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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

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

It does not promote equality.


I disagree. The "us vs them" attitude comes from the people who think gay peoples private lives are attacking their god or their way of living. Abolishing state regulated marriage would not change that any more than allowing gay marriage.

So what if a few churches would then refuse to marry gays? Without regulations, they could do it in whatever way they see fit(like a big fancy family reunion, or a small private vacation), and the church would be unneeded anyways.

~
After you get past giving gay people equal rights, you have to consider relationships without intimacy. Where there isn't any want for the term marriage, but they'd like civil union benefits. They could get the civil union and never personally get married. Giving them equality to those who are actually in love, without having to take the vows.

And, polygamists. They could get married themselves, without the state needing to go through the hassle of approving it. Giving them equality too.




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I just don't understand anyone objecting to people's happiness.

As long as they close their door...Who cares?

If you are against Gay marriage on a religious basis.

Get over yourself and quit judging people.

If "God" is that opposed, don't you trust him to pass judgement?

Doesn't our book instruct us not to judge and to also forgive?

If we take the same amount of time we spend judging, looking in the mirror.

We might be amazed at what we could learn about ourselves.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


The entire "marriage" debate is absurd. As constructed it is an argument over rights associated with a civil contract. Specific civil contracts should have no greater standing than others, period. Should someone wish to enter into a civil contract with someone and that contract bestows upon them certain rights and priviledges then the government should have absolutely no say in the matter, period. It is nobodys business. The same applies to someone who wishes to enter into a similar contract with more than one person.

To the extent that the government has objections to specific types of civil contracts, then it should remove the benefits accrued to everyone who enter such contracts. To suggest that "marriage" is a heterosexual only contract is discrimination and likely unconstitutional, granting separate and unequal treatment of the law to certain people.

Marriage is and should be considered a religious matter. Gays are not going to get married in the Catholic church or the Greek Orthodox church, period - and that is the way it should be. There are more liberal religions that are willing to marry gays. Fantastic. It gives gays an opportunity to have their marriage blessed in a religious institution should they desire that.

For those who suggest that it is for the sake of children, than women post menopause and the elderly should not be allowed to get married, nor impotent men. You would reasonably deny the right to marriage to drug addicts, chronic gamblers and alcoholics. You would seriously consider not granting a marriage liscence to severly handicapped people. The issue regarding the protection of children is a canard. These same folks who would deny marriage to a gay couple who has been in a committed relationship for a decade think nothing of granting a marriage liscence to a man and woman who have been found guilty of child abuse, despite their rationale that denying the liscence to the gay couple is based on a desire to protect children.

The entire notion of denying gays the right to "marry" is illogical and laced with bigotry.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

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.
[] That would involve a signed contract enforcable in court.


Agreed.

1)
Government should be involved in the creation (and dissolution) of legal and binding "civil unions" of any two, three, or more individuals of any race, creed, religion, consenting age, or gender. These binding agreements should convey right of heir, familial hospital visitation, etc. It is not the government's role to regulate morality, only to enforce contracts.

2)
Religious institutions or family gatherings should bear witness to spiritually lawful "marriages", (and divorces) which should not be legally binding and should be allowed to be performed by anyone. It is the role of church and family to regulate spiritual morality. Religious institutions should be free to marry only individuals they see fit to marry.

Individuals should be free to engage in both, either, or none of these types of agreements at their will.

The words marriage and divorce should have no place in government. Religious institutions should have no right to legally bind anyone.

Sri Oracle


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



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Nope, no gay marriage, and kids need to grow up with a mother and a father(if possible) not two mums or two dads, its an insult to the human race. I also believe with well over half the world being religious if we were to put gay marriage to a vote in a democracy, it would lose.

Around 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a disease, well it still is, regardless of how imbecilic society and the governments have become, it should be frowned upon and not supported by any government under any circumstances. Next we'll have weirdos saying our cult of 500 homosexuals wants to have one big marriage, and we want the right to bring up as many kids as we like so they can be brain-washed by our perversion, no thanks, the line needs to be drawn at gay marriage, these freaks wouldnt have even been born if their parents were as perverted as they are.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw
Nope, no gay marriage, and kids need to grow up with a mother and a father(if possible) not two mums or two dads, its an insult to the human race. I also believe with well over half the world being religious if we were to put gay marriage to a vote in a democracy, it would lose.


Studies actually show children of 2 lesbian mothers are happier and better adjusted then any other combination.

Children need love - nurturing - acceptance.

There is little gender role division anymore. The idea that a child has to have opposite gender parents - - is archaic - - and unnecessary.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

Studies actually show children of 2 lesbian mothers are happier and better adjusted then any other combination.

I would really like to see those studies.

Seeing as I don't have them before me, my experience with raising children tells me that the younger a child is, the more said child needs the nurturing mother role. As the child ages, it will naturally look to the more authoritarian father role. To say that both roles are not necessary is to go against centuries of conventional wisdom. It requires quite a bit of evidence.

I will disagree with you on this point, sorry. Are we discussing equality of marriage or equality of adoption rights? If the former, I am all on board, but if the latter... I could care less about someone's supposed 'right' to adopt. It is trumped by the child's 'right' to have the best rearing possible... sex life of the adopters notwithstanding.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
After you get past giving gay people equal rights, you have to consider relationships without intimacy. Where there isn't any want for the term marriage, but they'd like civil union benefits. They could get the civil union and never personally get married. Giving them equality to those who are actually in love, without having to take the vows.


I don't understand that paragraph.

You take a right away - - to prevent equality with what already exists? How is that fair?

Is that the same as a school doing away with all their campus clubs - - - to prevent one gay club? 'Cuz that's how I interpret it.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I consider the argument of government involvement in marriage contracts - - a completely separate argument. It should not be part of equality for gay marriage.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

Studies actually show children of 2 lesbian mothers are happier and better adjusted then any other combination.

I would really like to see those studies.


I guarantee you I did not make it up. Studies have been done that show kids better adjusted with two moms.

Since both you and I are intelligent - logical - and not BSers - - - - we both know/understand - - studies are paid for. Why/who and where the grant for a study comes from does affect how the study is "engineered".

Ages of children is also important in a study. Younger children tend to cling to mommy IMO. Did the study involve teenagers? I don't know.

Can't research right now. Home visiting hubby. Kind of co-computering right now. He's working - I'm making him laugh.


Personal Side Note: you two look similar. When I first met him (hubby) - he had a big red beard and was wearing a cowboy hat. I do love my manly men

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



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Found this diagram to fully explain the Biblical definition(s) of marriage:




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


The Man+Woman+Concubine explains why Solomon's Temple is so important to the males of certain groups. This actually explains a lot!



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee

I didn't mean to insinuate you made it up, only to insinuate what you have already admitted to: the age of the children, the socio-economic conditions, even the purpose of the study are all variables we do not know.


Since both you and I are intelligent - logical - and not BSers

...then can we agree that the issue of adoption should lie exclusively with the best interests of the children involved and not with the political or social desires of the prospective adoptive parents?

I can see this as part of a separate issue, while I cannot see how the legal definition of marriage can be segregated from the legal scope of marriage.

(I hope your hubby had the good taste to wear a Stetson like me. Anything else is just a hat.
)

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

...then can we agree that the issue of adoption should lie exclusively with the best interests of the children involved and not with the political or social desires of the prospective adoptive parents?

(I hope your hubby had the good taste to wear a Stetson like me. Anything else is just a hat.
)

TheRedneck


LOL - - Oh Yeah! It was definitely a Stetson. We met in a country western bar.

"Children's best interest" - - ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now off to watch a DIY show. I love my power tools too



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Annee

Studies actually show children of 2 lesbian mothers are happier and better adjusted then any other combination.

I would really like to see those studies.

Seeing as I don't have them before me, my experience with raising children tells me that the younger a child is, the more said child needs the nurturing mother role. As the child ages, it will naturally look to the more authoritarian father role. To say that both roles are not necessary is to go against centuries of conventional wisdom. It requires quite a bit of evidence.

I will disagree with you on this point, sorry. Are we discussing equality of marriage or equality of adoption rights? If the former, I am all on board, but if the latter... I could care less about someone's supposed 'right' to adopt. It is trumped by the child's 'right' to have the best rearing possible... sex life of the adopters notwithstanding.

TheRedneck


www.livescience.com...
www.time.com...
www.foxnews.com...




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw
Nope, no gay marriage, and kids need to grow up with a mother and a father(if possible) not two mums or two dads, its an insult to the human race. I also believe with well over half the world being religious if we were to put gay marriage to a vote in a democracy, it would lose.

Around 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a disease, well it still is, regardless of how imbecilic society and the governments have become, it should be frowned upon and not supported by any government under any circumstances. Next we'll have weirdos saying our cult of 500 homosexuals wants to have one big marriage, and we want the right to bring up as many kids as we like so they can be brain-washed by our perversion, no thanks, the line needs to be drawn at gay marriage, these freaks wouldnt have even been born if their parents were as perverted as they are.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)


Wow, hyperbole much? What is preventing Heterosexuals from getting a cult of 500 heterosexuals wanting to have one big marriage and bring up as many kids as they like to be brain washed into their "unnatural perversion"?

I mean aside from your argument being filled with obvious personal bias and conjecture with no real basis on reality, it's also a really bad example that contributes next to nothing to the discussion. How does anything you said related to actual laws? Oh, and "because I don't like it" is not a valid reason to restrict the rights or priviledges of others.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Marriages in the US have two components, religious and legal.


...no... there is legal, not legal and illegal... all three aspects can apply to ethnic customs, religious customs and customs that have nothing to do with ethnicity or religion...


Originally posted by rogerstigers
Another aspect I have seen discussed is that allowing gay marriage would damage irrevocably the institute of marriage.


...key word is institute and, as is often the case, it is just a "my way is the only right way" elevator...


Originally posted by rogerstigers
you get the argument that the wishes of the majority should trump the wishes of the minority. I do not understand how the majority is harmed.


...when things dont go like they want them to go, they think they're being harmed but, really, its a mental problem that is an equal opportunity screwer-upper... i've even had critters afflicted with that ailment...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I was hoping for something more substantive then, "It doesn't hurt anyone."

Gay marriage is the attempt to legalize behavior. I never said good or bad. I said behavior.

Behavior is controlled and legislated every day. Like it or not. You are not allowed to do drugs...why? It has been decided as a society that it harms users and family alike. Do not bring in alcohol. That has been around for eons and is settled. You are not alloowed to drive fast. It is harmful to yourself and others. You are not allowed to have multiple spouses. Why? 3 grown adults should be allowed to make that decision? Polygamy has been decided to be harmful to society and the people involved.

Homosexuality is anathema in "Abrahamic" religions and societies. Call it primitive. Call it childish and "unenlightened." Your opinion is NOT superior to those who follow a book. It is a different opinion.

Gays seek to gain acceptance through one method. Force.

The Stonewall riots.

"Jimmy has two Dads" in every library. MANDATORY.

Forced gay history in California.

A FEDERAL protected class.

Marriage MUST be accepted or those who oppose are racist, homophobic, right-wing, hatemongers.

You can choose to identify yourself by where you stick your winkie. Others choose to identify themselves as Christian, Jewish or Muslim. One is not superior to the other. One is not INFERIOR to the other. But if 5 thousand years of history shows anything it is that Gays can ONLY win through fear and intimidation.

You want to be Gay? Go be Gay. Stop telling others "My life MUST be accepted no matter how offensive you find it." I am Catholic. We are the ONLY politically acceptable group where you are allowed to openly mock and ridicule. Do I force people to accept me? No. I tell them "I still love you."

Get married. Civil ceremonies are legal.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


I was hoping for something more substantive then, "It doesn't hurt anyone."

ou want to be Gay? Go be Gay. Stop telling others "My life MUST be accepted no matter how offensive you find it." I am Catholic. We are the ONLY politically acceptable group where you are allowed to openly mock and ridicule. Do I force people to accept me? No. I tell them "I still love you."

Get married. Civil ceremonies are legal.


For the record, I am not gay or bisexual. I have no inclination in those areas; although I have no phsycial or emotional revulsion to it. Just not interested.

As far as ceremonies, civil or religious, that is irellevant. The ceremony is not the issue at stake here. With the exception of a few states in the US, only marriages between a man and a women are qualified to get tax breaks, purchase a house together, pass along inheritance, have visitation and critical health decision rights in a hospital, buy spousal insurance coverage, etc.

I agree that activists in the GBLT community can be extreme at times, but then so are those that oppose. The one who shouts louder seems to win, when really it should be about the more convincing argument.

As far as it being a "controlled behavior", well, I agree. We have some rediculous tendancy to want to control the behavior of others even when it has nothing to with us or those in our care. Perhaps we should remove the logs from our eyes before trying to take the splinters out of the eyes of others?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


You take a right away - - to prevent equality with what already exists? How is that fair?


I believe you meant inequality, right? I clearly am not for preventing equality.

But you're not taking it away. You're just stepping out of the equation. No one would get the right to get married taken away, they just wouldn't need the states permission.

There's personal, religious, and legal sides to marriage. The state could easily offer the legal side without interfering with with the personal or religious sides. Non-interference is different from taking rights away.

Here's another example. Christian couple, have thought hard about it, and they decide they're ready to get married. Will god not recognize their marriage until they have the state certificate proving it? Should they have to pay money to the state for something between the two of them and god? Churches should set their own personal rules for god's unions to the members, and individuals should set their own standards for their personal unions too. The state should be left out of that.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haxsaw
Nope, no gay marriage, and kids need to grow up with a mother and a father(if possible) not two mums or two dads, its an insult to the human race. I also believe with well over half the world being religious if we were to put gay marriage to a vote in a democracy, it would lose.


No studies ever proving kids need two different sexed parental units. Nowadays, children are lucky to grow up with two of any gender anyways.

Also, since gays don't have children(for obvious reasons), they adopt. Are you saying being adopted by a gay family is worse than living in an underfunded orphanage?

We both know the majority isn't aways right. Unless you want to say slavery and the mistreatment of women were genuinely moral behavior because most weren't against it in the past.

Part of the definition of democracy includes protecting the rights of the minority anyways. You can't disguise a tyranny of majority as democracy.


Originally posted by Haxsaw
Around 50 years ago homosexuality was considered a disease, well it still is, regardless of how imbecilic society and the governments have become, it should be frowned upon and not supported by any government under any circumstances. Next we'll have weirdos saying our cult of 500 homosexuals wants to have one big marriage, and we want the right to bring up as many kids as we like so they can be brain-washed by our perversion, no thanks, the line needs to be drawn at gay marriage, these freaks wouldnt have even been born if their parents were as perverted as they are.
edit on 14-8-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)


You have about as much proof that homosexuality is a disease, as I have that red hair is one. Red hair should be frowned upon and not supported by any government under any circumstances. Oh, don't forget black skin too. That was considered a disease, well it still is.

Your opinions have no solid facts based off them, and then you act like people should be condemned for something you have no basis for hating.

How are homosexuals perverted? I mean, I've had a few extreme examples before of individuals. But on an individual basis theres even more perverts among heterosexuals.

Also, most gays don't raise their children to be gay. They raise them to be themselves. Which is much less brainwashing than the straight couples who are raising their children to have to be straight.

~
If you're interested in brainwashing children, watch jesus camp. Real brainwashing is a lot worse than "I'll love you regardless of if you end up liking boys or girls".



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join