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: 18
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonfly79
I think being gay has gone too far, people identifying themselves with their sexuality should say Hey I'm much more than my genitals or whatever I do with them, whoever I'm in love with doesn't define me....


Right -- but the government is also defining people by their genitals, their sexual orientation, and by who they are in love with...

...i.e., if the person you love has the same genitals as you, in the eyes of the government that makes you (as a couple) different than other loving couples, and ineligible for marriage.

So, to carry what you said a step further -- it would be better if people (such as the government) didn't define other people by their sexual preference and didn't define marriage by the genitals of the people who want to get married.


edit on 2/14/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NthOther
The real question is why government licenses are necessary in the first place. Marriage licenses, in the US, were originally intended to prevent interracial marriage. It had nothing to do with "sanctity". Once the government realized they could use it as a method of social control, they also saw they could make a lot of money charging fees for the licenses.

It's not really about who can get married and who can't--marriage is an abstract interpersonal commitment--it's about who can get a license to benefit from the legal jungle they've set up to regulate the transfer of property and the custody of children.

Simply put, the government has no legitimate business in defining or regulating interpersonal relationships whatsoever. Its motivation is nefarious at best, and downright evil at worst.


What he said. YEAH!

But I would like to go a step further than social control, what about financial control as well?
Good points!



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
The main problem that is overlooked and will be front pages soon, is what happens when a gay couple want to get married in a church where they don't approve and refuse. Can they sue based on civil rights, etc. Then can government come in and regulate religion. just a thought.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirep
The main problem that is overlooked and will be front pages soon, is what happens when a gay couple want to get married in a church where they don't approve and refuse. Can they sue based on civil rights, etc. Then can government come in and regulate religion. just a thought.


I dont foresee that happening, any more than it does already.

Churches already have the right to refuse to perform any ceremony that they choose to, in fact my sister needed to attend classes for close to a year just to be considered by the Catholic church for her ceremony.

I believe that if I wanted to have my ceremony in a synagogue, they would refuse me, and that is not a violation of my civil rights, its just the temple having there own set of rules as a private entity.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
oh hell no.
If they want the right to marry they have to go through the same things we have.
I feel they must be FORCED to marry pampered self absorbed pretentious American women just like the rest of us.
It's an equality issue.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
oh hell no.
If they want the right to marry they have to go through the same things we have.
I feel they must be FORCED to marry pampered self absorbed pretentious American women just like the rest of us.
It's an equality issue.

Ha ha!


I'm sure there are gay guys (and even straight guys) who act like self absorbed pretentious American women...
...not that there's anything wrong with that (to steal the line from Seinfeld)

Plus, I'm sure there are self absorbed pretentious American women who are lesbians.


edit on 2/14/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Here in The Netherlands same sex marriage has been legal since 2001 iirc.
I don't see the problem some people have with gays etc. If your happy being gay, it's fine with me, just don't try and rub it in my face.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainEpic
Here in The Netherlands same sex marriage has been legal since 2001 iirc.
I don't see the problem some people have with gays etc. If your happy being gay, it's fine with me, just don't try and rub it in my face.


Do you rub hetero in their face?

These kind of remarks are so uncalled for.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CaptainEpic
Here in The Netherlands same sex marriage has been legal since 2001 iirc.
I don't see the problem some people have with gays etc. If your happy being gay, it's fine with me, just don't try and rub it in my face.


Do you rub hetero in their face?

These kind of remarks are so uncalled for.


Annee, you are fast becoming one of my favourite posters ever. Please don't stop being awesome, ever.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


Here is my opinion which is better than most of my opponents' position on the matter:

No matter how I *feel* about what another man or woman CHOOSES to do with another man or woman...
IS: (wait for it) irrelevant Just like what YOU *feel* is also irrelevant...

A man/woman have THEE RIGHT to do whatever they want: as long as they do NOT damage someone elses
property and as long as they do not breach the peace...

Since their choice to marry is their right: YOU cannot vote on what they should or could or would do...
You don't have the authority and NO ONE has that authority, not even the state, nor the U.S. Government.

The end, I win.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Why would you be against something that doesn't hurt you, or even affect you in any way. It's ridiculous. Let gay's and lesbians be as miserable as the rest of us. Beside the government shouldn't have a right to tell us who we can marry and whom we cant. It should be up to religious institutes. Thank you government for being like my mother, always knowing what I am up to, being all up on our kool aid.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
It affects me when gays marry. Part of what gays do is sexualize the society. As a breeder in the 21st century, the first conversation you have with your kids about sex is about what GAY means.

Not about where babies come from, but why that man is talking funny or wearing women's clothing.

I work with a number of gays. I shouldn't know they are gay, but with one exception, their primary personality characteristic is their sexual orientation. They tell dirty jokes at the office (if I did that, it would be harrassment), they tease each other and talk about where they are going for the drag races this weekend.

Politically, they demand more than tolerance. They demand approval from the rest of us.

That's my objection to gay marriage. I don't think they should be able to legally call themselves married, because it devalues marriage. It's like saying that anyone can now call themselves an accountant. If we all do that, then the definition of that group becomes so large and vague that it loses all meaning.

I don't care what relationships they want to have in there own lives. I couldn't care less. But when they want to talk about it all day long on every TV show, to try to convince me that I should like them and be grateful for their weirdness ... don't hold your breath.

Just look on this thread, the name-calling of anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda (bigot, brainless, religious zealot, fascists, hillbilly) just goes to show.

Gay people don't like me, don't like my kind, they want to marginalize me and my family and the things I value. So why should I support them and worry about whether they feel comfortable in society? They view me as the enemy.

I believe in tolerance for them. But not affirmation.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


What does your multitude of personal opinions on behavior of gays - - have to do with gays legally marrying.

Nothing.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Just look on this thread, the name-calling of anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda (bigot, brainless, religious zealot, fascists, hillbilly) just goes to show.


I have to say, for namecalling, that is pretty polite. You should hear the derogatory words people use to describe the gay community.



Gay people don't like me, don't like my kind, they want to marginalize me and my family and the things I value. So why should I support them and worry about whether they feel comfortable in society? They view me as the enemy.


I will agree that there does exist in the gay community a few members who express heterophobia. When 90% of the community report experiencing physical or sexual abuse from "straight" people based around their sexuality, can you really blame some of them?



I believe in tolerance for them. But not affirmation.


Actually, I don't believe in tolerance. Tolerance is not enough.

Dictionary Definition of Tolerance



1. The power or capacity of an organism to tolerate unfavourable environmental conditions



2. A permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits


As my Anthropology Professor would say (In the Religion course he taught) that tolerance is not good enough, we have to see past tolerance and reach a level acceptance and appreciation.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

It affects me when gays marry. Part of what gays do is sexualize the society. As a breeder in the 21st century, the first conversation you have with your kids about sex is about what GAY means.

Not about where babies come from, but why that man is talking funny or wearing women's clothing.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

You know, straights have been sexualizing society far longer than the gay community has. Hugh Hefner and Madonna for example. Gay's identify with their sexual identity more than anything else because it is the one thing they are looked down upon for.

I agree that it's over the top and perhaps too much (as a gay man I say this) but once society has tolerance, not acceptance will that fade away.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




Politically, they demand more than tolerance. They demand approval from the rest of us.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The gay rights movement is only interested in just that, rights. Although both sides of the debate IMO are ridiculous and need to take some time and actually pay attention to what the people they represent want, as opposed to just thinking for themselves.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




That's my objection to gay marriage. I don't think they should be able to legally call themselves married, because it devalues marriage. It's like saying that anyone can now call themselves an accountant. If we all do that, then the definition of that group becomes so large and vague that it loses all meaning.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't agree with that argument. I think heterosexuals have done far more damage to marriage than any other community has. 50% divorce rates in the richest countries is an indication that marriage isn't really taken seriously by anybody anymore

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.




Gay people don't like me, don't like my kind, they want to marginalize me and my family and the things I value. So why should I support them and worry about whether they feel comfortable in society? They view me as the enemy.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

This is just untrue. You can't state that ALL homosexuals are against you. Trust me we are not. We are against those who don't understand that has nothing to do with whether or not you like or accept homosexuals. This about being afforded the same rights that straight couples are afforded once they are married.

The argument should be about the government having no place in dictating what two responsible adults have the right to do, and not do in their bedroom or in regards to marriage. The government decided a long time ago to make a religious practice a system of law, which affords more rights to those who hold that title than those that don't.

Because of this decision, they must afford everybody the chance to partake in these advantages so long as they are two consenting adults. Otherwise that is the basic definition of discrimination against a group of people.

As a gay man I respect the fact that you don't agree with homosexuals. That is your right as a human being. However it's another thing entirely for people to look down upon me or anybody else for something that is entirely outside of our control. I don't want to get into a choice argument here as that isn't the topic at hand.

I personnaly also take offense to the word breader, such derogatory terms have no value in our society and do nothing but divide us. This entire argument is a reflection of how little we care today about real issues, and would rather label ourselves and fight amongst ourselves over non issues.

The reality of the situation is that if you are not gay, then same sex marriage does not concern or affect you in any way, other than you might have to explain something to your children, which in all honesty should be nobody's problem but your own.

I've raised 4 children in a same sex environment and although I've had my fair share of issues, they all stemmed from other people's inability to live and let live, as opposed to my choices or behaviours. All my children are incredibly bright and exceptional, not because they were afforded more opportunity than anybody else, but because they were raised in a loving home which gave them proper motivation and resources to make them great.

~Keeper


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

I don't agree with that argument. I think heterosexuals have done far more damage to marriage than any other community has.



How does the extent of damage done by heterosexuals impact the need to now change the definition of marriage? That's an example of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy.





50% divorce rates in the richest countries is an indication that marriage isn't really taken seriously by anybody anymore



Um, the other 50% who are still married still take marriage seriously. But are you arguing that gays should be allowed to marry because marriage really doesn't matter? Again, "tu quoque"






The argument should be about the government having no place in dictating what two responsible adults have the right to do, and not do in their bedroom or in regards to marriage.



That's just rhetoric from the previous century. There's not a single state in the union where homosexual acts are illegal per se, in the bedroom or anywhere else. The government doesn't dictate what people can do in their bedrooms.



The government decided a long time ago to make a religious practice a system of law, which affords more rights to those who hold that title than those that don't.

Because of this decision, they must afford everybody the chance to partake in these advantages so long as they are two consenting adults. Otherwise that is the basic definition of discrimination against a group of people.


But you do have the same rights as anyone else, you can marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex just like any other citizen can. The fact that it's a right you don't want to take advantage of as it stands is a personal choice.

Society isn't denying you something you would otherwise have a right to---it really IS the insistence that we re-define what marriage means. And thus it effects EVERYONE who wants to call themselves married, gay or straight.



As a gay man I respect the fact that you don't agree with homosexuals. That is your right as a human being. However it's another thing entirely for people to look down upon me or anybody else for something that is entirely outside of our control. I don't want to get into a choice argument here as that isn't the topic at hand.


You just invoked the "choice argument," at least your side of it; and now your asking me not to comment on the other side of that debate. Fair enough, I won't. But bringing it up and then saying it doesn't belong is your attempt to limit the depth of discussion.



The reality of the situation is that if you are not gay, then same sex marriage does not concern or affect you in any way, other than you might have to explain something to your children, which in all honesty should be nobody's problem but your own.


Again, such a sweeping redefinition of a legal category so basic to family and probate law affects every inhabitant of the country, and will determine the future shape of our society. No wonder people are so emotional about it.


edit on 15-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: typos



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
they deserve the same benefits and bs we all have to face.


common! you don't remember your crazy uncle and his "friend" over for the holidays every year?

or why auntie never married?


u people are messed up.

they can be married anywhere/anytime, it's the legal bs they want.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


I am familiar with the difference between tolerance and affirmation.

It's why I said that I am willing to tolerate, but not affirm.


The demand that straights "affirm/accept" gays is basically telling other people what they ought to FEEL. Telling people what thoughts or feelings they are allowed to have is sick.

It is part of what drives independent-minded people into the opposing camp.

Personally, I believe that a pluralistic society can only BE built upon tolerance. There is no particular virtue in affirmation, since it means merely applauding the people you already approve of.

Tolerance insists that you treat people with basic dignity due any to human being, even when you disagree with them. It means "allowing" (as you pointed out), ---allowing them to continue to remain who they are, even though you'd prefer they were something else.

Tolerance is about outward behavior. But affirmation is about inner feelings. People who want to tell you what you have a right to feel, or to tell you what you ought to feel, do not respect you and are trying to control you. Do not trust them.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


The only affirmation sought is to be treated as an equal human being on this vast planet. To be afforded the same rights that every other individual is granted. Nothing more, nothing less. To deny that is to be inhuman.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


Doc..

Do you tolerate or affirm the following:
Interracial marriage.
Divorce.
A Jewish community.
Rock and roll music.
Women entering the workplace.
Women's suffrage.
The Catholic faith.
Cathiolics and protestants attending the same schools.
Sex out of wedlock.
Polygamous relationships.
Racial integration.

All of the above at one time were argued by opponents using the same exact arguments that you are making. Many of these are now considered societal norms.

Just want to know where you draw the line.




top topics



 
14
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join