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.

 

A question for those who support gay marriage

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
its cute when people try and create love in this world but what a futile effort. only god can do that.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


what does that have to do with gay marriage?
or is this thread actually about incest and I misread the title?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
It is no ones business what others do in the privacy of their own home, even if there are groups of same sex couples who after a long period of time have stayed together, they should be able to file as a couple.

It is not about controlling sexuality, that is what religion is for, but for instead controlling the almighty dollar.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IandEye
Reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


what does that have to do with gay marriage?
or is this thread actually about incest and I misread the title?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



This thread isn't actually about gay marriage. It's about the political ramifications of the legalization of gay marriage, and if these precedents should apply to bigamists and polygamists.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar

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


I have no problem with any of the "multiple partner" marriages - - - as long as ALL legal adults involved are in agreement.

I think its probably a healthier family environment for children.

BUT - - legalizing this would require clarifications on laws/tax laws.

Its far more complicated then extending Equal Rights to a couple.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by IandEye
its cute when people try and create love in this world but what a futile effort. only god can do that.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Marriages were mostly arranged for political or other practical reasons.

LOVE in marriage is actually a modern concept. Maybe about 200 years old.

Guess God was a bit late to the "party".



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
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.


This is a completely separate issue IMO. We are discussing marriage here, not procreation. Currently homosexual couples do not procreate with each other, they seek alternative means if they want children. The same could be done for related couples.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
BUT - - legalizing this would require clarifications on laws/tax laws.

Its far more complicated then extending Equal Rights to a couple.


This is exactly what I'm thinking. I don't oppose multiple marriages, but there are a handful of issues that would have to be thought out, including employee health benefits that cover spouses and nationalizing individuals.


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


Inbreeding creates a higher chance of heterozygous recessive traits due to lack of genetic variety. It holds water, but it's no reason to prevent marriage.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by acid1789

Originally posted by jtma508
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.


This is a completely separate issue IMO. We are discussing marriage here, not procreation. Currently homosexual couples do not procreate with each other, they seek alternative means if they want children. The same could be done for related couples.
So here is a bit of a sticky situation.

Homosexual first cousins could get married without any procreation issue involved.

I guess the same rights would have to granted to heterosexual cousins?

Homosexual couples shouldn't be forced to use contraception, right?

So, I think you can't force it on hetero cousins?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
First cousins can legally marry in many states. Look it up.

Only immediately family blood relatives can not marry - because of incest laws.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I don't think there is anything wrong with plural marriage. I would think the man should be tested for his mental capabilities though. Who would want or could tolerate more than one spouse?

Now here's a concept that hasn't been thought of. What if a man wanted a wife AND a husband? This ought to be interesting.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think if we got rid of the tax benefits (which shouldn't exist anyways, they are an attempt at social engineering) then polygamy would be an easy issue to legalize after gay marriage. Right now it gets difficult because of those tax issues. Do they stack for each spouse? Is there a primary spouse and the rest get less benefits?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Children and animals cannot give an adult consent for sex. The other things mentioned are not related to sexual preference and not without victims. Very simple. Apples and oranges. Let the gays get married, it won't hurt you or anybody else. Make the laws repect actions.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
Children and animals cannot give an adult consent for sex. The other things mentioned are not related to sexual preference and not without victims. Very simple. Apples and oranges. Let the gays get married, it won't hurt you or anybody else. Make the laws repect actions.


You did read the entire post, right? Or did you just see key words and decide to respond to the thread completely off point?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
First cousins can legally marry in many states. Look it up.

Only immediately family blood relatives can not marry - because of incest laws.

I looked it up for YOU.




You can't legally marry your first cousin in a lot of states. Including West Virginia and Kentucky!

You're telling me to look it up? Where did you get your info?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I don't think there is anything wrong with plural marriage. I would think the man should be tested for his mental capabilities though. Who would want or could tolerate more than one spouse?

Now here's a concept that hasn't been thought of. What if a man wanted a wife AND a husband? This ought to be interesting.


Those relationships already exist.

If one plural marriage is allowed - - all should be.

Consenting adults should be the only criteria.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I did not say ALL - states allow first cousin marriage. I said many.

marriage.about.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WolfofWar
 


I wouldn't see a problem with it IF all parties are consenting adults that aren't taken advantage of...and as long as it doesn't hurt people in any way.

If some dude wants to live on a farm with 10 wives, and he really finds 10 of them willing to live with him...why not? If they're all happy I don't see a problem with that.

People should stop caring so much about what other people do when it really doesn't affect them at all.

Some random dude living with 10 wives isn't impacting your life. You might not agree with his choices, but the fact remains, he doesn't hurt you. I always thought the US was the so called "land of the free". If you can't even live happily in a way that doesn't impact others negatively just because of some silly law, I seriously have to question the "freedom" in this country.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


OK, another question. Do people still have to get blood tests done in the States before people are married?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by IandEye
 



its cute when people try and create love in this world but what a futile effort. only god can do that.


Don't be so arrogant about your truth.

If God exist ( as He is written about in the bible ), He created people with the ability to love. God does not have do anything to create love because he gave us the means to create love ourselves.



what does that have to do with gay marriage?
or is this thread actually about incest and I misread the title?


Nothing.

I believe this thread is about people who force their will on others, regarding marriage.
As I did not have heard a single argument which isn't a personal opinion, instead of unbiased reason that protects them or us from any life threatening consequence or something that will only happen when married.

Financial benefit is mentioned but I highly doubt that is a good reason... The only people that marry for financial reasons are usually called "Gold diggers" or for immigration reasons. Next to those, marriage is a commitment with 2 people that care about each other that much they want to spend their entire lives together.

However...

The divorce rates in the states show the same cultural development as hamburgers and sky scrapers. There are more of them and/or are bigger then everywhere else.
( This last part Is what I experience as I watch, use and read about America. It can be a big load of prejudice.)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join