ATS temperature on same sex marriage

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
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!

GEL is straight?!? jk

But her point is right on here. There should not be legal interference by either making same sex marriage legal or illegal. Two (or three, four or five) consenting adults (by whichever age is adulthood differs from state to state as well) should have the ability to marry. Adam and Eve, or Adam and Steve, or Adam, Mary and Joseph should be allowed to have a marriage.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
What better way to get gays to stop having gay sex than by letting them get married and adopt kids?

...thats really bizarro thinking... why do you care about someone else's sex life?... why would homosexuals have to adopt kids?... do you think they're sterile?...

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Any strait couple can tell you; pretty much all sex ends once the kiddies come along.

...i could see your point if you produced ugly youngins...

...that wasnt the case with me or anyone i know... i made beautiful babies and enjoyed the making part immensely... if anything negative about sex after kids can be said, it sometimes becomes your only entertainment cuz you're too dang poor to do anything else but thats not really a negative...

Kind of a weird thread...........one only need to look at any thread mentioning the word homosexual on here and read the posts. Doesn't matter the topic, if the word gay is brought into it anywhere, gay marriage comes up. Overwhelmingly the left wants it and the right doesn't, pretty much like the rest of the country.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I dont necessarily think that is an accurate statement. I am a conservative, a constitutionalist, and very states-rights, yet I am in favor of any marriage. I think you might see the same thing throughout this thread. Just because the party line is as such, doesnt mean that we at ATS toe that line.

In fact most of us here on ATS are discussing these topics here because we dont toe the party line.

The trouble with the word "marriage",is that it has the meme of opposite sexes...Legal "partnership" or "union"..would be a more appropriate word. I have no problem with it...It dosnt even mean that the subjects are involving themselves in sexual acts..They could be but its up to them anyway? and who really cares.I've always thought that living with a mate and sharing resources is a far more sensible way of living,than getting by on your own.Their used to be a Church blessing on friends that lived together no matter what sex they were.Its no big deal.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


I didn't say everyone, however the liberals do tend to side with it more than the conservatives in my opinion. I know alot of us typically don't tow the party line on a miriade of other topics, however, this one does seem to me to be split mostly by the left/right designators on most pro homosexual theads I've read on here.

Marriage (among other things) is an acknowledgement of a legal union between two people. People who have entered into that union are able to enjoy benefits regarding insurance, hospital visitation, shared tax benefits as well as (hopefully) a partnership in which they both contribute toward their mutual well-being. Love is not always a requirement -- it was for myself and my Bride.

I think it's absolutely absurd that gender of the people is even a variable for denying people the right to be married. I can't see that it is anyone's business who marries whom, EXCEPT in those few quirky instances where an adult wants to marry a child. I think couples should be of an age to legally make their own decisions. Aside from that............. none of my business. Shouldn't be the State or Fed. business either.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects the freedom of religion and expression. People are also free to NOT express or practice a religion. Thus, Americans are able to link their marriage to a particular denomination and its practices/rituals if they choose. The churches are -- to some extent -- able to approve or deny those unions take place within their boundaries, but they are not able to prevent anyone from being married outside of the church. The right to be legally married should not be confused with the practices and dogma of any faith.

I well I dont' understand everything. Why is you want to be married gay, straight, or otherwise. Is it a religious thing? Do you want their last name? If so go change your name. Do you want to refer to the other as spouse? then do so. Nobody's going to stop you. And if they disagree with you, DO you really give a rats nipple. I wouldn't see why.? Who defines being Married ? A judge, minister, captain,? No we the couple or other, decide if we are married. not to bring in the bible , but even it refers to a Man Laying with a Women to make him his Wife If this is the being married your looking for, your OFF. I fail to see the reason for being married for any other reason than love., Even though it happens LOVE is what it is about any other reason is stupid and you should not be married. Damn the legally binding contract offered to you by the state. If you love them and they love you come to the understanding that U R Married live that way and be glad you have each other Regardless of your sexuality !

P.S. does any 1 know how to put there signature on your post

I just love it when those that oppose same sex marriage go on and on about how it would ruin the sanctity of marriage, especially when many of those same people have probably been divorced at least once and probably married more than once. They make a bigger mockery of marriage than homosexuals ever could.

I say that if they're not going to legalize same sex marriage, then they should go the extra step and make divorce illegal.

Originally posted by argentus
In the United States, the First Amendment protects the freedom of religion and expression. People are also free to NOT express or practice a religion.

...but thats not true - never has been...

...if a person has to fight all the way to the supreme court to have their constitutionally guaranteed rights upheld, thats not exactly protection or freedom since most folks dont have the money to take on that battle...

...we're a lot closer to achieving that goal but we're still not there... the way the government handled the branch davidians at mt carmel in 93, as well as the fundamentalist christian led state sanctioned assault on the polygamous sect of mormons in san angelo texas a few years back proves it (at least to me)...

...the butler act (tennessee) made it illegal to teach evolution... scopes monkey trial attempted to over-turn that religiously contrived legislation...

The case ended on July 21, 1925, with a guilty verdict, and Scopes was fined $100. The case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. In a 3-1 decision written by Chief Justice Grafton Green the Butler Act was held to be constitutional, but overturned Scopes' conviction on a technicality: the judge had set the fine instead of the jury. The Butler Act remained until 1967 when it was repealed by the Tennessee legislature.

en.wikipedia.org...

...anti-gay legislation is clearly unconstitutional and its slowly being erradicated but i think its a bit premature to believe we ALL actually have the freedoms stated in your quote...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

You only have freedom that you take. people get this confused. Yes you have a constitution And a bill of rights. But the Federal Government Does Not Act on it unless you Force them to. Do you really think the Federal Government Doesn't see Or watch the news in surrounding STATES. They know that STATE laws, Violate the Constitutional rights Of Americans. Do they run to help you hell NO. If you want your rights to be known. YOU HAVE to make them known to the Federal Court System, AND Demand them to be Enforced.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Kind of a weird thread...........one only need to look at any thread mentioning the word homosexual on here and read the posts. Doesn't matter the topic, if the word gay is brought into it anywhere, gay marriage comes up. Overwhelmingly the left wants it and the right doesn't, pretty much like the rest of the country.

You are so very very wrong. I am a registered Republican. I am way more "right" than I am wrong, er "left"
Most people in my life that I know that lean "right" support gays getting married because they realize the government has no place in consenting adult's relationships

What i still don't understand is why the choice of sexual partner someone else makes is in any way my concern....

I sure don't expect to walk into a gay/lesbian bar and have them be offended that I'm not gay.....

Why is it reasonable to take offense at their choice....

it is after all theirs.

In what manner of logic can we demand that such a choice reduces the equality of the individual?

It's not about rights... it's about equality.

I won't lie and say that I'm not uncomfortable with the break from traditional understandings of the institution of marriage... it seems like a radical change from that perspective. But nevertheless, traditions are not 'fixtures' of the human condition.... except maybe for those who deal in enforcing dogmatic concepts on their communities.

Oh well, at any rate.... until someone can tell me why this is demonstrably detrimental I will remain confused about the uproar over the matter.

What really confuses me is why would someone not want two people of the same sex to marry.

What's the reason to oppose a marriage of the same sex?

The government should stay out of marriage, period.

As the government has chosen to make marriage a legal institution, they must according to the law make it fair so that all consenting adults may partake and get the advantages that marriage presents, from a law and economical standpoint.

That's the bread and butter of this issue, any other arguments against or for same sex marriage are ideological and hold no weight in proper legislation.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
That's the bread and butter of this issue, any other arguments against or for same sex marriage are ideological and hold no weight in proper legislation.

~Keeper

If I held an ATS gavel, it would slam with that statement. Ideological arguments are not for the legislature. We can disagree all we want here on the boards, but when it comes to legislative power, personal ideologies should not come into play. However they inevitably will, as the legislators are only human, despite what they would have us believe.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
As the government has chosen to make marriage a legal institution, they must according to the law make it fair so that all consenting adults may partake and get the advantages that marriage presents, from a law and economical standpoint.

Who cannot?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Couple things... marraige is a religious institution that the government added legal aspects onto (so you got that backwards). The legalities of marraige are not a "contract." The government can change the rights and obligations that they attach to marraige any time they want (the couple does not agree to them, they are imposed).

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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.

Backwards, and it isn't a "contract"...

I've been engaged to a man for 4 years. Still yet to get married, I don't know if we will bother - it was important, then we had a child, and realised there's bigger things out there than a marriage certificate. We will eventually get around to it I guess, or i'll just legally change my name so I have the same as my daughter.

But, (getting to my point), as a bisexual woman, if me and my partner were to ever separate, and I met a woman that I loved enough to want to marry, i'd like the option to be available. For the reasons stated above, mainly to be recognised as a couple for benefits and such, I think ANY couple devoting a lifetime together no matter what the sex/race whatever, deserves recognition.

My opinion is that government has nothing to do with marriage- or at least it shouldn't. If a couple can find a church or whatever (even a justice of the peace. If they have no objections, the "law" shouldn't be able to prohibit them), and a venue to celebrate that union (if they choose to celebrate it at all), then that is all they need besides a commitment to one another.

As far as taxation or "legal benefits", etc are concerned, paternerships and corporations employ exactly these, so why can' individuals "set up" (for lack of a better term) what are effectively "households" and/ or "family units"?
One more way we need to get the government out of our personal affairs. People, as free individuals, ought to be worrying more about their own business (instead of other people's) as well.