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: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jstanthrno1
Why must it constantly be thrown in my face??


Damn good question.


There is something mentally wrong with homosexuals.


I think you just answered your own question. They want what everyone else wants. To live their lives the same as everyone else. Without being called sick or disturbed or mental. If one doesn't want to called a bigot, one should act like one.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by yahwehsprincess
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!!!!!!!


There is no god; your statement silly. Deep down you're aware of this, and every action you make to the contrary is a childish and desperate attempt to reinforce the nonsense that you genuinely want to believe. It's sad, and I really feel a lot of sympathy for you. The community you're trapped in doesn't allow for critical thinking, and yet critical thinking and rejection of dogma aren't "choices" that a person can make. Unless you're able to uproot and begin a life elsewhere, I'm afraid your existence will be completely consumed with spewing violent rhetoric towards anything that threatens the worldview you so desperately and disingenuously cling to in an attempt to validate your broken faith in the eyes of your brethren.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Fascinating to read how the arguments concerning this topic boil down to the definitions of words.

So marriage in the religious context is a sacred Christian act between a man and a woman in the eyes of God, that's nice but the context of marriage used in this discussion (being the acceptance of gay marriage's legality) is free from religious context under the First Amendment.
There's no doubt that marriage up til this century has been thought by the public as "1 man, 1 woman," but now it's more accepted being defined also as "2 people." The meanings of words and the context they are used in changes and has happened throughout history as language evolves to meet the context of the society that the people live.

I wish people would stop pushing me to accept a word's religious context when I don't believe in that religion nor should I be forced to recognize that religion in accepting the word in that context. It would be violating the peoples' First Amendment rights if that became the government's official context of the word.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
The ceremony and act in and of itself was born from the bible.


Yeah, you said that before. Believe whatever you will about the history of marriage. That has no bearing on the fact that, today in this country, the government, not religion, issues marriage licenses, sanctions marriage and doles out specific benefits to those who are married.

Some people add a religious aspect to their marriage by having a ceremony in a church and using religious words in their vows. But that is not necessary to get legally married.



Therefore, it is religious in nature.


Marriage CAN have a religious basis. Not all marriages do, however, so your blanket statement becomes false.



Marriage represents two parties, a man and a women and union between them under God.


Perhaps this is your definition of marriage, and that's fine. I don't insist that your definition agree with mine, but I think you are ignoring the facts before you.

I have shown that today, according to the laws of the US, which are the ones I'm subject to, I must go to the state to get a license to marry. I must have a state-approved person perform that marriage and I must have witnesses sign a legal document for that marriage to be legal. I'm talking about legal marriage. Haven't I said that?

Clearly, we cannot discuss a subject unless we agree on definitions. As I have said, I'm talking about the law, not religion. And there is no law that makes marriage exclusive to religion.



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.


I have stated why I support complete equality, including the word 'marriage'. www.abovetopsecret.com... Some churches already marry gay people. Absconding with the word 'marriage' will not keep gay people out of marriage. Just non-religious people.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mistafaz
 


I wouldn't lump all religions into this construct. The Abrahamic faiths seem to be the ones that have the problem with homosexuality. That being, in no particular order, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. That said, I see more tolerance in Judaism. Kinda makes sense. Jesus was a Jew and I'd wager my last dollar that HE wouldn't have a problem with gays.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I think people need to realize you don't have to agree with something in order to accept it. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, however I accept their right to marriage. Just like I don't agree with Christianity however I won't deny them a church to pray in.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Haven't the only people, who have ever been against homosexuality, been the religious? I'd like to hear the name of one single group or organization which is against homosexuality, which also doesn't align itself with religion whatsoever.

Yes, the same people who preach tolerance, to turn the other cheek, and that we're all created equal and all gods children, are the only ones who seem to be incredibly intolerant of others, and in this case, gays. I have yet to hear or meet a religious person who has ALWAYS accepted gay rights, and has ALWAYS been accepting of their lifestyle, eventhough it conflicts with their beliefs. Absolutely rediculous. Yes some religious people have come around to it, but aren't they the ones who should be the most tolerant in the first place?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mistafaz
Fascinating to read how the arguments concerning this topic boil down to the definitions of words.

So marriage in the religious context is a sacred Christian act between a man and a woman in the eyes of God, that's nice but the context of marriage used in this discussion (being the acceptance of gay marriage's legality) is free from religious context under the First Amendment.
There's no doubt that marriage up til this century has been thought by the public as "1 man, 1 woman," but now it's more accepted being defined also as "2 people." The meanings of words and the context they are used in changes and has happened throughout history as language evolves to meet the context of the society that the people live.

I wish people would stop pushing me to accept a word's religious context when I don't believe in that religion nor should I be forced to recognize that religion in accepting the word in that context. It would be violating the peoples' First Amendment rights if that became the government's official context of the word.


Aww poor wittle atheist doesn't have any reading comprehension. The first Amendment clearly states that the Government can't interfere with religion. Since Marriage is a religious act the government has no business being involved in the first place.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Excellent topic!


A few additional comments:

First, given that a state or states in the US has a legal contract called marriage, with certain legal benefits as defined at both the state and federal level, such states are required, by the US Constitution, to provide those legal benefits to all citizens:



1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

US Constitution, Amendment 14
Emphasis added.

And before the "marry my car", "marry my dog", "marry my child" crowd starts, note that cars, dogs and children are not able to enter into legal contracts of any kind, be they related to marriage or anything else.


Second, this issue is like so many others... we have two groups of citizens. Group A wants to do something that affects them and does not harm anyone else. Group B does not approve of whatever it is. But instead of Group B just minding their own business, Group B decides they must work to infringe on the rights of Group A. Group B basically says "I don't want to do [whatever], so you must not.". It's the same, whether we are talking private ownership of firearms or the rights of gay people. Group B is essentially anti-freedom. What is interesting is that both extremes of the opinion range are guilty of this behavior. If the subject is private ownership of firearms, Group B tends to be people on the left side of the spectrum. If the subject is gay marriage, Group B tends to be people from the right side. Anti-freedom is anti-freedom. Both 'sides' can stand to take a lesson here.

Third, I for one am not willing to allow the religious component to co-opt the word 'marriage'. I am legally married, there is no religious component at all to my marriage, I have a state-issued marriage license that proves I am eligible for the various state and federal benefits of being in such a legal contract, and that license says "Marriage" on it. If the religious section wants a word for their very own, I suggest "Holy Matrimony". I do not have a "Holy Matrimony" license...

And finally, beware of your glass house regarding reading comprehension:

Originally posted by korathin
Aww poor wittle atheist doesn't have any reading comprehension. The first Amendment clearly states that the Government can't interfere with religion. Since Marriage is a religious act the government has no business being involved in the first place.


It has been clearly stated in this thread, multiple times, that this discussion is related to the state-regulated legal contract called marriage. This thread is not about the optional, non-legally-binding religious component that some choose to add to their legal, state-regulated, non-religious marriage contract.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by TysonG
 


That is such an important point on this topic! I totally support people having and practicing their religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with other's rights. I certainly don't AGREE with any religion, but I absolutely accept it. Why can't they do the same? Clearly, the religious don't mind infringing on the rights of other people, it seems.

reply to post by korathin
 


Originally posted by korathin
Since Marriage is a religious act ...


Do you deny that secular marriage exists?? Hello? Are you that deeply in denial? I'm amazed at the number of religious people who deny the FACT that marriage is a legal contract sanctioned by the state.


Add to that the fact that marriage predates religion or recorded history, it's clear that the idea that it is an exclusively religious act is delusional.

No matter how many times people claim that marriage is exclusive to religion, that doesn't make it true. In this culture, we use the word marriage to describe BOTH the religious union and the secular union. Deal with it. If religious folks don't want to use the same word that the state uses, then pick another one. As a non-religious married person, I don't mind you using the word marriage, too.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by TysonG
 


Do you deny that secular marriage exists?? Hello? Are you that deeply in denial? I'm amazed at the number of religious people who deny the FACT that marriage is a legal contract sanctioned by the state.



Religious people are allergic to facts.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
Sorry I took so long to reply BH.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And that is their view. If they were correct, then atheists wouldn't be allowed to marry.


There was a time when it was men and women of different colours or racial groups were not allowed to marry. This is their view and at one time their view was federally supported and enforced. Things have changed, nevertheless history shows us that marriage as defined by one group of people was federally enforced in this country. It happened before, it's happening now.


I am speaking of the LAW.
Religious people can THINK marriage is theirs all they want, but they are mistaken.


Well looking at the current law it is theirs. Marriage is still only between a man and a woman in most states. As far as I can see it, marriage is for the most part still theirs. I agree with your OP BH, I agree that the current system we have is way way outdated, but let's not get ourselves to far out of reality. The religious rightwing says marriage is between a man and a woman, the vast majority of states support this view. Damn shame, but it's reality.



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.


Agreed. Alot has happened in a matter of 10 years, very short compared to historical standards. At the end of the day however, the supreme court needs to step in. We live in a republic and I would not want decisions for the constitution made based on popular support (Im sure though that's not what you meant BH). I'm more on the lines waiting for the courts to take the step, and now if necessary.


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.


Civil Unions for everybody! That's as equal as you can get. If some churches want to declare marriage theirs, so be it, if other churches have a different definition for marriage! Fine! All I'm concerned about is how people are treated under the government, and so long as the government is enforcing against some religious view of marriage, state or federal, I'm fine with this.

By the way BH, would you believe that some people still support states rights to enforce anti-interracial marriage laws? There are still alot of backward people in this country, or this forum for that matter.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

southern guardian, i don't necessarily agree with your personal positions on these issues. however, i do agree with your assessment of the situation. just as each state's population changes, the views of its constituents changes, and thus the democratic process moves accordingly, insofar as state's rights, civil unions (gay marriages), etc. being courteous in discourse even when you don't agree with another poster's comments, your manner is appreciated. i still don't agree with your positions, but i am willing to hear your reasoning. and that's a start, for civil discourse.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Civil Unions for everybody! That's as equal as you can get. If some churches want to declare marriage theirs, so be it, if other churches have a different definition for marriage! Fine!


Oh, I agree that would be fine with me. But since some churches choose to marry gay people, having the word 'marriage' apply to only religious marriages won't keep the gay out of marriage. My point is that having civil unions for everyone and letting religion have the word marriage isn't going to work for THEM the way they are anticipating.

And see #2 here for possible issues.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



By the way BH, would you believe that some people still support states rights to enforce anti-interracial marriage laws?


Oh, yeah. Absolutely. But how much is that enforced? I know we have a long way to go.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by yahwehsprincess
 
It also states in the bible it is an abomination to god to eat shellfish. And wear two different kinds of cloth at the same time. And eating pork. Are you wearing two different kinds of cloth right now? I bet you are. Have you ever eating shellfish (i.e. crab, lobster, shrimp)? Have you ever eatin bacon?

You people make me sick how you spout about how morally superior you are and that the bible is the word of god yet you cherry pick the verses that conform to your views. If you are seriously worried about gods wrath then you better live up to every single law in bible. If you do not and you are just spouting bronze age gibberish, than you are a hypocrite.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 
"Supposed discrimination" ???????? Are you F*cking kidding me?! Read your own post! Is that not discrimination?! OMG it's 2011, It's so pathetic how stupid people can be.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
I am currently in on the states that legalized gay marriage(IA), the Supreme court here unanimously decided that marriage should be a right for all Iowans regardless of sexual orientation. Ya know what the people in this state are doing now? Trying to throw out all the Judges! It's pathetic really. The reason why I like that they had a supreme court ruling rather than a vote is this: You can't leave the rights of a minority, in the hands of the majority, because 9 times out of 10 the minority will lose. Prop 8 is the shining turd of an example for that. So now that the ignorant masses are trying to get these judges thrown out who knows who's going to be put in their place, and probably change it again.


edit on 29-7-2011 by ideasarebulletproof because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-7-2011 by ideasarebulletproof because: Grammatical error



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I still can't seem to wrap my brain around gay marriage. The thing is, why is this any more right than a man wanting to marry two women (and getting put in jail for it)? I understand that some people are gay, but why give full benefits? Heck, you might as well let grandma marry grandson so that sonny boy can claim his inheritance without having to pay estate taxes when she dies.

On a lighter note...overheard by a friend. Her two boys were playing house and the older boy told the younger one he had to be the housewife. This child replied, "Let's be gay" My friend overheard and asked for an explanation. The boy replied, "This way, we can both still be boys."



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Since we are in the "Evolution of Acceptance" when are we gonna accept the fact that marijuana is a NATURAL herb, and legalize it? Oh wait, that ain't never gonna happen...because then, people might wake up and see what's really going on. To be honest, i FEAR the consequences of this. Those of you that have 'accepted' this are doing nothing but helping further "their agenda", of destroying the family.

I'm just curious to know....what makes gay people think they are so special, that they have to PRANCE AROUND, demanding that we ACCEPT that which is UN-NATURAL. And, for those of you that think it's natural because animals in the wild do it, (which is the MAIN argument of why it's 'natural) i'll just say this....YOU'RE NOT AN ANIMAL....SO STOP ACTING LIKE ONE! And please, don't even try to spin the whole "love" thing. The majority of Americans and people in this world, have not a clue, as to what love IS and ISN'T. Love ISN'T about what "feels good"...that's called LUST! Love is patient, kind, does not behave rudely, does not seek it's own, is not puffed up. So, where EXACTLY is the 'feel good' part.

Please, do tell me, if it's so 'natural', why does 1 person in the relationship act like a man, and the other person acts like a woman? Like, why is one the giver, and the other the receiver? And yes, it IS like that! They don't both give/receive! That fact is made clear and understood, BEFORE they even 'hook-up'. So, please explain to the class, why that is?

And, while you're at it...please explain to us sane individuals..why there are so many men...on t.v. with such STRONG female tendencies; and why are the girls being made to look like butches? It's as though "they" are changing the roles of humanity! Probably because that's what they do...with each other! Yeah, you might as well join "their" party. Give 'them' the strength "they" need, to continue doing what 'they' are doing...which is destroying the fabric of our society.

P.S. You didn't evolve from apes...you were CREATED in God's image and likeness; so act like it!



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ideasarebulletproof
 


I think some of the problem is defining the purpose of marriage (and you can guess I was originally from IA -
). Is it love, is it to raise children, is it to allow one person to take care of another? Is it purely for sex? What if two brothers become widows. One has a good job and benefits and the other doesn't have any benefits. Should they be allowed to get married so that the one can qualify for benefits? You can say, ewww, they are BROTHERS. But that doesn't mean they are having sex, and even if they did, it's not like they would be having kids. I ask again...What should constitute a legal marriage. I personally think that a man having two wives is more natural than two women or two men marrying. Yet that man would be put in jail. In my book, you either keep things the way they are - one woman and one man - OR you make it a free for all and allow anybody to marry anyone they feel like.

It's kind of like abortion. When you start saying it's wrong EXCEPT in the case of rape or to save a mother's life, you start down a slippery slope. Why does the potential child of rape have less right to life than the one of a married couple in love?
edit on 29-7-2011 by mjfromga because: I added last paragraph



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join