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.

 

Majority of Americans Now Support Gay Marriage - The Evolution of Acceptance

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, why the heck is marriage federal law?


It's not. But married people do receive federal benefits.



It's a religious ceremony.


I disagree. I am VERY much married and my husband and I are atheists. We never set foot in a church and no religious words were spoken. How do you determine that marriage is a religious ceremony? AS IT IS TODAY, marriage is a state contract.



Hows about we make civil unions the official legally substitute to marriage, in that way we keep religious ceremonies out of government, the religious nuts can keep marriage the way they want to themselves, and civil unions are not bounded by gender.


That would be fine with me, but I see NO advancement or even discussion of this idea in Congress. Marriage is a religious thing in some people's views, but not all. Each person defines their own marriage.




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
homosexuality is an abomination and if a man lie with another man like a woman he should be stoned and his blood be on his own hands, and any of you who support this disgusting filthy sexual act will have a part of the hell fire that is coming, you can make laws and try and make the act of 2 men rapeing each other a part of marrige in MANS eyes but THE MOST HIGH GOD will pour his wrath out on every last one of you!!!!!!!



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by yahwehsprincess
 


Posts like this one are meant to be humorous, right? That was pretty funny, actually.



BH hit the nail on the head. Marriage carries federal benefits for the couple, so it should be a completely indiscriminate process.

The idea of forbidding gay marriage is just as ridiculous as the idea of forbidding interracial marriage (which was at one point also against the law).

Dolphinfan raised a good point, the success of a family will depend on the integrity of the parents, not whether or not there are two penises in the equation. There are so many orphaned children in this country who need a good home, surely two loving parents of the same gender would be preferable to a single parent, or no parent at all.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
The majority of Germans in Germany in 1938 believed jews were evil bad people, but that didn't make it right. So, that having been said, I do not support homosexual unions of any kind. Besides, you can call it marriage and even give them a license and a ceremony, but it could never actually be a marriage because only a man and a woman can be married. Marriage is an institution of God for family. Homosexuals can't have children, nor ever "be" a family. The most they can ever be is "friends" that engage in sexual acts and that's all.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Marriage = man+woman+god.
There is no god in homosexuality.
Homosexuality is perverted behaviour and most gays deep down know it even though they will never admit it.
Its very obvious the sick fantasy that gay men have is to don the white wedding dress and walk down the isle of the local church to totally insult and disrespect the organization they blame for their supposed discrimination.
True christianity doesnt discriminate against gays, it encourages these sinners to stop their sinning and repent.
edit on 21-5-2011 by lestweforget because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Currently 53% of Americans support homosexual marriage while a considerable number do not. Let me make two points. One; We are not a democratic state, we are a republic, thus such public opinion is technically irrelevant in the realm of law. Two; Since it is not a super-majority (60%+) that means if we were to pass a gay marriage bill nearly half of Americans would be upset, how could that be productive?

I would argue that Civil Unions should be the first step towards the eventual implementation of gay marriage. Personally I do not have a problem with gay marriage but we are talking national politics not personal opinion here. The smart thing for Republicans to do is not necessarily endorse gay marriage or civil unions but to become a neutral block on the issue, at least the establishment of the party.

What truly makes me sit back and think is that beginning in the 1950s the GOP put in place a plank of their platform which called for expanding civil rights to women while the Democratic Party platform had nothing about equal rights for women. Now 60 years later the GOP is fighting against expanding civil rights to a minority group.


To all the evangelicals here attacking this let me say I am a proud Christian. The only word of God was the peace, love, and benevolence spoken by Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Do not follow the Bible like it's the literal word of God because the Lord would never guide you away from his wishes. I do not recall Jesus saying anything bad about homosexuals. Also please do not forget this passage from the Bible:

1 Corinthians 10:29 - Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
edit on 5/21/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I disagree. I am VERY much married and my husband and I are atheists. We never set foot in a church and no religious words were spoken.


Yes, but that's your view and acceptance of marriage. To the religious establishment in this country, marriage is theirs. You don't view marriage as solely a religious ceremony, unfortunately many politicians and others view it as such and this is the motivation to why they refuse to accept it any where beyond that of a man and a woman.



Each person defines their own marriage.


That is not the official standing of the federal government as evidence by the various laws and rulings in the past. It's a shame, and it has to change.
edit on 21-5-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 

The Rockerfellar foundation funded the womens rights movement with the sole purpose of getting two working members in each household for their own monetary gain.

edit on 21-5-2011 by lestweforget because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by AngryOne
"Evolution of acceptance", you say? Ugh, I shudder to think of what they'll be telling us to "accept" next.....


I doubt anyone is concerned with what you personally accept. I am not. I don't care if people accept gay marriage or not. All I care about is equal treatment under the law for all citizens. And the acceptance that is naturally happening in the US is a sign that equal treatment will eventually be a reality.

With or without your acceptance.

Your choice of words are rather interesting - you say "naturally" as if this was destined to happen; as if people like me are backward, degenerate freaks. I assert that I am nothing of the kind, ma'am.

And this isn't about general acceptance, you say? That's obviously not true. Many people such as myself are indeed critical of **SNIP** and from what I can gather, that drives people like you absolutely nuts.


edit on Sun May 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I have only read your opening post and didn't watch the video.
Yes,you are right,these actions are the sign of things to come.
Unfortunately,the end result will not be what you or others expect.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Homosexuals can't have children, nor ever "be" a family.
Homosexuals can adopt, have surrogate mothers, and get artifically inseminated. Your argument is irrelevant.
edit on 21-5-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, why the heck is marriage federal law? It's a religious ceremony. Hows about we make civil unions the official legally substitute to marriage, in that way we keep religious ceremonies out of government, the religious nuts can keep marriage the way they want to themselves, and civil unions are not bounded by gender.

Simple solution!


my thoughts exactly! I've always thought that homosexuals should have equal rights. But i also sorta saw the side of religious people. Marriage in Christianity has always been man+women so why should we expect them to change there religious beliefs, as wrong as we might think there are? Civil unions are a good compromise as long as they get the same rights off course



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne


And this isn't about general acceptance, you say? That's obviously not true. Many people such as myself are indeed critical of faggotry and from what I can gather, that drives people like you absolutely nuts.



Yes your ignorance drives everyone whos for equal rights nuts.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
In the end it's really about acceptance and compromise. You shouldn't care if it's against your beliefs it should be our right to have gay marriage as Americans. Nobody is gonna force you to become gay if gay marriage is allowed. Nobody is gonna force you to go to a gay marriage. At the end of the day it's equal rights. We all as humans should be equal. That means gay people too. I myself have dated girls before so go ahead and call me a sinner who is hell bound. I don't care how you label me or any other person with a different sexuality. In my eyes God wouldn't send someone who listens to they're heart to hell. In my eyes God doesn't discriminate against Love. Gay marriage doesn't kill people it doesn't hurt people. People who protest this should put they're energies somewhere else.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This is a great article and has lots of side links to explore.

TIME NewsFeed



For the first time, a majority of Americans claim that same-sex marriages should be recognized by law. But despite these gains, the issue remains more divisive than ever before.

A new Gallup poll released on Friday reveals that 53% of Americans believe that gay marriage should be legalized, and that couples who enter into these unions should be provided with the same rights as traditional marriages — a 9% increase from 2010, when only 44% of respondents said that gay marriage should be legal.

Read more: newsfeed.time.com...


Link to Poll

This is great news. The majority of people in the US support not just civil unions, or some sort of 'separate but equal' status, but full-on marriage for gay people.

I think this is a sign of things to come. Now that the Defense of Marriage Act is no longer being defended and Don't Ask Don't Tell is out of the way, we can make strides toward true equality in marriage.

Seems older people and Republicans are the holdouts. One of those is self-correcting and eventually, I hope Republicans will see that their discrimination is unconstitutional. They should be made aware that they cannot preach "smaller government" and then increase government's intrusion into our lives.

So, Republicans, listen up!




Yes like the cited statistics are very thorough and scientific. Actually the US is on the cusp of a very major anti gay backlash. Give it 5 more years and they will be all running back to the closet when the winds start to change..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Originally posted by Misoir
One; We are not a democratic state, we are a republic, thus such public opinion is technically irrelevant in the realm of law.


I agree that it's technically irrelevant at this moment. However, the rising statistics indicate to me that sometime in the near future, that number will be at a point that it DOES start to affect the realm of law. In other words, when 75% of people are accepting of it, then it will start to creep into state laws. In fact, it already has. Five states plus DC allow gay marriage. These numbers are on the rise.



Two; Since it is not a super-majority (60%+) that means if we were to pass a gay marriage bill nearly half of Americans would be upset, how could that be productive?


Oh, dear. Americans will be upset? We can't have that!
Please! I don't give a frog if Americans are upset about not being able to discriminate. We all pay taxes, we are all citizens and are subject to the law. Therefore we should all be treated equally under the law.


The smart thing for Republicans to do is not necessarily endorse gay marriage or civil unions but to become a neutral block on the issue, at least the establishment of the party.


That will be the day when Republicans don't use gay marriage to strike fear into their religious base.


Now 60 years later the GOP is fighting against expanding civil rights to a minority group.


For either party, whatever will get them elected is their cause of the day. They change their positions as needed to sway and pander to the people in their base. Both parties and most politicians are expert at that.

Thank you for your response.
edit on 5/22/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yes, but that's your view and acceptance of marriage. To the religious establishment in this country, marriage is theirs.


And that is their view. If they were correct, then atheists wouldn't be allowed to marry. I am speaking of the LAW.
Religious people can THINK marriage is theirs all they want, but they are mistaken.



You don't view marriage as solely a religious ceremony, unfortunately many politicians and others view it as such and this is the motivation to why they refuse to accept it any where beyond that of a man and a woman.


Right. But as I explained to Misoir, the number of people in the country who support marriage equality is rising. The more people who support it, the more the legislators will vote to allow it. That's what has happened in these 5 states and DC.

Earlier, you and others talked about letting religion have the word 'marriage' and letting the rest of us have civil unions. This sounds good at first glance and I said I would support it, but I have since given it some deep thought and I'm going to change my mind. Because it creates a 'separate but equal' situation and inherent with that, are issues. Here are a few problems with that scenario:

1. Some churches now are absolutely willing to marry gay people. That's right! Some religious people are gay!
They go to church and even get married there. Separating civil unions from 'marriage' would NOT keep 'the gay' out of marriage, which is religion's goal in separating them. It simply wouldn't work! It would only keep the secular people out of marriage, gay and straight (which is fine with ME, by the way). Unless the government is going to start telling churches who they can and cannot marry, separation of these two 'contracts' is not going to work as planned. I don't support government intervention into church and I don't think you do either.

2. Let's say it did work out all rosy and only one man and one woman can get 'married'. Everyone else has secular unions. Sometime in the near future, we get an exceptionally religious president and Congress and they start making laws that benefit the religious (to secure their political future). One law gives benefits only to those who are "married". Now what? Or vice versa. The new secular laws exclude those who don't have a civil union.

Those are just two problems I see with this scenario.

In my opinion. equality is equality. If we have to take 10 more years to gain that equality, that's fine with me - but I'm not gay and I'm married, so it's not a personal issue. But to a gay person who wants to marry, 10 years is going to be a lifetime. So, I'm not willing to just fold and accept the civil union interim step. I may not get what I want, but I will still strive for EQUAL treatment under the law. Period.

.
edit on 5/22/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AngryOne
Your choice of words are rather interesting - you say "naturally" as if this was destined to happen; as if people like me are backward, degenerate freaks.


Your words, not mine. And I say 'naturally' because that's how I see the evolution happening. People are naturally seeing that gay people can and do have successful marriages and families - that they're not some sort of freaks, but regular people. As more and more gay people come out, they naturally become more accepted because of exposure.


Many people such as myself are indeed critical of ******** and from what I can gather, that drives people like you absolutely nuts.


You are mistaken. I support your right to have and express your opinion about homosexuality or anything else. I firmly support the first amendment. I don't care if people personally accept homosexuality or not. My focus is the law.

reply to post by technical difficulties
 


It's true. And if I were to have a family, I would also have to adopt or get a surrogate. And I'm straight. If breeding is a criteria for marriage, then there are a lot of straight people who shouldn't be married.
If marriage is only for the religious, then there are a lot of straight people who shouldn't be married. Both of these arguments fall flat on their face when examined for more than 2 seconds with a logical mind.

.
edit on 5/22/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Just in time to be another divisive stake in election politics. Yet another year where I will simply not pay attention.

How convenient, I guess I surrender to the strategy by default.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Maybe now the next step is to convinced gay people about the validity of same sex marriage. People tend to forget this argument. Theres a huge amount of gay that just dont see the point of getting married or go in the street in swimsuit to express their sexual preference. They just wanna fly under the radar like everyone really.




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join