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: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

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.


Could you please show me/us what further burden on taxpayers is a same sex 'married' couple as opposed to a same sex 'civil union' couple?

I honestly have never heard of such a thing so any help tracking down legal information/documentation that substantiates the above statement would be appreciated.

I have yet to see one sound argument against same sex marriage other than it is an affront to an unaffected, thus irrelevant, third party's conditioned belief/moral dogma.

[edit on 29 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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.


Most things that *feel* wrong for whatever reason usually stem from societal norms rather than something inherent in human nature, and many -- if not most -- societal norms (morality and the like) stem from religious ideologies, whether people realize it or not. There have been times in history and cultures where homosexuality was totally ok (along with pedophilia, bestiality, etc), but now these things *feel* wrong.

Also, I've found many atheists that live in Western society have on some level internalized Judeo-Christian ideologies, like the idea that marriage should be between a single man and woman only, which is actually a modern religious world-view. I've even met atheists who, while not believing in "god" do believe that Jesus existed. My point? There are quite a few people who proclaim themselves atheists but haven't examined their beliefs (or lack thereof) as deeply as they'd like to think they have.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


It's Immoral .



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

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.

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.

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.


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.

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]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Just to go on the record with my thoughts on the matter...

I am a spiritual person and have religious beliefs, but not so much to recognize that religion is not without its flaws. 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.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 29-8-2010 by kozmo]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

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?"



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   

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.


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.


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.


You might find a few and i mean a tiny minority that feel that way but when you consider the society they live in it's easy to understand why. Some want to live by the social norms that exist because it's how they were raised, others are simply fearful to rock the boat as they are already hated by a lot of people.


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]


This is about equality and freedom, to me there are few things more important.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


It's Immoral .


I'd argue that denying people equal rights based on religious ideology is immoral as well.


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.


These people should be entitled to all of the same benefits, regardless of whether they choose to procreate or not. Raising your kids costs everyone (including gays) money. They help pay for the schools your kids attend, the teachers that teach the kids, the bus driver who drives them to school, etc. People have no qualms about taking gay tax dollars to subsidize the cost of educating and maintaining heterosexual couples children, but the majority of people are so ungrateful that as a "thank you," people wish to deny them the simple right to marry the person they love.



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.


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?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

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 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.


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.

That is true. But the reasons behind promoting Marriage have remained the same in my opinion.


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.

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.

[...]


This is about equality and freedom, to me there are few things more important.

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.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

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.

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?


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?

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.

[edit on 29/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

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?"


Rather I posit, why must they be the same?

Cannot we conceed that this is about "Rights", yes? That the whole premise of the argument is that they enjoy the same freedoms and rights as married Americans, right? We can also agree that marriage is a traditional, and with religious connotation, ceremony rooted in history as being a union between a man and a woman? 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?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

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.


Hang on a moment. You stated that a homosexual couple cannot have children and that's a reason to dislike homosexual marriage. I stated that plenty of heterosexual couples are sterile. So your logic would be that because they can't procreate they should not be able to get married.

What constitutes marriage is a joining together of two people and you may want to check history because gay marriage was fine in some cultures including the ancient greeks and the romans (until Christianity came in and messed it all up).


Originally posted by Dark Ghost
That is true. But the reasons behind promoting Marriage have remained the same in my opinion.


the reasons being the fair and equal treatment of people like the other rights movements for black people, women etc.


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.


Then i applaud your even handedness (and i agree with it). However if a homosexual couple adopted a child or had a child using a surrogate then i hope you would support their right to obtain the same benefits as a heterosexual couple.


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.


Actually the fair treatment of all people has been something i believed in since i was properly able to grasp the concept. I think i was around 10-12 when i started reading about the history of the British empire and the fowl treatment of various groups by my country. From there it was the suffragettes and others so yes i've thought about it for a good long time. Then again i'm only 25 and you've given a time period of 10-20 years which seems unfair to penalise me due to my age


A gay couple getting married will not hurt anyone. The only thing it may do is offend the sensibilities of some people but that's the price of freedom! You may come up against things which offend you, the only problem is when these things infringe upon the rights of a group who are being singled out.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
My views?

Well, I think the only people that are going to get anything out of gay marriage will be the divorce lawyers.

Gays don't have the corner market on happy marriages. I'll bet that their percentage of failed first marriages will be the same as everyone else.

So, the divorce lawyers will be raking in more cash due to this yet untapped resource.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Gays have always had the right to marry.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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?


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!



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.


We're not granting them EXTRA rights, we're granting them EQUAL rights. You may believe that allowing them the right to marry will cause social tension, but, in my opinion, it's denial of equal rights that causes social tension. Gays have the right to be married in a handful of states already, and despite the gloom and doom predictions of the fall of society, the world is still spinning, the sky is still blue, heterosexual marriages are still intact, and life continues on.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Gays have always had the right to marry.


Lame.

I'm so tired of this one.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

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?


Separate but Equal? Think we've been down that road before.

When the word Marriage became a legal government document - - it then fell under Equal Rights protection.

And I do not want to hear the lamest argument in existence. Everyone can legally marry the opposite sex.

This falls into the same situation as not legal to marry someone of another race.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   


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.


Well I'm gay and I don't want to pay for heterosexual couples benefits. Where is my say in this?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

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!

Loving somebody does not mean you have the right to marry them. If I love my brother's wife does that mean I have the right to marry her? If I love my sister does this mean I have the right to marry her?

(PS: Marriage is based on sex, not sexual orientation.)

-----


Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Carseller4
Gays have always had the right to marry.


Lame.

I'm so tired of this one.

Lame, or just very inconvenient because it makes perfect logical sense and cannot be denied?

------


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?

Too bad the dominant sexual orientation happens to be heterosexuality in most parts of the world. It's kind of like people with blue hair saying they don't want to pay benefits for people with brown hair.

[edit on 29/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join