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.

 

On gay marriage...

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Isn't DOMA federal? Isn't the Christian right pushing to make marriage between a man and woman a federal law?


Yes it is federal, but they are pushing for a constitutional amendment about it.


Then they turn around in the same breath and say - - marriage is a state issue. Gay marriage has to be determine by each state.

Huh?

I agree the right to marry should be a federal law. The right of all citizens to marry.


Please don't misunderstand me. I use the word "state" in the general form, meaning body or government. I disagree with federal authority on this one and I do look to the states to do the right thing and get it over with.


At one time - - ages ago - - it made sense to have each state make marriage laws. Kind of like some areas have school holidays for Open Hunting Season - - or Snow Days - - etc.

Different areas/cultures had different needs. This is completely outdated now - - - and marriage rights should be equal federally.


I don't disagree with you in theory, but in practice it's not needed since this will happen either way and I'd prefer to maintain as much of the tattered state's rights as we still have.

Once we get the Christians to shut up we'll be much better off, or all Abrahamic religions. They are dinosaurs more often than not and generally not worth listening to on social matters.




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
My opinion of homosexual marriage on the legal or, civil, level is one of lacking in interest. Should they decide to be together, of what interference is it to the community at-large? Unless you plan on banning gays from living together and fornicating then to ban the legal recognition of their civil union is asinine.

However marriage in a church and observed by any religious institution should be up to the decisions of said religious institution. If the Presbyterian Church does not permit gay marriage then it is a violation of the religious groups right to freely practice their beliefs if your force them to marry two homosexuals.

The only reason government ever interfered in the issue of marriage was to guarantee that blacks and whites could not marry, also to check the blood of the couple. Neither of that needs to be done so the issue of state involving itself in the religious sanctity of marriage is indefensible. It is the fault of big government that the entire issue of gay marriage is being argued. Gays should have the right to legal recognition and benefits, excluding the religious recognition which should be preserved for each respect religion to decide.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BioStatistic
Well said! I was really afraid this was going to be another of those anti-gay marriage threads. You've made great points, and brought the simplicity of the whole thing to light.


I've never understood why it was such a big deal. I mean...if you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, shouldn't you outlaw divorce? Really? States have laws that determine how far removed cousins must be to get married.

And, let me tell you something...just because these guys fold and get married to a woman doesn't mean for an instant they're not trolling websites for clandestine encounters. Governments aren't doing anything but fooling themselves and using the topic to pull down votes from sheeple.




Actually, the great Statesman Sir Thomas More(you know the one who wrote Utopia) opposed the divorce of King Henry the VIII and was imprisoned in the high tower with only a tiny window, then he was put to death by the King.
en.wikipedia.org...

More coined the word "utopia" – a name he gave to the ideal, imaginary island nation whose political system he described in Utopia, published in 1516. He opposed the king's separation from the Catholic Church and refused to accept the king as Supreme Head of the Church of England, a status the king had been given by a compliant parliament through the Act of Supremacy of 1534. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1534 for his refusal to take the oath required by the First Succession Act, because the act disparaged the power of the Pope and Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In 1535, he was tried for treason and beheaded. More was beatified by the Catholic Church in 1886 and canonised, with John Fisher, in 1935.

edit on 14-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Marriages in the US have two components, religious and legal. From a religious point of view, yes, there are people of Abrahamic religions that will not allow their followers get married to those of the same gender. That's fine, really. It's their religious belief and more power to them. However, how and why should that apply to people that are not of those faiths.. or for that matter, why should it apply to people who are not getting married in a church?


My sentiments exactly. Not much else to add except



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Annee
 


Hope you aren't voting Ron Paul then because this issue would be totally State decided. Some States will allow it but travel across the State line and your no longer married. This is one of the problems with his platform but that's a bit off topic.


Nope!

Ron Paul is another white southern fundamental Christian. Anti Abortion - Anti Gay - and racist.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

I don't disagree with you in theory, but in practice it's not needed since this will happen either way and I'd prefer to maintain as much of the tattered state's rights as we still have.

Once we get the Christians to shut up we'll be much better off, or all Abrahamic religions. They are dinosaurs more often than not and generally not worth listening to on social matters.


I hope you are right.

These current GOP candidates are just down right scary.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
However marriage in a church and observed by any religious institution should be up to the decisions of said religious institution. If the Presbyterian Church does not permit gay marriage then it is a violation of the religious groups right to freely practice their beliefs if your force them to marry two homosexuals.


Every gay person I've known has been Christian. I am not telling them they can not have a church wedding and be married in the eyes of their god.

The legal Marriage License - - issued by the government does not mention god in any way. It is a legal secular government contract - - named Marriage License.

Separate but Equal - - - is Never OK. It is Marriage. It is not civil union.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
That had to be one of the most coherent and reasonable posts on this subject I have ever seen on ATS, rogerstigers. I salute you for your insight.

You're right; the whole issue is being used (by both sides) as a rallying point. On one hand, you have the right-wing supporters who are repulsed by the thought of homosexual relations. On the other hand, you have the left-wing supporters who use the issue to rally support against the various churches. In between are a group, a relatively small group it seems, who simply want to know what all the fuss is about and why no one seems to be able to cogently discuss the issue.

I place myself in that central group.

As someone who is admittedly pretty conservative, I have some insight into the fear that permeates the right-wing supporters. At one time, not very long ago really, interracial marriages were seen as 'wrong' or 'unnatural'. Most churches wouldn't perform such a marriage. As time moved on, attitudes changed and the idea of interracial marriages became a minor issue (a non-issue in many areas today). However, with this positive change came one that was less positive: the force of law used to enforce 'civil rights' on private parties.

Now don't get me wrong; I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing in itself given the prejudice that existed when these laws were enacted. What I am saying is that, due to these laws (and of course the zeal with which some used them), many churches felt 'bullied' into performing marriages they did not agree with. Even though times have for the most part changed with regards to that issue, the feeling of victimization still remains.

So there is a hidden fear today when confronted with the issue of gay marriage that should gay marriage be deemed a 'right', the same thing would happen again with this issue: churches might be forced, whether through direct force of law or by threats of such force, into abandoning what is, indeed, a tenet of the Christian faith. For those with trouble understanding my point, I am not saying that such would happen; only that the perception exists that it could happen. So when confronted with the issue of gay marriage, the first thought of the religious is not whether such is appropriate for those not adherent to their faith, but rather the perceived threat to themselves and their faith.

As long as this fear is not addressed, the opposition will remain.

I make no attempt to understand the loathing I see and hear for those who place their faith in a religious context. It seems to me that such vile bitterness as I see and hear toward all religions is somehow akin to the fear and loathing that exists toward homosexuality. One coin, two sides, and each side is adamant in their stance and unwilling to compromise. It is almost reminiscent of the Democrat-Republican arguments, only even more deeply entrenched.

It seems to me that the easiest way to resolve the issue is to take the term 'marriage' completely and absolutely out of any legal context and return it to its religious roots. Cohabitation is not marriage, and marriage in its religious sense is much more than cohabitation. From a secular point of view, it is merely a legal contract between two consenting adults, with each bearing legal responsibilities and enjoying legal benefits. Any term could be used to describe that relationship, and if 'marriage' is not a legal term the state loses all ability to regulate it. It becomes a religious function only, open to anyone who wishes to perform such a ceremony (and I understand some churches are actually willing to do so).

In reality, a church is not needed to marry, and neither is a license. In religious terms, the marriage is nothing more than a public declaration of mutual love. It can happen just as easily in the back yard amid family and friends as it can in front of a Justice of the Peace... and in my view would be more fitting and morally binding.

Yet, the vitriol remains. I need not be a psychic to foretell that in this very thread I will be told how prejudice and 'homo-phobic' I am, or how I need to simply shut up with my obviously twisted ideas. And the fight will rage on, with neither side willing to listen to the others' concerns or give in to any compromise to further their cause. But before this thread breaks down into that, I wanted to commend you, sir, on your opening post.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Read this in another thread with a similar topic and thought I would share it here...


Originally posted by sageofmonticello

It is ridiculous how people like to assign rights by group in this country. Groups do not have rights, Majorities do not have rights, Minorities do not have rights.

INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE have rights.

Our USA is founded on the principal that even the most well intended majority can not impose their views by force of law on 3rd parties, unless the 3rd party is violating the rights of others.

The marriage of two gay individuals does not violate anyone's rights
Not allowing two gay individuals to marry does violate rights.

For a person to say "I think marriage should only apply to a man and a women" is just fine to say as an opinion.

For a person to say "I think the law should stop gay marriage" is the same as saying, I think that freedom of religion is BS. I also think the american code of laws (the constitution) is crap. Rights should only be given to people I approve of.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Misoir
However marriage in a church and observed by any religious institution should be up to the decisions of said religious institution. If the Presbyterian Church does not permit gay marriage then it is a violation of the religious groups right to freely practice their beliefs if your force them to marry two homosexuals.


Every gay person I've known has been Christian. I am not telling them they can not have a church wedding and be married in the eyes of their god.

The legal Marriage License - - issued by the government does not mention god in any way. It is a legal secular government contract - - named Marriage License.

Separate but Equal - - - is Never OK. It is Marriage. It is not civil union.


EDIT: adding to my own post.

No - I do not think any church should be forced to marry gays.

There are plenty of churches more then willing to celebrate this equality and marry gay couples.

I do think any clerk working as a civil servant who performs civil marriages must be required to officiate and sign the legal document whether the couple is straight or gay. I do not believe they have the right to refuse.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thank you for the kind words. I am of a similar opinion regarding the nature of government involvement in the Marriage process. If the government wants to use social engineering through the creation of contractual obligations between induviduals, then so be it; but should not be tied to a religious ceremony.

Government should decree that all "marriages" be henceforth called "civil unions" or something of that nature. They should be open to any pair of humans (I would prefer a group option, but I am being realistic) regardless of race, creed, religion, age, or gender. At that point, people can do whatever sort of "marriage" ceremonies they want in the facility of their choice, assuming they are welcome, but that would not give them the rights of a civil union. That would involve a signed contract enforcable in court.

It is a simple solution, really. Given that the current "institution of marriage" as we know it is only about 175 years old (or roughly 7 generations), this is not really much of an impact, other than the cultural boundaries.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It seems to me that the easiest way to resolve the issue is to take the term 'marriage' completely and absolutely out of any legal context and return it to its religious roots. Cohabitation is not marriage, and marriage in its religious sense is much more than cohabitation. From a secular point of view, it is merely a legal contract between two consenting adults, with each bearing legal responsibilities and enjoying legal benefits. Any term could be used to describe that relationship, and if 'marriage' is not a legal term the state loses all ability to regulate it. It becomes a religious function only, open to anyone who wishes to perform such a ceremony (and I understand some churches are actually willing to do so).


Separate but Equal - - is Never OK.

A superior attitude will always be present if only some citizens - - who believe in god - - can use the term marriage.

Being gay does not exclude one from believing in god and being involved in their church. In Los Angeles - where the natural ethnic population is Hispanic - - there are many gay Catholics. And there is a Catholic church that caters to their need. (granted the priest was ex-communicated - - but he remains a priest in his eyes and gods - - and his followers). There is also a large Jewish population in Los Angeles. They also have a place of worship with a gay Rabbi.

It is legal for an Atheist to get married. If marriage is exclusively for god believers - - why is this legal?

No - - - marriage can not be an exclusive terminology for just hetero couples.



Yet, the vitriol remains. I need not be a psychic to foretell that in this very thread I will be told how prejudice and 'homo-phobic' I am, or how I need to simply shut up with my obviously twisted ideas. And the fight will rage on, with neither side willing to listen to the others' concerns or give in to any compromise to further their cause. But before this thread breaks down into that, I wanted to commend you, sir, on your opening post.

TheRedneck


LOL


I would never say that to you. I have too much respect for you - - and the intelligent backed logical arguments you put forth.

I think it must be difficult for all who were raised in a strict conservative family to move forward and accept gays.

Can't even imagine what it must like to be gay coming from that upbringing.

I feel fortunate to have been raised in an open thought family - - with strong emphasis on integrity and personal responsibility.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Government should decree that all "marriages" be henceforth called "civil unions" or something of that nature.


I don't believe going backwards will solve anything.

I think people need to move forward in accepting all people and their differences.

Marriage is the current term and should remain. We are ALL God's people.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The truth is, people like using their voting power to press their believes on others. And there's politicians who use that to get elected.

Such as the women in the horror documentary jesus camp, saying that the fatal flaw that'll destroy democracy is that people need equal rights. When instead, she said, basically only christians deserve to have rights.

And there's the bigots who just hate gay people and want them inferior.

~
All the arguements against gay marriage(destroying marriage for example, slippery slope to marriage raping children and bestiality) are just excuses covering up the less respectable unfair reasons people are against it.

~
What I really hate, is when people say government shouldn't be able to define marriage. The government already has been defining marriage, and the entire movement is about letting people define it themselves. Instead of letting the religion of the majority define it for them.

I believe all marriages should become civil unions. And if people want to be "married", it'll be an unofficial status they can appoint themselves(Either through a church, family gathering, or in private). It would solve all the issues.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I believe all marriages should become civil unions. And if people want to be "married", it'll be an unofficial status they can appoint themselves(Either through a church, family gathering, or in private). It would solve all the issues.


Again - - it creates an "us vs them" attitude.

It does not promote equality.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

Separate but Equal - - is Never OK.

Separate but Equal - - was never mentioned in my post, nor have I ever endorsed it.

You are hung up on a word. You want the word 'marriage'. OK, fine. If you can find a church to marry you, you're married under my proposal. But you being married won't get you any tax breaks or legal rights. For that you need a license for Doogledybabonkadoo or whatever you want to call the legal replacement for marriage. Under my proposal, I couldn't get married to my wife unless I went to a church, and unless I had a license for Doogledybabonkadoo, it wouldn't get me any legal benefits either.

Equality. Period. Marriage is religious, takes place in a church (temple, holy ground, natural setting, whatever according to your personal religion) with no governmental regulations, and has no legal standing whatsoever. Doogledybabonkadoo has legal standing and is open to anyone who obtains the license.

Ministers/Rabbis/Clerics/Wise Men/Prophets-of-Whatever perform marriages as they wish on who they wish. it does not matter to the government or to others in society because it is meaningless outside of the religion.

How is that 'separate but equal' when everyone is under the same legal umbrella?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
I believe all marriages should become civil unions. And if people want to be "married", it'll be an unofficial status they can appoint themselves(Either through a church, family gathering, or in private). It would solve all the issues.


Again - - it creates an "us vs them" attitude.

It does not promote equality.


There is already an "us" vs. "them" attitude and nothing will stop that. Besides, if every "marriage" is a "civil union" (or Doogledybabonkadoo
) in the eyes of the government, then there is no "separation" from a legal aspect.

With regard to the word itself and/or the ceremony, it is mutable as well. I have friends who were "Hand Fasted" because they are followers of a pagan religion. They use the term handfasted for religious reasons and marriage for legal reasons. If anything, the proposed idea serves only to strengthen the sanctity of the religious ceremonies within the respective religions by providing a distinct differance between the religious componants and the governmental componants.

edit on 8-14-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers

Thank you, sir! It would appear we both arrived at similar conclusions independently, meaning I am not totally crazy after all.


Now if we can convince others... the removal of the word 'marriage' from government would do wonders to dissuade those fears I mentioned in my last post, legally prevent any religious-based discrimination into people's private lives, and perhaps bring what could be an explosive disagreement to a peaceable and mutually beneficial ending.

Not to mention, there are some 'families' that are not homosexually-based but still do not receive the benefits of marriage. Two orphaned brothers living together for economic reasons should have the same tax benefits as a married couple IMO. They are splitting resources just the same, except there is no sexual component to the relationship.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by rogerstigers

Thank you, sir! It would appear we both arrived at similar conclusions independently, meaning I am not totally crazy after all.



I wouldn't go that far..




Not to mention, there are some 'families' that are not homosexually-based but still do not receive the benefits of marriage. Two orphaned brothers living together for economic reasons should have the same tax benefits as a married couple IMO. They are splitting resources just the same, except there is no sexual component to the relationship.

TheRedneck


Agreed. I have acknowledged that aspect of the concept as well, but typically avoid bringing it up because it tends to water down the discussion.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
I have enjoyed reading all of the posts and opinions here.

I, myself, have decided that I'm anti marriage. This stands for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. I'm really starting to see it as more legal and religious than actually based on love in its purest form.

When I meet the person I want to be with for the remainder of my physical existence, no legal or religious contract is needed or desired. A priest or judge is also not necessary to solidify anything. As long as there are witnesses and the words/vows exchanged are factual and sincere, this is all that matters in my eyes.

There will be a small ceremony where our loved ones can witness us exchange heartfelt vows and rings, then celebrate the union together.

A piece of paper makes things so complicated. It's just too bad that so much is centered upon this paper. WIthout it, you can't share health plans, visit your mate in the hospital during certain cicumstances, etc. So, this piece of paper is a huge legal speed bump. If I joined with someone in the way I described above, is there a loop hole somewhere that would allow us to do said things without the contract? I'm aware of civil unions, but these usually only apply after 7+ years of sharing the same residence depending on the state.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join