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.


A question for those who support gay marriage

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:32 PM
Gay marriage is an inevitability. This much is certain. The overturning of Prop 8 is a stepping point will be the first in a long line of events that will lead to a country wide legalization of gay marriage. For many this is a good thing, for others it's not. This is not a thread about that, it's more of an inquiry, to the unexpected chain reactions to such events.

Most opponents to gay marriage compare it to the 'slippery slope" of legalizing pedophilia and beastiliaty. This is obviously an unfair comparison, since both of these are sexual relations to somebody/something that cannot consent to the act. A fairer comparison would be Polygamy.

Polygamy and bigamy in the United States is essentially illegal. Some states, like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas only regard it as a misdemeanor; only to be punished by a fine. Most other states consider "plural marriage" as a felony offense.

The overturning of Prop 8 has set precedence that will be looked upon by the Supreme Court and other district courts across the nation. It is unconstitutional to prohibit consenting adults to marry. This means marriage is no longer defined as a civil union of a man and a woman, but of consenting adults.

If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, should banning bigamy and polygamy also be unconstitutional as well?

+24 more 
posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:44 PM
I think consenting adults should be able to do what ever the heck they like. Call me crazy, but i think it makes sense. And if the goverment recognise some people and give them tax benifits based on the type of relationship you're in, then this should be available to everyone in a consunsual relationship. Be there 2,3 or 4525 of them. And all the people who say "oooh won't somebody think if the children" it has nothing to do with you, it does not directly effect you. Go live your lives and stop poking round in other peoples.

edit- that's a yes, I think it's unconstitutianal, btw

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Acidtastic]

+14 more 
posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:44 PM

If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, should banning bigamy and polygamy also be unconstitutional as well?

Simply, yes. It goes against one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Case closed. If all parties in said agreement consent, and it doesn't hurt anyone outside the agreement, then I say it's their right.

It is not my, or anyone else place to tell them when, who, or how many people they marry.

Opposition to these marriages is based in fear, arrogance and ignorance, and they need to STFU. They are saying,"If you don't believe as me, than you are in the wrong."

+1 more 
posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:49 PM
No government should have any say or position whatsoever on the personal affairs and relationships of people.

It's offensive and appalling that one has to petition the king for a license to enter into a personal union with another human being.

A marriage "license" and government approval of my personal relationships is further evidence of our share-cropper status.

It's as if the gov reserves the right to dissolve my personal relationship and sell my partner off to the next plantation owner.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:52 PM
Gay marriage doesn't have to be legal in all states.

California is a big state. It has plenty of great mountains and wonderful beaches. Gay couples seem to have been living comfortably in San Francisco all these years. There's obviously plenty of opporunities for gay couples from all across America to move to California to live the way they want to live.

I have personally heard from a number of gay couples living in Missouri who are already thinking about moving to California. They can't wait for Missouri to change their state laws. Not when California is already changing their laws.

Why, wouldn't it be something if California had the first openly gay couple as Governor and First Spouse? Or whatever the California governor's spouse is called. I'm sure that would make many Californians both proud and happy.

What each state does according to the Tenth Amendment is their citizen's rights to vote for......or for a federal judge to rule for or against.

And if California goes ahead to legalize marijuana along with gay marriage, that should make a lot of marijuana users in other states to contemplate moving to California. I've spoken to a number of marijuana users who've said they would move to California if marijuana is legalized.

According to the Tenth Amendment, this could be the best of all possible worlds for all of America. With California leading the way, each state has the right to vote for their own laws.....or to have a federal judge rule on individual state basis.

I foresee America becoming a much more exiting place to live.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by fred call]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by WolfofWar
If banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, should banning bigamy and polygamy also be unconstitutional as well?

Currently people are allowed to be married as long as its to someone of the opposite sex not related to them. People are not currently allowed to be married to multiple people at all, so wouldn't it be a better question to ask 'should a person be allowed to marry whomever they want?'

I am a man.

Can I marry a woman not related to me?

Can I marry a man not related to me?

Can I marry my sister? my mother?

Can I marry my brother? my father?

To be clear, I am in the camp that doesn't care what other people do. If someone wants to marry the same sex, fine. If someone wants to marry their cousin, fine. I am viewing 'marriage' as a legal contract between two people allowing them all the 'benefits' that are currently provided to married couples in this country.

The plural marriage is a different issue in my opinion. The way our social systems are currently setup would (and do) allow people to exploit the system via plural marriage. If these fraud type issues were fixed, I would see no problem with plural marriage.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:00 PM
People have already said this, but government has nothing to do with marriage period. It's just a way for them to make money and to control.

That being said, it isn't up to us to "support" or not "support" gay marriage. It's none of our business just like it's none of the governments business.

It's an issue that was politicized to garner votes and further divisions in this country. I wish everyone would just let it go.

If people can't get accept this simple reality and are brooding because their "side" didn't "win" something, they should go brood about it in a corner and leave the rest of us alone.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:05 PM
I think if your consenting by all means marry who ever you want. Multiple marriages sure. The government can't tell you who you can or can't love and if you want to take that love to the next step go ahead.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Well... that's not altogether true. A lawful spouse has enforceable rights and privileges that a legally unrecognized domestic partner will not.

None of this will have any bearing on what a religious institution can or will recognize, and everything to do with what the state can legally enforce when it comes to legal rights.

Polygamy will be a real worm can. I bet the lawyers are salivating over the prospects of getting involved in the dissolution of one of those snarled up messes, contingent upon the amount of money at stake, that is.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by acid1789

I don't know. Marrying your mother sounds very Oedipal. But it would be interesting to put a twenty-first century ruling on Freud's definition of the Oedipal complex. Back when Freud introduced the idea at the beginning ot the twentieth century, everyone automatically assumed that the Oedipal complex implied a bad thing. Nobody ever argued Freud's assumption. Maybe in this Brave New World it is time for an elightened society to question Freud's ancient presumptions. Throw out the old dogma. Look to a new world with a bright sunshine, I always say.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by acid1789

The key is 'unrelated'. There are serious genetic perils related to inter-marriage. This puts children of the marriage at-risk and can put the larger society at-risk as a result.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:10 PM
reply to post by MrDesolate

That's a different issue as far as benefits. And you know what? It may well be that we might have to approach and handle this differently for everyone. Maybe these benefits were built under the wrong premises to start with. I guess this may be where state level legislation might come in. I know that in some states, domestic partnerships of all sorts are recognized for insurance purposes at least...I think Oregon is one.

Polygymy and marrying relatives, I'm staying out of.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:11 PM
reply to post by acid1789
I think that would be okay, I don't know how you could fix it.

Hell, you would have guys marrying the mothers to get her covered to live in a nursing home.

As far as simple polygamy goes, my insurance costs more as a family plan, and each child I have raises the amount that I have to pay. So just make men pay a whole lot more for each additional wife.

I don't know how in the hell I could afford ANOTHER wife!

I can't afford the one I have now!!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by jtma508

About this marrying your relatives will create a danger to any offspring, I have this contention.

What with cloning and advanced understanding of the DNA altering, we don't know if this ancient wives' tale holds water anymore.

Let's not give up on the freedom of loving and marrying anyone you choose, even if it is a member of your immediate family. The world is changing. Throw off the shackles of old supserstitions. Embrace a newfound enlightenment.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:19 PM
it should be up two an individual who or how many people they marry as long as its not hurting anyone whats the big deal? my question to those who oppose this is why does it concern you and how will it effect you. i see these people protesting against this kind of thing and i just don't get it. why are you concerned with what others choose to do with there personal lives. and all i have to say to those people is get over yourselves!

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by WolfofWar

I think polygamy/bigamy should be legal. I DO NOT condone it, however, but that does not mean my beliefs should extend to others. Polygamy/bigamy does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:22 PM
but we're talking about getting tax breaks for being married......doesn't that involve YOUR pursuit of freedom, happiness, or whatever?
people can do what they want but they shouldn't get paid for it.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:26 PM
I am 100% in support of polyamory and bigamy, provided that everyone involved gives their full consent with full knowledge of the relationship. Love is a beautiful thing, and so long as its expression is consensual (or harmless, I'm not opposed to secret admirers
), it is good as well, no matter its method.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:27 PM

This subject is in my opinion a personal matter, or in other words... People should mind their own business and accept that not everyone is or thinks the same as they do.

I'm curious tho. Can someone tell me the reasons given, not to support ?

It could be me... but I did not yet hear one that was not an emotional or personal response. You know... Like :

Gay marriage is not allowed because you can O.D. and die. Something like that.

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by fred call

I don't know when it became illegal, but Europe's royal families are all related with each other. They almost only married amongst themselves.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in