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: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by eagleeye2
 


Not getting married is an option for everyone. No one is saying that gay people SHOULD get married. They should just have the same choices that the rest of us do.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
So sick of this PC society and I've become ashamed to be an American.

Marriage is when a MAN and a WOMAN decide they want to be together and raise a family. Since you can't reproduce with two of the same sex, obviously gays werent meant to do this.

Go be queer.. do whatever you want. Why must it constantly be thrown in my face?? Why must I be forced to accept it?? Why am I labeled a bigot for not supporting your alternative lifestyle??

I'm from the old school and not interested in being poltically correct. There is something mentally wrong with homosexuals.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by jstanthrno1
 


Why must heterosexuality be constantly thrown into the face of others. Everywhere you look, heterosexuals kissing in public, their kissing tv, in advertisements, even in church.

Can't they do this in the privacy of their own home.

edit on 22-5-2011 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jstanthrno1
Marriage is when a MAN and a WOMAN decide they want to be together and raise a family.


If that's what you want YOUR marriage to be, that's fine.
But that's not what MY marriage is. This is what I mean when I say that each couple defines their own marriage. Some marry for love, some for money, some for convenience, some for companionship... And old people get married. Infertile people get married. Raising a family is ONE reason SOME people get married. But to place that requirement on marriage would prevent millions and millions of STRAIGHT people from getting married.

Your argument fails, I'm afraid.



Why must I be forced to accept it??


You are NOT forced to accept it. I don't care if you accept it or not. I'm not forcing anything. I'm talking about the LAW. Not personal acceptance. Sometimes, though, the social acceptance of something (like marriage equality) will soon gain legal acceptance. At one time, black people weren't allowed to marry. It became more and more obvious that that law was discriminatory and it was changed. That's what will happen with gay marriage, too. You still don't have to personally accept it.
You can hate gays and hate gay marriage all you want.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Yes it is a choice but if someone realise the impact of this choice could provoke and stir the debate into a social dividing war and become more of an issue than a solution. Their opinions should count too you know. You need to understand that everyone(99.9%) want peace. Some even say, that same sex marriage, is an attempt to ridicule homosexuality and think too.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Great to see these kind of headlines stir up all the haters, brainwashed religious nuts and neanderthals!

Just imagine if religion was real, and if Jesus was real and coming back ... but instead, he actually came out? I would laugh my ass off then



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by viber8
 


how droll and insipid of you to insult one very specific religion using the very same argument you profess to be against. the haters? you show your lack of toleration by making a general statement. has hatred blinded you so that its just easier to hate and insult? you take to task christianity on one specific issue leaving all other religions alone? be an equal opportunity hater. your post makes your cause lack credibility on the grounds of hypocrisy.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Lawgiver
 


People that are using religion as the reason to hate others? I think I am well within my right to call these people religious nuts, because they are hypocrits!

Not all religious people share the same extreme views as I have seen here aimed towards an innocent group of people.

EDIT: Also I did not direct my comment at any particular religion.
edit on 22-5-2011 by viber8 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
ATTENTION: I really don't want this thread to be about hatred or gay bashing or religion bashing. There are a hundred threads like that here on ATS. Please keep it civil. Thanks.
(I know my thread will not be as popular as those that are more contentious, but that's not why I started this thread.)


Originally posted by eagleeye2
Yes it is a choice but if someone realise the impact of this choice could provoke and stir the debate into a social dividing war and become more of an issue than a solution.


If you think that religions and the practices of religions vs. secular society do not ALREADY cause a state of division, I don't know where you've been. The fear of provocation of a religious extreme is NOT a reason to continue state-sponsored, legal discrimination. I am very much against letting fear rule.

I disagree that people who wish to discriminate, based on prejudice, should have a say in the law, no matter what their numbers are.



But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."


Majority Rule, Minority Rights
.
edit on 5/22/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
This chart illustrates what I was saying in the OP. There is a definite TREND toward acceptance that I am happy to see. And not only is it trending in a positive direction, it's doing so at an accelerated rate. People are dropping their resistance to it more and more. I'm not asking or trying to force anyone to drop their resistance. It's just happening naturally with exposure and education.




Source



This is the fourth credible poll in the past eight months to show an outright majority of Americans in favor of gay marriage. That represents quite a lot of progress for supporters of same-sex marriage. Prior to last year, there had been just one survey — a Washington Post poll conducted in April 2009 — to show support for gay marriage as the plurality position, and none had shown it with a majority.

As we noted last August, support for gay marriage seems to have been increasing at an accelerated pace over the past couple of years.

.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
@ Benevolent Heretic

Thats pretty much out of context and a shady attempt to not respond to my argument.

If i understand correctly, by not approving the whole same sex union thing, homosexuals fear?
Just because they dont want to create a whole mess and start an endless debate for something they dont automatically stand for. You also say that even if its a majority of them it doesn't matter, thats a great democratic process loll.

Ill already regret participating in this thread, i'm sorry but i'm not a new member here i know exactly that this thread and some others about the same topic will get tons of reply going around 'round not getting anywhere and thats why they always end up in BTS.

I just want to say that the amount of homosexuals who want same sex marriage is unoticeable, ask around you, its ridiculous.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by eagleeye2
@ Benevolent Heretic

Thats pretty much out of context and a shady attempt to not respond to my argument.


I don't know which post you're responding to or what point you think I'm not responding to. Could you be more specific? I'll be glad to respond. Thanks.



You also say that even if its a majority of them it doesn't matter, thats a great democratic process loll.


Democracy is not the same as "Majority Rule". Also, the US is a Representative Republic.


i'm sorry but i'm not a new member here i know exactly that this thread and some others about the same topic will get tons of reply going around 'round not getting anywhere and thats why they always end up in BTS.


I'm trying my best to keep this thread civil and about the law. I don't want tons of replies or the same old nasty replies that normally exist in these threads.



I just want to say that the amount of homosexuals who want same sex marriage is unoticeable,


Can you provide a source that supports this statement? "Asking around" isn't a good way to determine the consensus of a nation.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



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!


Republicans are not discriminating against anyone. The state derives it's authority to perform the religious ceremony of marriage from the church, not the other way around. The church does not approve of same sex marriage and since that is where that ceremony was created, republicans, democrats nor the federal government has the power to overturn church morality, right or wrong, those are the facts.

I do not know why you all are banging your heads on a brick wall here trying to call it marriage. Thats not going to happen. Call it something else, have it be the same thing as marriage and have the state implement it and not the church. Problem solved. Thanks.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I didn't see your post and started one myself. I think that one would have to define terms before proceeding to a debate about this topic. Without defining terms people end up arguing when they actually agree...

I am a Bible believer and I think most people would be surprise on how I view "Gay Marriage" in America...

Define the terms and I will have the discussion or it can only be a frefall into chaos.

Marriage
Matrimony
Republic
Constitutional Republic
States Rights
Constitutional Law



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
The state derives it's authority to perform the religious ceremony of marriage from the church, not the other way around.


The state does not perform a "religious ceremony of marriage". The state performs marriages. And in the US, the secular government does not get ANY of its authority from the church.

Additionally, we're not talking about a religious ceremony. This is about MARRIAGE. The civil contract between two people, for which a legal license must be obtained.



The church does not approve of same sex marriage and since that is where that ceremony was created, republicans, democrats nor the federal government has the power to overturn church morality, right or wrong, those are the facts.


1. SOME churches do not approve of same sex marriage. SOME churches do.
And a church is not necessary for a marriage.
The United Church of Christ
Gay Friendly Churches

2. I am not suggesting that the government force churches to do anything. I am talking about the LAW. Not the church.



I do not know why you all are banging your heads on a brick wall here trying to call it marriage. Thats not going to happen.


It is already happening! In five states and DC, gay people are getting legally MARRIED. And sometimes in churches, because the church CHOOSES to marry them.



Call it something else, have it be the same thing as marriage and have the state implement it and not the church. Problem solved.


The state already does implement marriage. They license it, perform it and regulate it. The church has NO legal power as regards marriage. I got married in the courthouse, by a county clerk.

And what about the churches that DO perform gay marriages??? Making marriage a religious word does NOT keep the gay people out of marriage. They can go to a gay friendly church and have a ceremony, even if they DON'T have a state license! So keeping the word 'marriage' only to the religious is not going to prevent gay people from getting married.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Excellent point!


Marriage - the institution whereby individuals are joined in a legal contract, the license of which comes from the state.

Matrimony - I don't have a definition. I don't use that word. If you want to use it, please provide your definition.


Republic - Dictionary Definition


a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.


Constitutional Republic - Dictionary Definition


A constitutional republic is a state, where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens.


States Rights - Dictionary Definition

All rights not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor denied by it to the states.


Constitutional Law Dictionary Definition


Constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm very sorry to disagree, there is no marriage without the church. The state started to perform marriages along side the church because at one time the United States was largely one religion and guess which one that was?

Ever notice on all of our money it says "In God we trust"? The word marriage is of a religious nature, the state did not coin the term, the church did. The Church has the only authority as too what is morally acceptable concerning there ceremony.

Also, licensing has absolutely nothing to do with the ceremony itself. The fact that there are legal ramifications that stem from performing the ceremony, it is irrelevant.

Like I said, gonna have to call it something else.

edit on 22-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm very sorry to disagree, there is no marriage without the church.


Clearly, your definition of marriage includes the church. That's fine. But that's your opinion of marriage. My marriage license from the state and my marriage by the state. without a church, proves otherwise.
I have a marriage. No church involved. Your statement is incorrect.



The state started to perform marriages along side the church because at one time the United States was largely one religion and guess which one that was?


The history of marriage is irrelevant. I'm talking about how the state sanctions, perform, regulates and benefits marriage TODAY. That's reality.



Also, licensing has absolutely nothing to do with the ceremony itself. The fact that there are legal ramifications that stem from performing the ceremony, it is irrelevant.


There are no legal ramifications from just a church ceremony. If you are joined in a church, you still have to have the legal marriage license and legal witnesses and someone state-sanctioned to perform it or else you're not legally married and cannot get the state and federal benefits of marriage. Anyone can have a ceremony, but the ceremony alone means nothing, legally.

The religious ceremony is something SOME people choose to do. It is not necessary for a marriage to occur.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Government has no authority to recognize/regulate marriage.


Marriage is a Religious Act. Personal and Private.


We need to get Government out of the Marriage Regulation business.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The ceremony and act in and of itself was born from the bible. Therefore, it is religious in nature. It's not like i'm making this stuff up, it is factual.

Marriage represents two parties, a man and a women and union between them under God. Whether you believe in God or not is non issue. The point is that you seek to perform a ceremony of a religious nature that does not acknowledge two people of the same sex performing it.

Same sex couples should be provided civil unions under the state and allow for all the same rights as the men and women who are married have. That being said, you can't call it marriage and why you would even want too bewilders me, seems like grandstanding, showboating or trying to rub something in peoples faces, tacky.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join