexual society cannot in anyway blame the homosexual community for the current state of marriage as an institution in the US and I guess it is the general confusion among the general population about what marriage and its attendant responsibilities are that makes the argument for the marriage of same-sex couples plausible to many.

I have beaten my fingers black and blue arguing against the mere necessity of a same-sex marriage and how from a sociological perspective, same-sex marriage is utterly ludicrous. Unfortunately, those academic masterpieces were lost somewhere in the annals of Above Politics, the domain.

It should suffice to say that when society can no longer understand the necessity of a social institution and it is treated with such disrespect by a majority of the population, the institution is effectively dead.

Now, don't start on me with all that loving couples business. Love is grand, but it has never been a necessary condition for a successful marriage and it is only in the last few centuries that marriage has been based on the idea of falling in love and marrying. Marriages were arranged.

From the perspective of the state, the only reason the state sanctions marriage is in the hope that an opposite sex couple will make a commitment to one another to conceive, give birth to and raise fine citizens to carry on our national traditions and ideals.

It would seem that in an age when fifty per cent of heterosexual marriages now end in divorce, surpassing the often quoted divorce rate of fifty percent, and a surge of hormones is sufficient reason to marry, that the populace is not keeping up its end of the bargain.

The answer and I believe that someone already alluded to this is for the state to get out of the marriage business.

Give the whole business over the the lawyers to do the contractual stuff (they wind up with fully half of the marriages anyway) and leave the ceremonial portion of the fiasco to the shamans, witches, warlocks, preachers, priests, justices of the peace, and ship captains.

Child Protective Services is standing by to exacerbate the consequences.


[edit on 2010/7/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


what makes your religion right?i dont give a bucket of monkey poo about what some book written by MEN says now if you can have jesus show up at barns and noble and start signing copies of the bible and explaining that it was truly the word of god and not convoluted and corrupt people to control the masses like sheep and set forth rules and guidelines to control and regulate almost all matters of life dont mean to single out chirstianity but i have very little respect for most religions as they cause more problems then they ever solved all holy books and religions are with few exceptions a way to control people and regulate there lives yeah there are some good lessons and stuff in there that thou shalt not kill stuff don't steal etc are good values but that doesn't justify all the havoc murder pillaging and rapes that the religions of the world are responsible for just my opinion feel free to hate me call me a hertic and say im going to the underworld dont care never have just kinda laugh its the ONE thing ill give the chi coms as a goverment they have there own crazy ideology but they dont let religions muddy the waters(yes they have Confucius teachings and some are Buddhists but there state gov has no official religion and look how long their countrys been around)



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 



'm no lord bucket, but what makes anyones belief system right compared to anyone elses whenthere is no obvious big guy in the sky? What makes yours more right than anyone elses is the question YOU have to answer for yourself.
Religion is consensus not objective fact.
THe bst thing is to have your public world where everyone deals with rules that result in public politeness and then you can do at home, on your own anything you can afford to maintain. Cant afford it? Then dont do it.
How's that for simple? But the real question you need answered is how do you get some weak sucker to pay for your party, isnt it?




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join