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.

 

ATS temperature on same sex marriage

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 


Not sure how you could take offense to it since you seem to have the same opinion as me. Maybe I worded it wrong. Maybe you interpreted it wrong.

The point is....kids get "love between people" unless parents are teaching them ignorance: that love can only happen between some people.




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, because the law is EQUALLY APPLIED to brothers/brothers and brothers/sisters and to grandfather/grandson and grandfather/granddaughter. Marrying a relative is illegal in most states, but it is applied equally to the people, whether they are gay, straight, asexual or something else.


Marrying someone of the same gender is illegal in most states, but it is applied equally to the people, whether they are gay, straight, asexual or something else.



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

Originally posted by something wicked
And you believe then that marriage between brother and sister would be ok because they are opposite sex? If incest isn't classed as illegal, then technically, why not? Not sure it makes me comfortable for all sorts of reasons, but that's just me and the road that can lead to for the health of any children.

Having said that, let me ask again, you mention only same sex incest, that means you see no issue with the fact brother/sister marriage is not allowed now? Actually, or is it? I don't think so but who knows.


I think you're missing my point, which is that if same gender marraige is recognized there is absolutely no rationale for not recognizing a marraige between two male brothers. If you think there is some rationale, please explain.



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

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by something wicked
And you believe then that marriage between brother and sister would be ok because they are opposite sex? If incest isn't classed as illegal, then technically, why not? Not sure it makes me comfortable for all sorts of reasons, but that's just me and the road that can lead to for the health of any children.

Having said that, let me ask again, you mention only same sex incest, that means you see no issue with the fact brother/sister marriage is not allowed now? Actually, or is it? I don't think so but who knows.


I think you're missing my point, which is that if same gender marraige is recognized there is absolutely no rationale for not recognizing a marraige between two male brothers. If you think there is some rationale, please explain.


Yes, I got your point, but it's a very specific one and you aren't applying a level playing field. Can a brother and sister legally marry today? I believe the answer is no. Why would brother be able to marry brother if brother cannot marry sister? Hetrosexual marriage today does not allow union of brother and sister, why do you suppose homosexual marriage would therefore allow incest whereas hetrosexual does not?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Why would brother be able to marry brother if brother cannot marry sister? Hetrosexual marriage today does not allow union of brother and sister, why do you suppose homosexual marriage would therefore allow incest whereas hetrosexual does not?


If you reduce "marraige" to a civil legal arrangement (ie. remove it from the context of a romantic commitment that is inherent in the religious institution) there is no longer any rationale for not recognizing sibling "marraiges."

First, there is no declaration/expectation/assumption of physical intimacy involved in such a purely civil arrangement (so whose to say incest is occuring?). Second, the taboo against incest is generally due to the belief that close relatives reproducing can cause problems for the offspring (that obviously wouldn't be a concern for brothers). So once again, what would be your rationale for not recognizing the "marraige" of brothers, grandfather/grandson etc. etc. (?).



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
I say the government should get the hell out of consenting adults relationships! Get the government out of marriage!


This is the irony of the entire situation. Those who support gay marriage will say that the government needs to stay out of their business and when a gay couple is denied membership or access to an organization or family-owned restaurant, they'll say the government needs to get involved.

Should the government make a stand and say that gay people are allowed to marry, then the blood tests to see if the two individuals are compatible to have children should apply also.


edit on 11/2/11 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I entirely support gay marriage.
However, and I don't think I have ever said this in a forum or anywhere before, I am torn on gay couples adopting.
I mean I am not outright against it, but I can see where people would wonder.

I am probably just ignorant on the subject and could be persuaded if shown that the sexuality of children raised by gay couples is in line with that of straight couples. Even then I'm being politically incorrect because people will say why does that matter, but I feel like it kind of does matter because it forces issues of sexuality into a child's face long before other children because they will no doubt be asked by other kids and have to wonder.

Still.. a lot of straight people shouldn't have kids (way more straight people than gay people. because gay people aren't adopting them by accident) and teaching them to grow up abusive and sexist.

So I don't know probably is a non issue.

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



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by something wicked
Why would brother be able to marry brother if brother cannot marry sister? Hetrosexual marriage today does not allow union of brother and sister, why do you suppose homosexual marriage would therefore allow incest whereas hetrosexual does not?


If you reduce "marraige" to a civil legal arrangement (ie. remove it from the context of a romantic commitment that is inherent in the religious institution) there is no longer any rationale for not recognizing sibling "marraiges."

First, there is no declaration/expectation/assumption of physical intimacy involved in such a purely civil arrangement (so whose to say incest is occuring?). Second, the taboo against incest is generally due to the belief that close relatives reproducing can cause problems for the offspring (that obviously wouldn't be a concern for brothers). So once again, what would be your rationale for not recognizing the "marraige" of brothers, grandfather/grandson etc. etc. (?).



It's actually a fairly simple one, I was under the impression incest is illegal - hetrosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality is not illegal therefore homosexual marriage = possible, homosexual/hetrosexual incestuous marriage = not possible. Do you see my point?
edit on 11-2-2011 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Sorry maybe I took it wrong, the way you worded in your reply was way better than the original one. The first time seemed more like intelligence=morallity, less intelligent = biggot. I was trying to say kids will make there own decision and that intelligence doesn't automatically make one morally supperior... which is what I though you were saying.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
It's actually a fairly simple one, I was under the impression incest is illegal - hetrosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality is not illegal therefore homosexual marriage = possible, homosexual/hetrosexual incestuous marriage = not possible. Do you see my point?


Why do you assume incest would be occurring? In traditional marraige you have two bodies becoming one (ie. you are declaring a romantic, physically intimate commitment) that is not the case in a purely civil legal arrangement.

The laws against incest have to do with the possible ramifications of close relatives reproducing, obviously not an issue with same gender pairs.

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



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I think the approach to the whole debate has been a poor one. It's been about "marriage" when it civil union legal status. Personally, I think any domestic partnership (whether or not they are romantically involved) should be recognized in such a manner.

Why push to have religious fundamentalists accept gay marriage when you clearly don't need them to. No, I don't think we should force those institutions to accept it but it also doesn't matter to somebody who wants to marry their same-sex partner. You don't need to go to a church to get married. It's just one more way to pigeon-hole people into the left or right. It should have nothing to do with politics. You get "united" (if that makes people feel better) no matter what kind of union you are in and others can accept it or not but the law should be blind to it.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by youdidntseeme
 


The legal definition of marriage should be able be different than a church's definition, and I don't see any logical legal reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to have the exact same legal rights and benefits as a couple of opposite sexes. So let them be married in the eyes of the state.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Government has as much right saying what marriage should be in the same regard as government should say how a religion teaches about a deity.

aka, it has none. the government should not be in the business of legislating religion whatsoever..not between man and woman, nor man and man, nor woman and woman, nor man and turtle.

Government should (if we want unions) only be worried about coupling two adults and only 2 adults in civil unions, that is it. two consenting adults. a piece of paper, and thats that. if a person chooses to get a legal union -while- getting married, then great...have a priest also have the couple sign the legal form right after exchanging the ring..

Let the individual churches decide who they will imbue with religious happiness and marriage..

The people are fighting the wrong fight. one side wants the constitution to change to exclude gay marriage..the other side wants the states to give rights for marriage...what both sides need to do is simply demand government stop interfering with marriage to begin with and let the religious institutions deal with religious things.!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Should the government make a stand and say that gay people are allowed to marry, then the blood tests to see if the two individuals are compatible to have children should apply also.

That's fine -- but only a few states in the U.S. still require blood tests before issuance of a marriage license, and no state can "deny" a marriage license based on the results of the blood test. The state is only required to inform the prospective couple of the results before the license is issued.

The blood test was originally done to screen for many different health issues, not just the couple's compatibility for procreation -- of course, the latter being irrelevant for same-sex couples.


edit on 2/11/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yep. You are right.
It does nothing to the institution of marriage. Churches that don't agree with it won't be forced to marry gay people of course. I seriously doubt gay people would even want to go to a church to get married and be wed by someone judging them.

They just want the benefits and ideals of being with one another officially.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Wrong thread


edit on 2/11/2011 by texastig because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


That's a great pic! Do you have a URL? I'd like to post it on facebook.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by something wicked
It's actually a fairly simple one, I was under the impression incest is illegal - hetrosexual or homosexual. Homosexuality is not illegal therefore homosexual marriage = possible, homosexual/hetrosexual incestuous marriage = not possible. Do you see my point?


Why do you assume incest would be occurring? In traditional marraige you have two bodies becoming one (ie. you are declaring a romantic, physically intimate commitment) that is not the case in a purely civil legal arrangement.

The laws against incest have to do with the possible ramifications of close relatives reproducing, obviously not an issue with same gender pairs.

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


I'm sorry, I'm happy you seem to have an abundant volume of hairs to split, please go a. and do so but you are just arguing the point for the sake of it.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

I think you're missing my point, which is that if same gender marraige is recognized there is absolutely no rationale for not recognizing a marraige between two male brothers. If you think there is some rationale, please explain.


Again we have to point out that this should e looked at on an even playing field. As it stands today intrafamilial relationships of a sexual nature are an illegal act. Therefore, by extansion, marriage intrafamilial is also an illegal act.

Homosexualaity is not an illegal act. Therefore, by extension, homosexual marriage should not be an illegal act.

This has nothing to do with an assumption that incest will take place, but with looking at things when all things are equal. You have made them unequal in an attempt to further your point. Lets keep them equal.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


There are some studies out there and no links to sexuality and being raised by Gay parents have been found as far as I am aware.

Personally I am for Gay marrage and being allowed to adopt.

That being said however, now that my mother thinks its an option she has dropped the hint a few times that my partner and I should adopt and friends have been pushing "when are you going to get married!?!"

Now I know how the hetero folk feel! LOL

But you know what, if I had grown up in a society where being Gay was treated no differently then being hetero, I have no doubt my life would of turned out very different (be that for good or ill).



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join