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.

 

ATS temperature on same sex marriage

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity

Even two nice lookig people, man people keep it behind the doors, get a room!


I agree with that. I dont care if its Brad and Angelina, well maybe.....



Originally posted by Annee

I agree. I do not like seeing a man and woman playing tonsil hockey in public.

But - I think two gay guys walking down the street holding hands is so cute. (no offense to the lesbians - for some reason I've only seen the guys do this)


It can be adorable right? I once went to a parade up in P-town Cape Cod.....both massive PDAs but it was such a loving event. I would recommend it to anyone and cant wait to go back.




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I wish there were more woman on woman tonsil games in public, woman kissing woman is hot...! men on men I can choose to look the other way so I really dont care...man with woman kissing in public if she's hot I imagine myself in his place...

My stance is firm, the more guy men leaves more woman available which is better for us heterosexual males... : )



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by marinesniper0351
I pray gay rights get passed and more MEN turn gay, please....


People don't "turn" gay.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by marinesniper0351
reply to post by Annee
 


I wish there were more woman on woman tonsil games in public, woman kissing woman is hot...


I'm not going there.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The history of marriage is one that started out as more of a religious idea, and one that started with the church.


Not true. Most original marriages were arranged and were for economic purposes, not love or religion. The church insinuated itself into marriage.
The church hijacked marriage.



Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.


History of Marriage


Well BH, while I agree with you that govt. has no right in involving themselves on who should be allowed to have a civil union, I have to disagree with you on the definitions that you say should apply.
You mention that ninth century marriages were not church involved, but the problem with that is that the term "marriage" did not come along until about the 12th century (from the old french "mariage"). And the actual word "marriage" has it's origins from the middle English c. 1250-1300. True that we also have the latin "maritare" - to marry.

I know that it sounds like a bunch of semantics, but that is in a sense what you and Annee are arguing. That a gay couple's civil union HAS to be called a "marriage". Simply put, no it doesn't. And there is no legal justification for the idea of gay "marriage".

As an American that lives in Germany and has many problems with the ways of the German govt.; I must say that I like it the way that they do it here. People are "civil unionized" by the govt., and that is the most important thing (in terms of benefits etc.), and then turn around and CAN be married by whatever religious institution that they wish.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

It can be adorable right? I once went to a parade up in P-town Cape Cod.....both massive PDAs but it was such a loving event. I would recommend it to anyone and cant wait to go back.


I'm not too far from Long Beach CA. I've been to the parade and following event afterwards. People who don't go - - don't understand its a family event. With booths - both games and information - - and concert in the park.

Of course - the media - only shows sensationalism.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Well BH, while I agree with you that govt. has no right in involving themselves on who should be allowed to have a civil union, I have to disagree with you on the definitions that you say should apply.
You mention that ninth century marriages were not church involved, but the problem with that is that the term "marriage" did not come along until about the 12th century (from the old french "mariage"). And the actual word "marriage" has it's origins from the middle English c. 1250-1300. True that we also have the latin "maritare" - to marry.

I know that it sounds like a bunch of semantics, but that is in a sense what you and Annee are arguing. That a gay couple's civil union HAS to be called a "marriage". Simply put, no it doesn't. And there is no legal justification for the idea of gay "marriage".



Yes - - It HAS TO be called Marriage - - the word/term marriage. As I said -- words and meaning evolve over time.

When Marriage became a Legal Government Contract "License" - - - with no god listed in that contract - - - the word and meaning evolved. Being Legally Married by the court is valid. No God. No Religion.

As Atheists and all kind of believers/non-believers - - - - are Legally Married under this government contract - - - it no longer belongs exclusively to any belief. It is a government contract.

Besides all that - - - every gay person I know considers themself Christian. These conversations seem to derail that fact.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daggyz
I have no probelm with homosexuals wanting to live together but to call it a marriage so as to be 'normal' is redciulous. marriage is between a man and a woman and for homosexuals to want to be like everyone else shows me they know they are not. Why don't they call it something else, then at least they would be saying they recognise they can't be like a man and a woman. 96% of hetrosexual marriages are capable of having kids. 100% of homosexual unions are incapable of having kids. Don't fool yourself. Biologically it is 100% impossoble for homosexuals to produce children without outside help or artificial means.


Sorry buddy, wrong. The Anthropological definition of Marriage is: Socially accepted sexual and economic union between individuals in a society. Polygamy is the umbrella term for marriages with multiple spouses; Polygyny is when a male has more than one spouse; Polyandry is when a female has more than one spouse. So really, you are making an argument for what would be called a gender-restrictive monogamous marriage which isn't very accurate either because as long as marriage has existed there have also been extramarital affairs.

Heterosexuals do not have to be married to have children either. Right now it is estimated that 1.7 million babies out of 4.3 million born are born out of wedlock. That is almost 50% of the babies being born. In fact, if you want to lessen the number of children born out of wedlock then you NEED to legalize same-sex marriages because they count in those statistics too.

Also, you boast very high percentage of birthrate/fertility that just screams inaccurate and completely improbable. Not every married couple can have children or even want to have children. What about people who reach the age where they are no longer viable to have children? Does that automatically disolve their marriages by your logic? Not to mention that diseases and environmental factors have caused a significant decline in fertility for both men and women with some doctors conservatively proposing an infertility rate of 10% to some as high as 75%.



Lets not lose sight here. If you say you are comfortable being homosexual yet want to be called the same thing as hetrosexual couples (married) then it tells me you actaully aren't 'complete' and know it.


You're right, let's not lose sight here. From the facts I've provided above and from your own statements that homosexuals are not "normal" (which is a completely relative term) you suffer from a closeted case of homophobia and denial.

I would address more of your post but I find it hard to discuss intelligibly with people who don't even know how to spell their own sexual orientation. HETERO
edit on 11-2-2011 by Dendro because: grammar



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by marinesniper0351
I pray gay rights get passed and more MEN turn gay, please....


People don't "turn" gay.


Yes mate some do.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Hefficide
How, precisely would gay marriage inhibit the freedoms of anyone else? Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement. But, if not, I truly fail to see how gays being allowed to marry would rob heterosexuals of any freedom at all - other than the "freedom" to exclude others from the institution of marriage.


The legalities attached to marraige are NOT voluntary, they are imposed and they can be changed whether the couple agrees to them or not. All government intrusion into personal relationships robs individuals of freedom.

It used to be that a married man could legally smack his wife around a bit and have forced sex with her, and that's all changed now.
So yes, a violent, abusive husband has much less freedom than he had before.

I guess some people would think that change, plus the easing of divorce laws, is an intrusion of the government into marriage.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Well BH, while I agree with you that govt. has no right in involving themselves on who should be allowed to have a civil union, I have to disagree with you on the definitions that you say should apply.
You mention that ninth century marriages were not church involved, but the problem with that is that the term "marriage" did not come along until about the 12th century (from the old french "mariage"). And the actual word "marriage" has it's origins from the middle English c. 1250-1300. True that we also have the latin "maritare" - to marry.

I know that it sounds like a bunch of semantics, but that is in a sense what you and Annee are arguing. That a gay couple's civil union HAS to be called a "marriage". Simply put, no it doesn't. And there is no legal justification for the idea of gay "marriage".



Yes - - It HAS TO be called Marriage - - the word/term marriage. As I said -- words and meaning evolve over time.

When Marriage became a Legal Government Contract "License" - - - with no god listed in that contract - - - the word and meaning evolved. Being Legally Married by the court is valid. No God. No Religion.

As Atheists and all kind of believers/non-believers - - - - are Legally Married under this government contract - - - it no longer belongs exclusively to any belief. It is a government contract.

Besides all that - - - every gay person I know considers themself Christian. These conversations seem to derail that fact.



Well how do you feel about changing the govt. contract to saying "civil union" for all people? Or what do you suggest the church change it's "copyrighted" term for "marriage" into?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I don't know. This is tough. I mean, I think when people came up with the idea of marriage, they meant opposite sex. But times change. Does that mean we shouldn't apply new concepts to old values? Again, I don't know. Not much help am I...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I also think the state should get out of marriage altogether, but since they offer benefits to married people, that's not going to happen for a while, but I would totally support independent marriage

Ok I know I'm going to get smacked down for saying this but here is my stance please read the whole comment prior to replying. I'm also talking from a Canadian legal perspective so not sure how relivent it is to Maryland.

I don't think same sex marriage should be allowed until other laws are changed first.

My reasons: When same sex marriage became law in Canada it was not done through a change of laws in the house of commons. The liberal government knew it did not have enough votes to pass it so they went to the supreme court and had them rule on it. The court rulled that the constitution was un-constitutional, which I find to be double speak and completely impossible. Unlike our southern neighbours our constitution was not ratified until the 1990's and sexual orientation was deliberately left out of the constitution when they said you couldn't discriminate by age, gender, religion or race. The supreme court said that by not having sexual orientation in there it was unconstitutional and as such it should have been in there and if it had then same sex marriage would have been legal.

What I think actually happened (but can't prove) is that Jean Cretian decided to set a precedent of allowing the supreme court to re-write the constitution. This would allow changes with out the provinces or the members of parliament getting a vote. I think he chose same sex relathinships because it was a hot button issue and because they could effectively say that if you didn't agree with the rulling your a biggot, even if the ubjection was to the procedure used and the fact it set a nasty precident and gave the judiciary major new powers. I think the gay and lesbian community was used.

My second issue is that Canada also has common law relationships on the books. After three months of living with a person you can claim common law status. People with opposite sex roommates frequently fell afoul of the law when they moved out because if they had lived together those three months the other roommate could claim common law status and take them for 1/2 of everything they owned. Under the way the courts have worked it is the responsibility of the individual disputing the common law status to prove that they where only roommates. I know one lady wwho had a tenent in her basement suite and he lost his job, she felt bad for him and let him stay in the suite with out paying rent for three months while he looked for new work with the verbal understanding that he would pay her back once he found a new job. After three months he left and sued her claiming common law status. The judge rulled in his favor because he claimed they had no verbal agreement to repay and since she had helped support him for three months and during that three months he had kept a diary of all the things he did such as mowing the lawn and helping her with general maintenance. He also claimed they had been sexually active as a couple something that both her and her teenage son disputed but since she had no proof and the burden of proof falls on the person disputing the status he ended up with half of everything she owned, in this case she had to get a mortgage on her house so she could give him 200K (half the house value). Now since same sex marriage is legal so is same sex common law marriage, which means that anytime you have a roommate for 3 or more months you could open up yourself to a lawsuit for half your assets. It has already happened that a guy sued another guy's family after he died in a crash and claimed that they had been lovers not just roomates, the family disputed it and the guy claimed that the dead guy had kept it from his family out of shame. It almost resulted in the guy getting the whole estate and insurance pollicy amount (he hadn't set a benificiary as it was a free policy through his work and he didn't know he even had it). If it hadn't been for another friend telling the family that the deceased kept a "little black book" of his conquests and the family getting a court order to access the house to get it they would have lost the case. They won since the deceased had kept very detailed accounts of all his sexual activity and never once was the roommate named in it.

So I think that the two laws (same sex marriage and common law marriage) togetehr create too many issues and as such same sex marriage should have been left off the books till common law was removed or fixed.

So really I have no issue with same sex marriage other than the way it was passed and the unfortunate consequences of it's interaction with another law.


Considering the fact that, under Canadian law, a couple have to be in a reasonably exclusive, committed sexual relationship for a minimum of 12 months, not 3, as you stated, I wonder how much else of your post should be believed.

www.servicecanada.gc.ca...

Besides, trying to argue against legal gay marriage on the grounds that you see common-law marriage as unsatisfactory is absurd, when preventing homosexuals from marrying legally is forcing a lot of people into even less clearly defined legal situations.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by exile1981

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I also think the state should get out of marriage altogether, but since they offer benefits to married people, that's not going to happen for a while, but I would totally support independent marriage

Ok I know I'm going to get smacked down for saying this but here is my stance please read the whole comment prior to replying. I'm also talking from a Canadian legal perspective so not sure how relivent it is to Maryland.

I don't think same sex marriage should be allowed until other laws are changed first.

My reasons: When same sex marriage became law in Canada it was not done through a change of laws in the house of commons. The liberal government knew it did not have enough votes to pass it so they went to the supreme court and had them rule on it. The court rulled that the constitution was un-constitutional, which I find to be double speak and completely impossible. Unlike our southern neighbours our constitution was not ratified until the 1990's and sexual orientation was deliberately left out of the constitution when they said you couldn't discriminate by age, gender, religion or race. The supreme court said that by not having sexual orientation in there it was unconstitutional and as such it should have been in there and if it had then same sex marriage would have been legal.

What I think actually happened (but can't prove) is that Jean Cretian decided to set a precedent of allowing the supreme court to re-write the constitution. This would allow changes with out the provinces or the members of parliament getting a vote. I think he chose same sex relathinships because it was a hot button issue and because they could effectively say that if you didn't agree with the rulling your a biggot, even if the ubjection was to the procedure used and the fact it set a nasty precident and gave the judiciary major new powers. I think the gay and lesbian community was used.

My second issue is that Canada also has common law relationships on the books. After three months of living with a person you can claim common law status. People with opposite sex roommates frequently fell afoul of the law when they moved out because if they had lived together those three months the other roommate could claim common law status and take them for 1/2 of everything they owned. Under the way the courts have worked it is the responsibility of the individual disputing the common law status to prove that they where only roommates. I know one lady wwho had a tenent in her basement suite and he lost his job, she felt bad for him and let him stay in the suite with out paying rent for three months while he looked for new work with the verbal understanding that he would pay her back once he found a new job. After three months he left and sued her claiming common law status. The judge rulled in his favor because he claimed they had no verbal agreement to repay and since she had helped support him for three months and during that three months he had kept a diary of all the things he did such as mowing the lawn and helping her with general maintenance. He also claimed they had been sexually active as a couple something that both her and her teenage son disputed but since she had no proof and the burden of proof falls on the person disputing the status he ended up with half of everything she owned, in this case she had to get a mortgage on her house so she could give him 200K (half the house value). Now since same sex marriage is legal so is same sex common law marriage, which means that anytime you have a roommate for 3 or more months you could open up yourself to a lawsuit for half your assets. It has already happened that a guy sued another guy's family after he died in a crash and claimed that they had been lovers not just roomates, the family disputed it and the guy claimed that the dead guy had kept it from his family out of shame. It almost resulted in the guy getting the whole estate and insurance pollicy amount (he hadn't set a benificiary as it was a free policy through his work and he didn't know he even had it). If it hadn't been for another friend telling the family that the deceased kept a "little black book" of his conquests and the family getting a court order to access the house to get it they would have lost the case. They won since the deceased had kept very detailed accounts of all his sexual activity and never once was the roommate named in it.

So I think that the two laws (same sex marriage and common law marriage) togetehr create too many issues and as such same sex marriage should have been left off the books till common law was removed or fixed.

So really I have no issue with same sex marriage other than the way it was passed and the unfortunate consequences of it's interaction with another law.


Considering the fact that, under Canadian law, a couple have to be in a reasonably exclusive, committed sexual relationship for a minimum of 12 months, not 3, as you stated, I wonder how much else of your post should be believed.

www.servicecanada.gc.ca...

Besides, trying to argue against legal gay marriage on the grounds that you see common-law marriage as unsatisfactory is absurd, when preventing homosexuals from marrying legally is forcing a lot of people into even less clearly defined legal situations.



Oh, that entire post was bullsh*t. As another Canadian, I would know. They didn't even name the correct Prime Minister who brought the legislation in. It wasn't Jean Chretien but Paul Martin.

Technically, the province I live in already established legal same-sex marriages before Bill C-38 went through. We held a referendum where majority was in favour.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ballsdeep

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by marinesniper0351
I pray gay rights get passed and more MEN turn gay, please....


People don't "turn" gay.


Yes mate some do.


No they don't.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
ell how do you feel about changing the govt. contract to saying "civil union" for all people? Or what do you suggest the church change it's "copyrighted" term for "marriage" into?


Marriage is the only terminology that allows equality. Period!

I'm not even going to address religion copyrighting a word.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


I have no problem with same sex couples marrying. I don't think that's something that needs to be regulated by the government. I find that anyone who is against same sex marriage seems to want more government involvement in people's personal lives.

That being said, I also have to defend a churches right to not preform same sex weddings citing the same freedom from government intrusion.

But why should the government dictate what two consenting adults do.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Alright, I see your point in regards to semantics and also agree that words and their meanings can change over time. However, at the same time, the meaning of both civil unions and marriage can also evolve from this point forward and will and that evolving could lead to an acceptance of civil unions as the standard for government sanctioned relationships. Or something like that.


Above all though, just level the playing field. Not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is just wrong.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
ell how do you feel about changing the govt. contract to saying "civil union" for all people? Or what do you suggest the church change it's "copyrighted" term for "marriage" into?


Marriage is the only terminology that allows equality. Period!

I'm not even going to address religion copyrighting a word.



Let me guess Annee, you're one of those people who says "Everyone has the right to say what they want...as long as it agrees with what I say.".

Does that about sum it up?

If all govt. marriage licenses were changed to "civil union" instead of marriage, you would have a problem with it?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
Let me guess Annee, you're one of those people who says "Everyone has the right to say what they want...as long as it agrees with what I say.".


Look in a mirror - - that would be YOU. You don't like my opinion - - - so YOU have come to this conclusion.

I state my opinion - - that is all I do.

ALL interpretation comes from inside your own head.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join