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.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Sorry, but as long as Taxpayers are helping finance the benefits afforded to couples that are legally recognised as "married", they will have a say in how the word is defined. Legal protection is one thing (permitting couples to visit sick loved ones in hospital is a good example), but equating the union of two people of the same sex (civil union) with Marriage seems wrong.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Sorry, but as long as Taxpayers are helping finance the benefits afforded to couples that are legally recognised as "married", they will have a say in how the word is defined. Legal protection is one thing (permitting couples to visit sick loved ones in hospital is a good example), but equating the union of two people of the same sex (civil union) with Marriage seems wrong.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
You don't need a religious book to tell you that some things feel wrong for one reason or another.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It seems wrong, is that a gut feeling you instinctively have or is it a logically thought out position? I'm guessing the former is correct and if so it is not an argument that should be used to create laws and restrict freedoms. Gay people also pay taxes you know so that piont is utterly mute.
Let them marry, you will see some religious nut jobs getting angry for a while but within two generations this will be considered normal and apart from the occasional extremist society will go on as normal, with the added benefit of having a society that does not trample peoples freedoms as much.
Originally posted by kozmo
That being said, I am not for gay "marriage." I AM however, for civil unions that would afford same-sex couples the same "benefits" enjoyed by married couples. Whereas I recongize that this is merely an issue of semantics, I tend to favor tradion and see mariiage as only being possible between a man and a woman.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
It depends how you look at it. Logically, two people of the same sex cannot reproduce offspring naturally without the assistance of a third party member of the opposite sex. Is marriage recognised purely for legal reasons? No, it is also recognised for Social reasons among other things. From a Social standpoint, marriage between two people who cannot naturally conceive do not really need Tax breaks to help them maintain a living.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I know gay people pay taxes and therefore their opinion on the matter is just as valid as non-gay citizens. I was trying to demonstrate that even those who are gay or those who support Gay Rights can be opposed to gay marriage on non-religious grounds.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
To be honest, there are far more important issues to be concerned with than Gay Marriage. I don't exactly bring up this issue whenever I can; it simply comes up in general conversation or in this case an internet forum asking for people's views on GM. If legalising GM resulted in World Peace, the end of needless suffering or the end of unjust warfare then I would support it and spread the word.
[edit on 29/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]
Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
It's Immoral .
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
It depends how you look at it. Logically, two people of the same sex cannot reproduce offspring naturally without the assistance of a third party member of the opposite sex. Is marriage recognised purely for legal reasons? No, it is also recognised for Social reasons among other things. From a Social standpoint, marriage between two people who cannot naturally conceive do not really need Tax breaks to help them maintain a living.
To be honest, there are far more important issues to be concerned with than Gay Marriage. I don't exactly bring up this issue whenever I can; it simply comes up in general conversation or in this case an internet forum asking for people's views on GM. If legalising GM resulted in World Peace, the end of needless suffering or the end of unjust warfare then I would support it and spread the word.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Should a logical person care about whether two people are able to reproduce or not as a basis to argue against marriage between same sex couples? There are numerous couples who are heterosexual and completely sterile so that argument is flawed unless you believe the sterile couple must not marry either.
Marriage in the modern world is mostly recognised for legal and financial reasons. Socially it has become far less important as we no longer live within tight communities that need their family bonds tying with marriage or their businesses tied to families.
As for the tax breaks. Well a married heterosexual couple who do not have children get various different tax breaks. So either you have to say that the hetero couple should give up their tax breaks or you admit you would treat homosexuals differently simply because you do not like them.
This is about equality and freedom, to me there are few things more important.
Originally posted by ~Vixen~
As heterosexuals we have our rights already, so ignoring the injustices is an easy out. It may be something that's not important to you, but it's a HUGE issue for millions of others.
Rather than ridicule them and watch the circus of injustice continue, why not simply stand up for equal rights so that we can all move forward and address other important issues?
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by kozmo
That being said, I am not for gay "marriage." I AM however, for civil unions that would afford same-sex couples the same "benefits" enjoyed by married couples. Whereas I recongize that this is merely an issue of semantics, I tend to favor tradion and see mariiage as only being possible between a man and a woman.
I hate to put out a one line post but I've got to ask, "What the hell is the difference?"
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Marriage was seen for a very long time as the basis for starting a family and continuing one's family heritage. This is how I see marriage and I know there are quite a few people who agree with this idea of marriage.
Heterosexual couples that are sterile did not choose to be sterile and they are in the minority as well. Now, I am not saying "people choose to be gay!" but people do choose to get married. If you want to get married, you should qualify for what constitutes marriage. The definition of the word should not change to accommodate a minority.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
That is true. But the reasons behind promoting Marriage have remained the same in my opinion.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I have stated in the past that only couples who can demonstrate they are raising a dependent (child, disabled relative) should be eligible for tax breaks. Whether this couple is homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual makes no difference to me; whether they qualify for tax benefits is the issue. Why should a couple receive benefits when they have the same "burdens" as single people do? So yes, I believe even heterosexual couples with no dependents should be ineligible for tax breaks.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Gays are not the only group who feel discriminated against. They are one of the more prominant groups to garnder attention within the last 10-20 years though. Did you feel so strongly about Gay Rights back then or has it only become a concern for you because of the increased media coverage?
Equality and Freedom are in the eyes of the beholder. Many people around the world falsely believe they are equal and free when in reality they are neither.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
In general circumstances, I am free to marry somebody of the opposite sex. I am currently not permitted to marry somebody of the same sex as me.
In general circumstances, gay people are free to marry somebody of the opposite sex. They are currently not permitted to marry somebody of the same sex as they are.
Can you please explain what rights heterosexual people have that gay people do not?
Where do you draw the line? If you grant one minority group extra rights, you need to provide other minority groups extra rights too. This comes at the expense of the majority and causes social tension.
Originally posted by Carseller4
Gays have always had the right to marry.
Originally posted by kozmo
It would seem to me that the intelligent compromise would be to allow same-sex civil unions so that we may abide by the equal protection clause of the Constitution and go about our marry way, yes?
Sorry, but as long as Taxpayers are helping finance the benefits afforded to couples that are legally recognised as "married", they will have a say in how the word is defined.
Originally posted by ~Vixen~
The right to marry the person that they LOVE rather than the person that unrelated third parties think they should marry. (Or is love irrelevant?) Maybe if more people married for love the divorce rate wouldn't be so damn high!
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Carseller4
Gays have always had the right to marry.
Lame.
I'm so tired of this one.
Originally posted by Kaleob
Well I'm gay and I don't want to pay for heterosexual couples benefits. Where is my say in this?