ATS temperature on same sex marriage

With everything said.....there are a zillion threads on this where ATS members voice their opinion. This topic is brought up nearly ever week on a new thread.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I am not confusing or equating sexual attraction and love. But I think you are.

Affection has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with LOVE

If a kid asks you why two gay men are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and Uncle John kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

The gay men are acting differently than what the child is used to seeing, not because "they love each other (though they might) but because.... believe it or not some men are not attracted to any woman on earth, only to other men.

Well, what would you say to the child if he or she asks why a man and woman are holding hands?

Gay marriage, like any issue that draws the public attention, has always been with in the purview of the various governments to solve, yet do not. As one poster stated, it is a diversionary tactic used by the government to keep the publics eye focused on one issue, so they can do something else instead. The question should be asked as to what else they are up to, cause that should be the real issue and possibly concern for everyone in the long run.
The history of marriage is one that started out as more of a religious idea, and one that started with the church. Slowly, along with the changes and split of the Judaic religions, the government stepped in to be able to state who should be allowed to marry who, having those who wanted to be married, to register such. Slowly, the state started creeping in and adding changes as to the qualifications for such, from having to present different items, to a tax or fee on 2 people wanting to marry. Little by little, the government took over the institution of marriage, and it slowly became the entire responsibility of the government to administer that union, even a priest needs a license to perform the ceremony.
Gay marriage, the entire issue is full of different concerns from both sides. Part of the issue here on the side for gay marriage, is for equality under the law. That little piece of paper may not seem like much to some people, however to those where it is denied, it is a lot. Consider this, there are 2 things that a marriage can provide for the couple, the first is that in a marriage (Not a civil union) if one spouse is in the hospital, the other spouse has full legal benefits to make decisions for the one who is incapacitated, including when to pull the plug. They ultimately hold the life or death decision of their significant other in the palm of their hand. The other aspect is more on the legal grounds. In a marriage, a wife or husband can not be compelled to testify against the other. So that means if the man is suspected of a crime, his wife can not be put on the stand by the prosecution to testify against him. In a civil union, neither rights apply and both can be superseded by either a family or a district attorney.
On the side against, ultimately it is fear and the question of a children, stating morality points. Where the children argument could win, if the rate of divorce were not so high, or that many of the sex crimes committed against children were not so weighted on the fact that it is usually a straight man who does the crime, then it would hold weight and be a point that should be considered. Many people use the argument that a child should be in a home with a standard male/female couple, yet fail to consider that a child should be in a home that can best meet the needs of a child. Would you deny a child the right to be raised by a couple who is rich and can give that child everything the child will need to grow up? Love is blind, and so should the rest of the population in the long run when it comes to marriage. With the other concerns that face society, perhaps it is time to let this one die and allow people to actually be equal, instead of having 2 rules, setting one group above the other, as that is the essence of discrimination. By denying a segment of the population to marry who they choose, it sets them up to be second class citizens in the long run, never able to enjoy the full benefits of the law, or opens the door for the government to dictate what a persons choices are when it comes to personal and private issues, such as marriage and child rearing.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by G.A.G.

 

Ah yes, because a piece of paper will suddenly change how they interact with each other

That makes no sense.

And tell your kids they hold hands and kiss because they love each other. Then explain what love means - because clearly they do not know if they do not understand affection between people. Love has no bounds when it comes to gender. How sad that anyone would think it does. I find it very sad that you have defined the defition of love to fit your beliefs - rather than teaching love as it really is. Love is love regardless of who is loving who.

In regards to your recruiting...stooopid....ridiculous....
There is far more recruitiment from straights towards kids....look at hollywood and the music industry....look at the teachers who pray on our kids instead of teaching them.

edit on February 11th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

Because some of you disagree with me, is not enough to change my view. As an example "ONLY",,, I realize some people have "religious" beliefs, and I am ok with that. I am not ok when they come knocking at my front door, trying to "push" their beliefs on me. I realize that there are people out there that suffer from low self esteem,or have had difficulties in prior relationships with the opposite gender, so they choose the gay lifestyle, and I am ok with that. I am not ok when they try to "push" their beliefs on me or the children. Marrying gay folks will "embolden" them even more. THE CHILDREN WILL/ARE suffering from this advocation and promotion of what I feel is wrong. The Op asked for "temperature", in order to get a more accurate feeling on this matter, this thread needs and deserves a few dissenters...does it not? Those of you who are angered, feel free to pm me, and I will be glad to discuss my opinions further.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
If a kid asks you why two gay men are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and Uncle John kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

Well then the responsible parent would explain that there are different aspects of love. A man might love his wife but also loves his children. He may also love his husband and his nephews. If a child asks why that man is kissing a woman, would your explanation be because he wants to have sexual relations with her, or that he loves her?

The gay men are acting differently than what the child is used to seeing, not because "they love each other" (though they might) but because.... believe it or not some men are not attracted to any woman on earth, only to other men.

So which is it, out of love or attraction? and how is this differnt from opposite sex relationships? Believe it or not, there are men and woman who are strictly hetero that display the same base behaviors.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I am not confusing or equating sexual attraction and love. But I think you are.

Affection has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with LOVE

If a kid asks you why two gay men are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and Uncle John kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

The gay men are acting differently than what the child is used to seeing, not because "they love each other (though they might) but because.... believe it or not some men are not attracted to any woman on earth, only to other men.

Oh good Lord! Do you really believe what you type? You are very confused on many things

Let me change some things around for you.........
If a kid asks you why a man and woman are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many women and men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and neighbor Jane kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

See how absurd your reasoning is. Some straight couples NEVER show public displays of affecction even though they love each other. Some gay couples never do either. It is personal choice. It has NOTHING to do with GENDER.

ANY PEOPLE showing affection towards each other is because they love each other at that moment or have a desire to be affectionate. Has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with how one feels about another. You most certainly will not see some hooker and a john walking down the street holding hands - because their "relationship" is just about sex - not love.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Let me change some things around for you.........
If a kid asks you why a man and woman are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many women and men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and neighbor Jane kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

See how absurd your reasoning is.

My reasoning is not absurd at all. The child is used to seeing men and women kissing etc. etc. what they're essentially asking with regard to the two gay men is "why are those men acting differently than most men?"

"Because they love each other" doesn't answer the question.

reply to post by G.A.G.

I realize that there are people out there that suffer from low self esteem,or have had difficulties in prior relationships with the opposite gender, so they choose the gay lifestyle, and I am ok with that. I am not ok when they try to "push" their beliefs on me or the children. Marrying gay folks will "embolden" them even more. THE CHILDREN WILL/ARE suffering from this advocation and promotion of what I feel is wrong.

I'm convinced you are trolling.

Where on earth do you get those beliefs?

What wil it take for you to understand that most gay people suffer from low self esteem due to the bullying and homophobia that's around in society. Mainly promoted by people like you spouting crazy things like the above quote.

Do a search on YouTube for the "It gets better" campaign.

I really hope your child, if you have one isn't gay.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I am not confusing or equating sexual attraction and love. But I think you are.

Affection has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with LOVE

If a kid asks you why two gay men are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and Uncle John kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

The gay men are acting differently than what the child is used to seeing, not because "they love each other (though they might) but because.... believe it or not some men are not attracted to any woman on earth, only to other men.

Oh good Lord! Do you really believe what you type? You are very confused on many things

Let me change some things around for you.........
If a kid asks you why a man and woman are kissing, holding hands etc. etc. it would be misleading/confusing to say "because they love each other." Many women and men love each other and don't act that way and that would be the child's next question ("why don't you and neighbor Jane kiss like that, don't you love each other?" etc. etc.).

See how absurd your reasoning is. Some straight couples NEVER show public displays of affecction even though they love each other. Some gay couples never do either. It is personal choice.

ANY PEOPLE showing affection towards each other is because they love each other at that moment or have a desire to be affectionate. Has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with how one feels about another. You most certainly will not see some hooker and a john walking down the street holding hands - because their "relationship" is just about sex - not love.

edit on February 11th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)

Greeneyed, Your view and use of your "bully" pulpit is getting quite annoying. You, who gets and deserves a good amount of respect by members of this board, apparently have chosen to try and sell your ideas about gay people to the rest of us. Gay marriage, gay lifestyles and homosexual behavior is and will always be a controversial area of discussion. " Let me change some thing around for you" is exactly what the problem is with proponents of the gay lifestyle, dont ANSWER the question, simply spin it around so it better suits "your" view.
You have exhibited behavior un-becoming of a forum moderator, and should be ashamed of yourself!

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
So your position is that same sex marriage should be allowed, and that the govt has no right to intevene otherwise. You wish to allow equal treatment of straights and gays in the institution of marriage (be it religious or not, that is still to be determined by each individual).

If we take govt completly out of the equation, you support gay marriage.

Gays can get "married" all they want, no one will come arrest them, or fine them, or put them in jail... generally though when people talk about gay marraige they are talking about extending the current legalities (government intrusions) of marraige to same gender couples. I'm against these government instrusions.

English here so I may not understand this completely. Can you name these intrusions you imply but don't seem to actually mention please? Please don't mention divorce laws as common law marriage would also allow for some restitution.... struggling to think of anything else?

Originally posted by something wicked
English here so I may not understand this completely. Can you name these intrusions you imply but don't seem to actually mention please? Please don't mention divorce laws as common law marriage would also allow for some restitution.... struggling to think of anything else?

All the legalities attached to marraige (and yes, divorce does "count") are government intrusions into personal relationships.

This type of marriage was legalized in my EU country some 5 years ago.

Conservatives and far-right were upset due to the use of the word "marriage" which they consider sacred in a Biblical way.

Gay or not, the truth is that we're all marrying less year after year. The number of married people in my country is decreasing every year which means that more people are divorcing than marrying per year.

Marriage is an institution clearly going downhill in these turbulent times

Originally posted by AboveTheTrees
Conservatives and far-right were upset due to the use of the word "marriage" which they consider sacred in a Biblical way.

Gay or not, the truth is that we're all marrying less year after year. The number of married people in my country is decreasing every year which means that more people are divorcing than marrying per year.

Correct and it's not suprizing at all, many people don't appreciate the government getting involved in their personal relationships (why some gay people are so desperate for them to is beyond me).

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The history of marriage is one that started out as more of a religious idea, and one that started with the church.

Not true. Most original marriages were arranged and were for economic purposes, not love or religion. The church insinuated itself into marriage. The church hijacked marriage.

Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.

History of Marriage

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by AboveTheTrees
Conservatives and far-right were upset due to the use of the word "marriage" which they consider sacred in a Biblical way.

Gay or not, the truth is that we're all marrying less year after year. The number of married people in my country is decreasing every year which means that more people are divorcing than marrying per year.

Correct and it's not suprizing at all, many people don't appreciate the government getting involved in their personal relationships (why some gay people are so desperate for them to is beyond me).

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

Why? Because the government inserting themselves into people's relationships (marriage) creates all kinds of benefits that those who are not married receive...IE. taxes. It also creates this more "formal" acknowledgement of people being in a relationship.....just like some straight couples believe, having that piece of paper has the same affect as getting that piece of paper when you graduate.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not true. Most original marriages were arranged and were for economic purposes, not love or religion. The church insinuated itself into marriage.

The church hijacked marriage.

This is just more semantic bufoonery... yes people did "get together" long before "getting together" became a religious institution known as marraige.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Why? Because the government inserting themselves into people's relationships (marriage) creates all kinds of benefits that those who are not married receive...IE. taxes.

All kinds of benefits... good grief, why is it all I hear about is the "benefits" and never anything about the obligations and loss of freedom? And by the way marraige does not = tax benefits, very often marraige is a detriment not a benefit when it comes to taxes.

reply to post by SevenBeans

My reasoning is not absurd at all. The child is used to seeing men and women kissing etc. etc. what they're essentially asking with regard to the two gay men is "why are those men acting differently than most men?" "Because they love each other" doesn't answer the question.

Because they love each other just like your mom and your dad love each other. That should answer the question just fine.

Originally posted by Maslo
Because they love each other just like your mom loves your dad. That should answer the question just fine.

Well it doesn't, maybe if you have dumb kids they'll be satisfied.

reply to post by SevenBeans


I dont see how this is relevant to the thread topic anyway. You should answer questions about gay couples just like you answered questions about straight couples. Where is the problem?