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.

 

What are your views on Gay marriage?

page: 10
5
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
i just gotta add did you guys see the person talking about how he is not only against gay marriage but also against interracial marriage? thats a big shocker huh? never seen that coming.. homophobic and racist? double threat hahaha!!! you know they say that when someone feels this strongly about homosexuality and acts homophobic that means chances are the person has some issues in that department themselves. they did a test where they hooked up ten straight men who were not concerned with homosexuals and ten men who were homophobic to these machines that measure... uh mass. then they showed all of the men pornographic images, some straight some gay. all of the men showed "growth" during the straight images, but ALL of he homophobic men and NONE of the unconcerned men showed some "growth" during the homosexual images. this was a scientific study done under clinical conditions. there are a hundred other studies that have proven homophobes are actually kind of gay themselves that have been done. look them up. maybe all you homophobes should send each other some U2Us but only to talk about how much you hate gays of course...




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are "Sexual Preferences".
Homosexuality, the attraction of members of the same sex, toward each other, provides no purpose, and adds nothing to the species. It is simply the fulfillment of a sexual preference.
Marriage is the joining of two members of the opposite sex for the purpose of creating a natural family unit.

As with many, many things in our present society, supporting a legal and religious joining of two members of the same sex is being allowed simply out of a desire to accumulate a number of votes, and appease a number of vocal groups. It has nothing to do with logic, morals or law.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Why are people so bothered about what people they don't know can or cannot do?
Will gay marriage in any way interfere with our lives in any way? No? Then whats the point?
I do not understand why people get so worked-up over sexuality. There are better things to worry about.

[edit on 1/9/10 by The Empty Skies]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clinically_Cool
Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are "Sexual Preferences".
Homosexuality, the attraction of members of the same sex, toward each other, provides no purpose, and adds nothing to the species. It is simply the fulfillment of a sexual preference.
Marriage is the joining of two members of the opposite sex for the purpose of creating a natural family unit.

As with many, many things in our present society, supporting a legal and religious joining of two members of the same sex is being allowed simply out of a desire to accumulate a number of votes, and appease a number of vocal groups. It has nothing to do with logic, morals or law.


Really? Here's a list of gay (bi-sexual) people who had purpose.

Heaven forbid - - that these people might have a lover - - and be equal to all heterosexuals - - in legal benefits and social status.

Alexander the Great*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C. - Socrates*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C. - Sappho*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C. - Hadrian*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c. - Richard the Lionhearted*English King, 12th c. - Saladin*Sultan of Egypt and Syria - Desiderius Erasmus*Dutch - Monk, Philosopher - Francis Bacon*English statesman, author - Frederick the Great*King of Prussia - Lord Byron*English poet, 18th c. - Walt Whitman*U.S. poet, author, 19th c. - Oscar Wilde*Irish author, 19th c. - Marcel Proust*French author, 20th c. - Colette*French author, 20th c. - Gertrude Stein*U.S. poet, author, 20th c. - Alice B. Toklas*U.S. author, 20th c. - Federico Garcia Lorca*Spanish author, 20th c. - Cole Porter*U.S. composer, 20th c. - Virginia Woolf*English author, 20th c. - Leonard Bernstein*U.S. composer, 20th c. - Pope Julius III*1550-1555 - T.E. Lawrence*English soldier, author, 20th c. - Jean Cocteau*French writer, director, 20th c. - Charles Laughton*English actor, 20th c. - Marguerite Yourcenar*Belgian author, 20th c. - Tennessee Williams*U.S. Playwright, 20th c. - James Baldwin*U.S. author, 20th c. - Andy Warhol*U.S. artist, 20th c. - Michelangelo*Italian artist, 15th c. - Leonardo Da Vinci*Italian Artist, scientist, 15th c. - Christopher Marlowe*Eng. Playwright, 16th c. - Herman Melville*U.S. author, 19th c. - Horatio Alger, Jr.*U.S. author, 19th c. - Tchaikovsky*Russian composer, 19th c. - Willa Cather*U.S. author, 19th c. - Amy Lowell*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c. - E.M. Forster*English author, 20th c. - John M. Keynes*English economist, 20th c. - Ludwig Wittgenstein*Australian mathematician, 20th c. - Bessie Smith*U.S. singer, 20th c. - Noel Coward*English playwright, 20th c. - Christopher Isherwood*English author, 20th c. - Pier Paolo Pasolini*Italian film director, 20th c. - Yukio Mishima*Japanese author, 20th c. - Eleanor Roosevelt*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c. - Julius Caesar*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C. - Augustus Caesar*Roman Emperor - Harvey Milk*U.S. politician, 20th c. - Bayard Rustin*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c. - James I*English King, 16th-17th c. - Queen Anne*English Queen, 18th c.- Marie Antoinette*French Empress, 18th c. - Melissa Etheridge*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c. - Pope Benedict IX*1032-1044 - May Sarton*U.S. author, (1912 - 1995) - Edna Ferber*U.S. author, 20th c. - Elton John*English Rock Star, 20th c. - Margaret Fuller*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c. - Montezuma II*Aztec ruler, 16th c. - Peter the Great*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c. - Langston Hughes*U.S. author, 20th c. - Pope John XII*955-964 - Madame de Stael*French writer, 17th-18th c. - Martina Navratilova*U.S. tennis star, 20th c. - Greg Louganis*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c. - Billie Jean King*U.S. tennis star, 20th c. - Roberta Achtenburg*U.S. politician, 20th c. - Barney Frank*U.S. Congressman, 20th c. - Gerry Studds*U.S. Congressman, 20th c. - Hans Christian Andersen*Danish author, 19th c.- Tom Dooley*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c. - J. Edgar Hoover*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c. - Frida Kahlo*Mexican artist, 20th c. - Suleiman the Magnificent*Ottoman ruler, 15th c. - Rock Hudson*U.S. actor, 20th c. - Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz*Mexican author, 16th c. - Ralph Waldo Emerson*U.S. author, 19th c. - Candace Gingrich*Gay Rights activist, 20th c. - Margarethe Cammermeyer*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c. - Zoe Dunning*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c. - Tom Waddel*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c. - Kate Millet*U.S. author, 20th c. - Janis Joplin*U.S. singer, 20th c. - Rudolf Nuryev*Russian dancer, 20th c. - Waslaw Nijinsky*Russian dancer, 20th c. - Ernst Röhm*German Nazi leader, 20th c. - Dag Hammerskjold*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c. - Aristotle*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C. - Paula Gunn Allen*Native American author, 20th c. - Angela Davis*U.S. political activist, 20th c. - June Jordan*U.S. author, activist, 20th c. - Rainer Maria Rilke*German poet, 20th c. - James Dean*U.S. actor, 20th c. - Montgomery Clift*U.S. actor, 20th c. - Baron VonSteuben*German General, Valley Forge - Edward II*English King, 14th c.

www.lambda.org...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
My views on Gay Marriage are the the same as they are on Straight Marriage.. If You're crazy enough to get married then good luck to you



Gay, Straight.... whatever.... people are people and someone's sexuality should not have to be voted on or "allowed".... People like who they like whether it be someone of the same sex or opposite sex.

I don't see how anyone has any issues with it really?


But then there is the crazy, fundamental right....


[edit on 1/9/10 by blupblup]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Ok, somehow the discussion has gone from expressing our views on Gay Marriage to...the discussion of Homosexuality and how they are being discriminated against. Did I miss something?


[edit on 1/9/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Why are people turning this into a discussion on homosexuality?




Er.... the clue is kind of in the thread title I'd say.
GAY Marriage..... So do you think one can be opposed to Gay Marriage but not to homosexuality in general?





The thread is about your views on Gay Marriage, not whether you think one sexual orientation is better than another.




I don't think either is better.... but should be treated equally.
I don't see it about which one is better, perhaps others do... but marriage is marriage.... if people want to get married, why should their sexual orientation be a factor?





Why are people who don't agree with Gay Marriage being accused of homophobia?




Again.... can someone be in favour of one and not the other.... I don't see it myself.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Ok, somehow the discussion has gone from expressing our views on Gay Marriage to...the discussion of Homosexuality and how they are being discriminated against. Did I miss something?




How is there a difference?

Please - tell me how you separate the two.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Oh dear, well at least I put in an effort and gave it a go.


In the future I'll try to restrain myself from posting on these types of threads. Sorry ATS hardware.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Why care, why even care to discuss this.

I dont care, let them do whatever they want to do.

Do they hurt you ? or is it just your eyes and you tiny head that hurts..



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
(1)

–noun
marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy


(3)

Political correctness - A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal.


(4)

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism.



So... are you saying that you view equal rights as supported by the Constitution as a "progressive orthodoxy"? And speaking out FOR such equal rights is somehow "suppressing thought, speech and practice"? And standing by the Bill of Rights is "cultural Marxism"?

That is a very interesting point of view, indeed.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Ok, somehow the discussion has gone from expressing our views on Gay Marriage to...the discussion of Homosexuality and how they are being discriminated against.


Not allowing a gay person to marry IS discrimination. That's the point. You can't say, "I think black people should have to ride in the back of the bus, but I'm not discriminating."

Maybe you better look that word up, too.



Did I miss something?


Yes.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Well well well....how fantastic!

this is very timely...gay couple adoption just passed in our upper and lower parliament (at the moment Australia has no Federal government due to our parliament being "hung" ...no party won the election by a majority) That is a whole other story.

Sooooooooooo, I would suggest that gay marriage in Australia may not be all that far off.

See the link below

www.skynews.com.au...



res



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
My opinion on gay marriage is formed from the language and use of the term marriage. A homosexual union would be in most cases a civil marriage, which is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation. I see no problem in this personally. As the state is a legal but not religious organization in the United States the concept of the civil union is one of a state function which can address only the legal aspects of such a union.

How exactly can some religious group or another define a state institution which is for the purpose of regulating commerce in the legal nature of family responsibilities as defined by the state? The separation of church and state here in the US forbids such a government intrusion into a civil and state matter.

I can not accept an argument of law outside of the purview of the constitutional restraints put on government.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


When the government named the license "Marriage License" - - god and religion were removed from the equation.

Its that simple.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
My opinion on gay marriage is formed from the language and use of the term marriage. A homosexual union would be in most cases a civil marriage, which is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation.


You do realize that you are saying gays can have a legal union - - but can't get married in the eyes of God.

I didn't know all gays were either Atheist or Heathens.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That is perhaps the most narrow and bent possible response to my opinion I can imagine. The homosexual union in my opinion when defined by the state as message is still just a civil union as is any state authorized union of this nature. These are legal terms which by law are interpreted in fairly narrow terms. These are perfectly within the law so I do not understand the distinctions of religion you mentioned since we were discussing civil union which is all that the state truly has jurisdiction in. Any religious union is for the church which is separated by law.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by Annee
 


That is perhaps the most narrow and bent possible response to my opinion I can imagine. The homosexual union in my opinion when defined by the state as message is still just a civil union as is any state authorized union of this nature. These are legal terms which by law are interpreted in fairly narrow terms. These are perfectly within the law so I do not understand the distinctions of religion you mentioned since we were discussing civil union which is all that the state truly has jurisdiction in. Any religious union is for the church which is separated by law.


Yeah I can see that you might object to my no nonsense direct style.

I see in the post above - you finally make your real point in the very last sentence.

There will be no Separate But Equal. Marriage is Marriage for Everyone.

The legal government document license - - is already named "Marriage License".

We are not going backward to change it to Civil Union to insult a minority group.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Mixing religion with civil rights has always had a good ending, as we all know. Like a piece of paper and a ring would matter ANYTHING among a couple that loves each other. I mean, the church is always so preocupied with the issues families endure these days, and yet they deny the opportunity of rights for same gender couples to raise a family, because it's not natural and the children couldn't grow up in a stable and affective environment and all the bull# they try to make us believe. So, it's wrong in the eyes of the lord for two men or women to love each other and get married, but it's ok for pedo clerics to abuse children. That's all I have to say about this really.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faustian Spirit
So, it's wrong in the eyes of the lord for two men or women to love each other and get married, but it's ok for pedo clerics to abuse children. That's all I have to say about this really.


Is it overly cynical to suggest that the major problem the Church has with non-procreational sex is that it doesn't produce new adherents? After all, it would seem that an inordinate number of poverty-stricken multitudes are of the Catholic persuasion. Ready to swap their earthly misery for eternal bliss, there's always a coin for the collection plate.

Just musin' eh?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join