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.

 

SOCIAL: Gay Marriage

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Everyone has a right to engage in a business partnership, and all individuals should be able to enter into a marriage, as a marriage is a partnership. The government's role in marriage should be the same as it is in business. The government should only enforce, not dictate, the terms of a marriage license.
 

Less than 50 years ago we had laws that banned interracial marriages. These marriages were considered to defy the laws of nature and God. The same is true today of gay marriages. The same fear factor is prevalent today in our modern society as it was 50 years ago. Times have not change much really.

When you hear the word homosexual what comes to your mind? Unfortunately, many people today believe that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, and consider it to be merely a sexual perversion. We are living with a medieval mindset where we cannot accept that everyone is equal and has equal right no matter if you agree or not with their lifestyle.

Some of the following arguments have been made against gay marriage:

"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman" Says who, the government, our president? Should the federal government even be allowed to decide this? What about leaving it up to the individual states and the voters within those states? I do not feel the federal government should have any say in this matter.

"Gay relationships are immoral." Says who, the Bible? Isn't freedom of religion the right to freedom from religion as well? The Bible does not dictate American laws. There is this little thing called separation of church and state, which the government loves to enforce when dealing with our school systems. People in society cannot be forced by the government to live according to the dictates of other people's religions.

"Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the human race." The last time I checked you didn't have to be married to have a baby. Also, do we as intelligent people, really think that if gay marriages are legalized that is the end to the human race? I for one will not get divorced just to look for a same sex partner if same sex marriages are allowed.

The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, just as is heterosexuality. It is not all sex; sex is just a means of displaying affection. It is about love and affection, about growing old with your partner, and having the legal rights that go along with marriage.

Being married entitles you to medical benefits, it allows you to make medical decisions for your partner in an emergency, it allows you property rights when your partner passes away. These are not a moral issues, they are civil rights issues.




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I really like your point on how inter-racial marriages were once illegal and considered an act against nature. Although I am not gay myself but I feel very strongly in this one issue. The religious perspective of this one very issue has made me very angry at the un-accepting groups and pretty much resulted into me leaving the church and pursuing other alternative views in theology. It worries me to no end that the Bush administration is trying to "protect" marriage and create an amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. I just hope that enough people will realize that this one act will set us back 30 years and that society can never be accepting if we limit two legal adults to get married. This is NOT the federal governments position!

Anyhow, I feel that time will change everything. Priorities change in the world and general acceptance will take time, as everything does. We didnt abolish slavery overnight, nor did we with segregation. I just hope they leave this issue up to the states and the communities as they should be.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
As far as the government is concerned there need not be an amendment.

The slippery slope is that marriage is not taken seriously by most everyone now. The rights are the point of contention rather than the label.

The rights are universal. Considering the racial marriage point the author brings up, I'll say this.

Blacks, back in the day, wanted the same rights as whites, not to be classified by the government as whites. They were extended the same rights while maintaining identity. The same can and should be applied here.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Some people worry that gays will make a mockery of marrige. Why? Because they are gay. So, Spears's 72 hour marrige wasn't a mockery? JLO isn't a mockery of marrige? They straight, so i guess they know how to do marrige right.

Which senator compared gays to sex with a box turtle? It went like this.

2 straight parents are better than a single parent which is better than 2 gay parents which is equal to sex with a box turtle.

2Straight>1straight>2gay=sex with a box turtle.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Box turtles? Really? How can people be so close-minded?

For me, marriage should be based in love and grounded in trust. I have known homosexual couples who posses these traits in abundance. I have also known heterosexual couples who lack them. James, I like your point about Spears. Something like half of all marriages today end in divorce -yet we are still claiming that marriage is sacred?

As for people who say it goes against the Bible, I agree that the government should not force one religion upon a group of people. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, though we've been highly hypocritical of this through the years. If you dress in sackcloth and start washing the feet of homeless people on the street, I might be willing to consider your point. But how can you pick and choose what to believe from the Bible? Amazing how many people eat pigs. We convieniently ignore what we don't like.

Regardless, every citizen of this country has rights. We tried to take them away from African Americans and Native Americans, we tried to take them away from the Irish and the Catholics. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?
We can't claim to be a country built on individual freedoms and rights and then turn around and deny them to a specific group.

Liberty, justice and freedom for all.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cercey
As for people who say it goes against the Bible, I agree that the government should not force one religion upon a group of people. This country was founded on the separation of church and state, though we've been highly hypocritical of this through the years.


Excellent point Cercey. Why are we looking at this issue through a totally "christian" point of view? Take a look around, many other religions are not as uptight about homosexuallity as christians. As for the seperation or church and state, that's a given. Maybe it's because of issues like this one.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Although I know that the Christian point is not a reason for the government to do or not do anything, I would like to say that Christians in this country constitute quite a nice size of the population.

While I think the "because it's against it in the bible" reason is lame, even for Christians who could combat it with 100 other valid points, the people who do not want gay marriage should be respected and considered as well.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
... even for Christians who could combat it with 100 other valid points, the people who do not want gay marriage should be respected and considered as well.


I for one would like to hear some of these "other" reasons. This issue has been discussed many times before on this board, but to date no one has ever put forth an argument other than religious. Republicans - tell us what you think?

Oh, BTW - The California Supreme Court just voided all gay marriages that came out of San Francisco. BUT - they did not address the issue of gay marriage itself - choosing instead to say that San Francisco issued the licenses illegally.



The court, however, did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the narrow issue of whether local officials could bypass California's judicial and legislative branches.


This just became a signficant issue in this years election.

CNN



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
One of the other reasons has to be financial. The average gay person as a whole is better educated and holds a better job than the average straight person. Singles pay bigger percentages of income taxes than married people. Allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples opens the door to large amounts of lost revenue.

Another aspect comes in the form of insurance. Insurance companies in states that don't have partner benifits charge gay couples as singles. Again removing this distinction would be a loss of revenue to the insurance business.

- Was



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I know several gay couples that have been in the same relationship for over twenty years, probebly percentage wise about the same as the so called "normal" people I know, in other words not very many.

This country was based on freedom for all, I know it has taken us a long time to get here and will take us a long time to get there (freedom for all) but I think this is the next logical step. These people do not harm my marriage in the least, it will be just a strong if bob and bill are living next door in wedded bliss or if they are not.

If same sex marriages can destroy this country than we are doomed anyway.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Amuk, good point, if gay marrige will destroy the country then we are already done for. But still, marrige is not a christian thing. before christians there were jews who had marrige. Then of course Buddists and Hindus and witches, they all had marrige. So marrige is not a property of christianity. And if they really worry this much about gays then they should go after their gay leaders who have sex with little boys, not two consenting adults who love each other.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Amuk, it is the same for me. I know several gay couples that have out lasted some of my closet friends and family's marriages. They are decent people. I feel these couples deserve the same rights as we heterosexual couples do.

Some of the biggest concerns these couples have is they have no say in anything that they have established as a couple. If something happens and one ends up in the hospital, these couples can't have any say in a medical matter. The same thing with a will, families can challenge those and win in court.

I completely agree that people who do not want or can not accept gay marriages, should be respected in their beliefs. That is there opinion and they are very much entitled to it, as are we all.

What happens with this issue if you take the religious perspective out of it? I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I would also love to hear the republican stance on this issue. Are you guys out there?



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wassabi
One of the other reasons has to be financial. The average gay person as a whole is better educated and holds a better job than the average straight person. Singles pay bigger percentages of income taxes than married people. Allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples opens the door to large amounts of lost revenue.

Another aspect comes in the form of insurance. Insurance companies in states that don't have partner benifits charge gay couples as singles. Again removing this distinction would be a loss of revenue to the insurance business.

- Was



1) Do you have anything to back up the idea that gays in general are better educated and/or are better off than the average straight person.

If you do, I'm sure we'd all love to see it, otherwise I'll discount that as opinion (which is not really in play around here).

2) I've found that people in this country have justified behavior by presenting others behavior. For instance, since many people divorce, marriage is not sacred and therefore can be done with as we see fit. This discounts the other percentage who do NOT get divorced. Personally I see this line of rational to be illigitamite in general.

So, as I've noticed, the majority of groups (i.e. The Human Rights Campaign) are not really looking to impeed on marriage as it stands now. From my understanding, they are looking for recognition as a legal entity and to be included under the umbrella of marriage laws.

This is fine in my book because America is a place where all people can have equal rights. America, however, is not a place that grants the same classification.

My proposal, would be to give 100% equal rights as far as legal partnerships are concerned. But also to clarify that Only two natural persons (humans) may marry.

Much like the same rights and treatment given to other races and whites, I say that they be categorized differently.

While Christians (and other such religions) oppose marriage, I've found that they oppose the word usage more than anything else. Again being America, I say that all views should be respected and obliged if possible (which I believe would also stem most of the backlash from the religious community in general).

I think this solves the problem quite nicely.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think all this religious stuff is just a cover for the real reason. It's monetary, as most things are. It's to keep gays from having access to spousal benefits. If there was a way to MAKE money from this situation you can be sure this would have been resolved a long time ago.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I think all this religious stuff is just a cover for the real reason. It's monetary, as most things are. It's to keep gays from having access to spousal benefits. If there was a way to MAKE money from this situation you can be sure this would have been resolved a long time ago.


I can see that as a partial cause, especially on the political level, but not the whole of the matter. After seeing friends disowned from their families simply for coming out I feel very strongly on this issue. Their families had no monetary gain from this so there must have been other reasons. I think it has to do with the morals of this society.

Once again we are attempting to radically change some of the values and mores of society. This never comes easily. Money, force of habit, religion, shock value, stubbornness, - all of these are reasons. Not every person has the same reasons and I'm sure there are many more out there.

It saddens me that an issue like this can so easily tear family and friendships -and nations- apart. Even for religous families there is the parable of the prodigal son. For those who disagree I am sorry but I cannot respect your opinion any more than I can respect racism. Yet so long as you present your opinions thoughtfully and with integrity I will respect you as a person.

[edit on 12-8-2004 by Cercey]



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I dont understand why people should have any problems with gay marriage personnally. I aint gay, but I have friends who are and its cool with me, at the end of the day its someones choice, so why shouldnt they be allowed to engage in the commitment that other couples part-take in, is this just discriminary ? Shouldnt all people be equal ?




I think all this religious stuff is just a cover for the real reason. It's monetary, as most things are. It's to keep gays from having access to spousal benefits. If there was a way to MAKE money from this situation you can be sure this would have been resolved a long time ago.


I totally agree with you on this matter, religion has crumbled now, religion doesnt no longer mean spirital believe, and worship, religion is now just something that uses its possition in socity to take advantage of the people who believed in them.

So if religion has been corrupted, dont you think they aint exactly in the best position to tell these gay couples what they is doing wrong, cos they are just be hyprocritcal (sp?)

Final Verdict: At the end of the day, gays are people just like you and me, and who are we to tell these people how to live their lives. I think they are happy to take the final step towards marriage then they should be able to, now strings attached.



posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Most people confuse this issue with allowing people to conduct themselves as they wish. To enter into and maintain the relationships they wish.

Must like a multi-wife arrangement, this is legal in practice, but not recognized by the US Government. That is the heart of the issue, rather than this being an issue of the heart.

The rights can or can not be given by the government according to the people's choice on how we choose to shape our society. It seems that we are changing, and the homosexual agenda is working it's way into mainstream culture, which is fine but different. Much like all things of this nature, society is slow in changing, but quick to react.

This will happen in time, that I have no doubt. Homosexuals obviously are allowed to conduct their relationships as they have for quite some time. They seek the same rights rather than the same classification.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
A multi wife relationship? How could anyone think that is a good idea?(I know, mormons do that)

Anyways, gays want the same rights, as KJ just said. They don't want special treatment, they don't want special rules, they want the same rights. And the person who compared anti-gay to racism is a little off. Gay is not a race, but a way of life and not yet proven to be a born genetic thing. Now if it is scientifically and with 99% probability of being right proven to be a genetic thing, then yes it would be up there with racism. But some people think it is a choice, and with some it is, but the majority are "born" that way. It isn't that they see Will & Grace and think hey, it's cool to be gay.

And for the religous arguement, TAKE CARE OF YOUR PROBLEMS FIRST! You nut cases going after everyone while your little boy is raped or your 16 year old girl is giving head to the minister(Lutherns know how to do it! They went after good looking teenage women in a state where 16 is the legal sex age, not 7 year old boys like a catholic preist) Take care of the problem that in the past a wealthy church meant good ffod at a homless shelter and the church being taken care of greatly. Nowadays it means the preacher/preist/minister drives a caddy and has a penthouse apartment. Hell, Pastor Pitts will not allow you in the door unless you "donate" $1000 and allow him to take 10% of all deposits you make in your bank account. Thats right, paycheck? 10%. Birthday check? 10%

So, religous people, fix your problems, I covered a few, but there are dozens of problems you need to fix inside the religon before you try to dictate how others live. Also, try to find out why the bible has made women nothing more than test tubes for babies and whores when they were originally just as powerful as men until the church edited the bible to make women slaves to men. Then ask why free thinking is a sin, and why eating meat on a friday is a sin, why thoughts are sins! Once you fix your problems then you can try to tell people how to live. In other words, if you are worse than the person you are dictating to, shut up!



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
In other words, if you are worse than the person you are dictating to, shut up!


James, you and I have had some good talks about this very topic. And while I know that there are problems in every institution, I also know that gay people should NOT be considered "married" in the current sense of the word.

Personally, I would want a seperate word for it. Make it your own and ensure that all the same rights apply (which is the only allowed case for me approving such an action).

If it is considered "marriage" then every time you guys want to change it, or to add something, you'll get the same religious right battle, rather than adjusting a problem.

I say fight the fight you can win, and leave the semantics to the right. They can have it.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   
From my purely faith based opinion yes I feel the act of Marriage between two men and two women is wrong.But am I going to condemn them no! the bible says Judge not less thou be judged. I am a Firm Be leaver that it is God job to judge these people. If they truly LOVE each other sure let them get married. Want to Adopt great there are ALLOT of kid out there that need a Loving home that allot of straight parents maybe could and have not provided for these kids.. BUT in the end as a Christian I feel that they will be judged by what is written in scripture. But it is not our job to impose our morality on them




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join