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.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
1. Same sex marriage has absolutely no negative effect on the lives of other people.
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.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
3. The government has absolutely no business preventing two consenting individuals from entering into a contract together.
Originally posted by JonoEnglish
How on earth does same sex marriage cause higher taxes and insurance??
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.
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.
Originally posted by JonoEnglish
So by that arguement you also should be for government controlled bitrth control too?
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
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.
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).
Originally posted by SevenBeans
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." .
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 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.
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.
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Both parties would be covered by Social security either way....dont really see the difference here.
Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Well premiums would be higher to cover a spouse no matter what gender they are, that is invalid
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.
Originally posted by SevenBeans
In addition we could see straight male roomates (and even family members) temporarily "marrying" to share insurance benefits.
Originally posted by SevenBeans
Your position is for more government intrusion, not less... less freedom, not more.
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?
Originally posted by SevenBeans
Survivor 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.