ATS temperature on same sex marriage

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bkaust
 


You should be allowed to have a union with as many people as you want. As long as the partners in question want that too. It's your life and their too, no-one elses.

If people want a religious marriage, then they will have to live by the rules of the relgious teachings and the preachers should be allowed to refuse to marry any couple based on their opinion of them. However, seeing as there are many branches of religion this will allow peole to choose what religious marraige they wish to have.

Marriage seems to conjure up an image of man marrying a woman in a christian church yet people who get married in a regristry office in a non religious way will still say they are married.

Gay marriage



Gay adoption


Allowing people to partner who they love as consenting adults


I'm amazed at people that want freedom and the right not to be dictated to, yet they are quite happy to demand their lifestyle choice onto others.

What would be so wrong with having a person in a union with three or four people, and those three or four people having unions or marriages with others too?


edit on 11-2-2011 by JonoEnglish because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
1. Same sex marriage has absolutely no negative effect on the lives of other people.


Yes it does.

Higher insurance premiums, higher taxes. In addition marraige is a religious institution and using the term to describe something that the religion frowns upon is juvenile and disrespectful.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
2. There evidently are no arguments against same sex marriage that are secular - all opposition can be traced to religious objections. Bigotry is not a valid argument.


Complete rubbish.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
3. The government has absolutely no business preventing two consenting individuals from entering into a contract together.


The legalities that the government imposes upon marraige are in no way "two consenting individuals entering into a contract together." The conditions are imposed upon them and the government can change those conditions whenever they want.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


How on earth does same sex marriage cause higher taxes and insurance??


My firend got married in a registry office , no religion was allowed in any form as they are athiests. They are married.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
How on earth does same sex marriage cause higher taxes and insurance??



Additional social security benefits, spouse coverage etc. etc.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
My firend got married in a registry office , no religion was allowed in any form as they are athiests. They are married.


You can call anything marraige, but unless you're referring to a religious ceremony than you're just playing semantic games.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
How on earth does same sex marriage cause higher taxes and insurance??



Additional social security benefits, spouse coverage etc. etc.


So with that arguement you also should be for government controlled birtth control too?

Scraping the barrel there me thinks
edit on 11-2-2011 by JonoEnglish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
So by that arguement you also should be for government controlled bitrth control too?


No I favor less government involvement in our lives, extending the legalities of marraige to other kinds of relationships increases government involvement (and decreases freedom).



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

Originally posted by doobydoll
Live and let live, that's what I say.

Same sex marriages dont hurt or affect anyone, so I dont see the problem.

Nothing much to add to that really


There was another thread on how homosexual behavior by homosexuals, can and has affected "other", non homosexuals. However the thread was stopped by the moderators, I can only guess because it was too controversial or provocative. Which is not reason enough if t&c were being followed. In any case... to say it does not "affect" anyone else is just plain false.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
How on earth does same sex marriage cause higher taxes and insurance??



Additional social security benefits,

Both parties would be covered by Social security either way....dont really see the difference here.



spouse coverage


Well premiums would be higher to cover a spouse no matter what gender they are, that is invalid



etc. etc.


Etc Etc?? That does not answer anything. In fact you havnt answered the question at all. So far you have failed to offer an intellectual argument to back up your stance, it seems to be backed by personal feeling alone, which is perfectly fine, but to continue to argue based on that fact will get you nowhere.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
So by that arguement you also should be for government controlled bitrth control too?


No I favor less government involvement in our lives, extending the legalities of marraige to other kinds of relationships increases government involvement (and decreases freedom).

You've got that the wrong way around.

You sound like you want freedom for yourself to suit your personal lifestyle and sod anyone else. Not very fair.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Couple things... marraige is a religious institution that the government added legal aspects onto (so you got that backwards).


A person can get legally married without a church, religion, a preacher or ANY religious words spoken...Everyone who gets married has to have the legal aspect. The religious aspect is an OPTION.

You can talk all you like about how you think it SHOULD be, but this is the way it IS.




The legalities of marraige are not a "contract." .


They most certainly are. A contract is a binding legal agreement. An exchange of promises enforceable by law that changes the legal status of the people involved.

Contract


an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration.
...
marriage contract


Marriage


Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations.
...
Individuals who seek to alter marital rights and duties are permitted to do so only within legally prescribed limits.



Originally posted by SevenBeans
You can call anything marraige, but unless you're referring to a religious ceremony than you're just playing semantic games.


The ceremony isn't the marriage. The ceremony is the WEDDING.

I have been married for 18 years and never had a religious ceremony. You saying that I'm not married?
What you're saying is in direct opposition to FACTS. Again, you speak as if your view is the truth, when, in fact, people get LEGALLY married all the time without a religious ceremony.

You can cave a religious WEDDING or a secular WEDDING, but marriage is the LEGAL CONTRACT between the people, whatever kind of WEDDING (or ceremony) they have.
edit on 2/11/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by G.A.G.
There was another thread on how homosexual behavior by homosexuals, can and has affected "other", non homosexuals. However the thread was stopped by the moderators, I can only guess because it was too controversial or provocative. Which is not reason enough if t&c were being followed. In any case... to say it does not "affect" anyone else is just plain false.


Well lets discuss how it does 'effect' other people, and could we apply those 'effects' t the marriage debate?
What makes it 'plain false?'



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Both parties would be covered by Social security either way....dont really see the difference here.


Survivor benefits...


Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Well premiums would be higher to cover a spouse no matter what gender they are, that is invalid


Right... but gay people don't generally have spouses now. In addition we could see straight male roomates (and even family members) temporarily "marrying" to share insurance benefits.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Honestly, I've never understood why people get so worked up over this, a gay couple getting married affects you in no way whatsoever. Let them marry and suffer like the rest of us!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Marriage was definitely not part of any religion at its inception, in fact marriage is understood to be a far older practice than any modern religions; it has simply been hijacked by evangelicals and fundamentalists (of every religion) over the years. So enough with the "marriage is a sacred practice only reserved for male and female pairs because some book told me" nonsense.

Canada has had same sex marriage legal for years, and no god of any religion has smote the country with brimstone and hellfire. The citizens haven't all spontaneously changed sexual preference either.



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

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
You've got that the wrong way around.

You sound like you want freedom for yourself to suit your personal lifestyle and sod anyone else. Not very fair.


What on earth are you talking about?

Gays can arrange their relationships and their obligations to each otherh however they want... I on the other hand had a religious ceremony with my wife and the government than imposed all sorts of legalities onto our relationship, and they can change those impositions any time they want (whether my wife and I agree or not).

Your position is for more government intrusion, not less... less freedom, not more.



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

Originally posted by SevenBeans
In addition we could see straight male roomates (and even family members) temporarily "marrying" to share insurance benefits.


That happens with straight couples. Ever heard of a marriage of convenience?

People do not REALLY want to live in a Free Society... else they would defend the rights of those with whom they disagree.


Originally posted by SevenBeans
Your position is for more government intrusion, not less... less freedom, not more.


No. It's for EQUAL TREATMENT. Including a group of people that has been previously excluded is not MORE government. It is for equal treatment under the law. Your position is for discrimination.
.
edit on 2/11/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Survivor benefits...
would be paid out to the spouse whether it be same sex or opposite sex, are you saying that a same sex spouse should not receive survivor benefits? Are they less worthy of the survivior benefits? But your original point was that it affects others, and SSI was your example, How would survivor benefits being paid out affect others?


Right... but gay people don't generally have spouses now. In addition we could see straight male roomates (and even family members) temporarily "marrying" to share insurance benefits.
And if they so choose to do so, they should be allowed. It may be an end around, but thats the nature of the game. In fact the insurance company would receive higher insurance premiums each month for the spousal coverage, thereby earning more income for the ins comp, therefore lowering rates for future policies. Isnt this a good thing?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A person can get legally married without a church, religion, a preacher or ANY religious words spoken...Everyone who gets married has to have the legal aspect. The religious aspect is an OPTION.

You can talk all you like about how you think it SHOULD be, but this is the way it IS.


Marraige is a religious institution. If there is not a religious ceremony involved what you really have is a civil union (though lots of people call it marraige).


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They most certainly are. A contract is a binding legal agreement. An exchange of promises enforceable by law that changes the legal status of the people involved.


The government imposes conditions upon your relationship, whether you agree to those conditions or not. Calling that a "contract" between the two parties is absurd. They can change these conditions any time they want without your permission (that is not a contract, it's a forcible imposition).



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
You've got that the wrong way around.

You sound like you want freedom for yourself to suit your personal lifestyle and sod anyone else. Not very fair.


What on earth are you talking about?

Gays can arrange their relationships and their obligations to each otherh however they want... I on the other hand had a religious ceremony with my wife and the government than imposed all sorts of legalities onto our relationship, and they can change those impositions any time they want (whether my wife and I agree or not).

Your position is for more government intrusion, not less... less freedom, not more.


What legailities have been imposed onto you?


Less freedom is an increase in restrictions. How does allowing gay marrige restrict you?





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join