Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ATS temperature on same sex marriage

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Any marriage with sex in it is ok with me!




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

And the same joys, benefits, privileges...


I must not have received the memo about those aspects of marriage.


truth is, a couple can be together for years, enjoying the benefits of a marriage, as well as the pitfalls and issues that arise, without actually being legally married.


most of my gay/lesbian clients are less concerned with the recognition of the union as a means of acceptance. For the most part, they are together and their friends and family know and accept and a piece of paper from the state won't make the union feel more real.

no, they all want the same tax, insurance, estate etc benefits afforded married couples.

yes, there are plenty of same sex couples that feel that state recognition makes it more real and "approved" by society but, more often than not, it's about more than that.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I agree with most of the people here, that gay people should be allowed to be married like anyone else. As for children being brought into the family, as long as they are loved and cared for, it shouldn't be an issue.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I think as a society we have moved from that stance. I am not a religious person, however I want a 'marrriage' not a civil union. It is no longer simply a religious issue, but a social one.

It may have been based on religion to begin, but I feel that it has evolved to much more than that.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
********TEA PARTY MEMBER CHIMING IN*******

Who cares? Really. If the gay folks want to be as miserable as us married folks then fine.


It is a personal decision. The "state" shouldn't even be involved.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Any couple or group living together as a unit should be able to have all the insurance and tax benefits that any "married" couple gets.

Either all people living as a unit are treated equally or none are.

Doesnt matter if you're two happy heteros, two gaudy gays, four students living in the same house, or 200 cultists under a steel warehouse roof on a remote Texas compound.

None of this has anything to do with religion or morality or any of that hollow crap. All it is is finances and inheritance. Should be no more difficult than signing a document when such a relationship begins and another when said relationship ends.

How all these muppets and zealots twisted a simple agreed partnership into this bullcrap is beyond me.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NthOther
 





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.


Very well said.

The whole issue is nothing but a Dog and Pony show used to divert the publics attention from the real issue. The US governments theft of our Constitutional rights!.

Read the Constitution some time and compare it to the legal red tape we have strangling us. I would guess that the framers of the Constitution would find 90% of the laws Unconstitutional. I certainly can not find Constitutional justification for many of the laws we have to deal with. The Constitution lists the rights of the Federal government and the State governments. The rest are "retained by the people"


Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

U.S. Constitution Online



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


Marriage is a religious institution from its original Western founding.



Really?
Really!
The Garden of Eden was in the West????
Your moral compass has led you astray.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


On a federal level, there is one major reason why I doubt we'll ever see same sex marriages allowed/recognized.

estate and gift taxes.


Absolutely. I see tax issues as a major impediment to same sex marriage. This is one of the pitfalls which happens when the government gets involved in marriages. Oddly, the government never seems to come right out and say that tax issues would be a problem. Instead, they revert to the usual tired and ineffective rhetoric.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
...humans were committing to each other long before religion was dreamed up... call it bonding, call it marriage, call it indentured servitude, call it shackin up - it doesnt matter... its a verbal agreement...

...some religions hi-jacked the concept and claimed it as their own but thats just more of their fantasy bs...

...there is no need to change the term marriage to something else when it applies to folks whom religious fanatics dont approve of...

...if some folks want to make THEIR marriage all about THEIR religion, thats absolutely 100% a-okay fine - but - them forcing their religious views on others is bs...

...governmental involvement in marriage should only be for record keeping purposes in the event of divorce or child support or other such legal matters... there should be no such thing as a government recognized marriage... however, "should be" is not how it is but, maybe, we should save that topic for another thread...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


can't admit to the truth without creating more uproar.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
So to answer your question, there would be no legal differences other than the title.


Like... separate but equal?

I realize that to you marriage is a religious institution, but AS IT STANDS, it's a legal contract and SOME people add a religious aspect to it. If I, as a straight atheist, can get a marriage license, and marry the consenting adult of my choice, then gay people should have equal access to this legal institution and its government-supplied benefits, whether they are religious or not.

If we revamp the whole system such that "marriage" is strictly a religious term and carries no legal benefits, and everyone has equal access to a secular civil union, I'd be fine with that. But that's not the way it is now.


Originally posted by Misoir
Marriage is a religious institution from its original Western founding.


What does that mean? People have been getting married forever. Non-religious people have been getting married forever.



To want to be married is to want to be recognized by a religious institution.


No, no, no! Maybe to YOU, but not to me. Each couple defines their marriage.



Why would an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist want to be acknowledged by a religious institution?


We don't. But this proves that it IS a legal institution. Even those who marry in church need a license, signatures and witnesses. It's a legal contract with the religious bit added on.
The church doesn't have to recognize my marriage. I actually couldn't care less if they do.



Civil Union would be the 100% exact same as any other marriage except it would not be recognized by a religious institution but rather by the state.


My marriage is none of the church's business. I won't cater to the church by giving up my marriage. Sorry.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thank you for stating so well what I was thinking. Marriage is so far removed from the religious implications in today's world. Every definition I can find online states that marriage is a contractual and social union between two consenting adults. Period.

As I stated before, be it opposite sex, same sex, plural marriage, they are all equal, no seperation at all.
I dont even think that the state should have a say in the situation at all. I do not need a certificate or permission from the state to enter into the union with my wife. The only permission I need is hers.

And hers is the hardest to get!



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Any marriage with sex in it is ok with me!



Spoken like someone who's never been married.


The sex only lasts for the first few months of marriage. The kids will soon follow, then it all ends.

After that, you'll be happy to get some once a month, sometimes going months at a time without. (When the wife has a baby, its often three months before she's healed up enough.
).

By the time the kids grow up and are out of the house (If they ever can afford to get out with our economy) you'll probably need pharmacutical assistance to do it if the desire hasn't completely gone by then.


If you're looking to get married because of all the sex you'll be having, you better think twice because it just doesn't work out that way.
edit on 2/10/11 by FortAnthem because:
_____________



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Any marriage with sex in it is ok with me!

Spoken like someone who's never been married.

That's kind of the punch line of my joke - many marriages have the sex fizzle out eventually. So, why would we stop two adults from getting married if they can put the "sex" back into marriage, be they different or same sex!?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 



yes, there are plenty of same sex couples that feel that state recognition makes it more real and "approved" by society but, more often than not, it's about more than that.


I always thought it was about the money more than official recognition myself also.

Personally I think anyone who wants to ( straight,gay even polygamist) should all have the right to marry if they so choose.

I also think the Government should do away with any and all tax breaks/incentives in place until they do make it legal for everyone to be eligible for those benefits ,or just do away with them for good)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

So I ask you this, membership of ATS, what are your thoughts on the issue. What is the overall tenperature of my fellow ATS-ers on the issue of same sex marriage?


I say the government should get the hell out of consenting adults relationships! Get the government out of marriage!

I may be straight but I do not want the government all up in my business about whom I chose to be with and in what regards!



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
So I ask you this, membership of ATS, what are your thoughts on the issue. What is the overall tenperature of my fellow ATS-ers on the issue of same sex marriage?


My thoughts .. I don't care. It's a states rights issue. If a state wants it .. they should have it.
Don't touch the Constitution to declare same sex marriage okay and don't touch the
Constitution to declare marriage is just between a man and a woman. Leave the
Constitution alone.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by harrytuttle
Any marriage with sex in it is ok with me!

Spoken like someone who's never been married.

That's kind of the punch line of my joke - many marriages have the sex fizzle out eventually. So, why would we stop two adults from getting married if they can put the "sex" back into marriage, be they different or same sex!?



That's all part of our evil sinister plan. We withhold marriage and parenthood from them until they want it so bad, they don't see they are really shooting themselves in the foot.

What better way to get gays to stop having gay sex than by letting them get married and adopt kids? Any strait couple can tell you; pretty much all sex ends once the kiddies come along.

Its following in the same blueprint as when they gave women the right to vote. Prior to women having the right to vote, they used their moral authority to push through a Constitutional Amendment creating Prohibition. When this happened, the men of the country freaked out. Fearing what those crazed harpies would try to push through next, the men of America rushed through the Constitutional Amendment giving women the right to vote just one year after the abhorrent Prohibition Amendment. After that time, if a woman wanted to have a say in politics, her voice was worth just as little as the next guy's; you want a say in this sister, get in line and vote for the same limited choices as the rest of us.


Then after they get the rights to marry and have kids, they will lose their persecuted minority status and we can REALLY stick it to 'em.

BWOO Ha ha ha ha...


Gee, I hope there aren't any gay members reading this post.


Wouldn't want them catching on to our evil plans...





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join