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.

 

I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

page: 7
60
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If a person is critically injured in a car accident, who should have the right to pull the plug? Typically it would be a legal spouse, but it gets complicated if there is no legal spouse. Is it a parent, or an adult child, or an ex-spouse?

It would most likely be something along the lines of:
1) significant other. If none:
2) parent. If none:
3) adult child. If none:
4) next of kin. If none:
5) Attending physician, based on probable outcome.

This is no different, really, than if a couple were in an accident, one died and the other ended up on life support.
I would imagine there are standards used in such a case.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


You're right, but in the current scenario, there can be a "significant other" that is a lifelong partner, that has no say-so in the matter. That person might disagree with the attending physician, but they have no legal standing. That is a wrong that needs correcting. It could be a gay partner that isn't recognized legally, or it could be a dear friend and roommate that has been in charge of their care for decades, but legally they have no standing.

When you say "significant other," we need to allow for the evolving definition of that term, and we need to legally recognize those significant others that don't fit the mold from 100 years ago.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spw184
And also to the people who where talking about civil union but not religous union, Isn't that kinda what new york did??


No. Gay marriage is completely legal in New York. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia all have legal gay marriage.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
You're right, but in the current scenario, there can be a "significant other" that is a lifelong partner, that has no say-so in the matter.

True. This is ridiculous. The significant other, especially a life-long partner, should get the say-so, married or not. Anything less is discrimination, and if they want to legislate the issue, it should be done to empower the non-married couple, of whatever persuasion.

Or, as a novel concept- all family members, significant others, and physicians get together and work it out.
I realise that there would be battles, feuds, etc. involved at times, but there already are in many cases, so there would be no difference, as far as I can see.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
The gay debate question has come up again, and the op has pointed out a few things. However, having read the posts that were responded the following can be stated:

The entire issue of Gay Marriage is a new aspect of a social dynamic change that is going across the country. Up until recently it has not gotten any sort of question, as societal norms would not allow for people to think outside of the paradigm of a marriage is between a man and a woman. For years people who were homosexual in orientation were either considered sick, or had to live in the shadows, to prevent any form of discrimination. Even the laws on the books, allowed for the very persecution of homosexuals. Then things change, society changes, the dynamics of what makes a society function changes.

Now homosexuals have some freedoms and are no longer persecuted. Homosexuals enjoy some of the very freedoms that were denied to them, such as the right of privacy, and the very right to be happy today, where in the past they would not be allowed for such.

People use the father/mother figure as a means of an argument against homosexuals when it comes to the act of marriage and children, yet the question is why is it such a bad idea? After all there really is no real concrete study as to what impact may occur if gay marriage is allowed. There is no study that supports that a child needs a father or a mother to grow up to be a successful adult and member of society. None what so ever. And if that were the case, then there would be more people in jail, cause what is a normal family any ways? The day of the nuclear family is gone, there are no more June Cleavers, they have gone to work, and have no more time to spend with the kids than Ward does, as both parents are often working hard to make ends meet. Children raised in the X generation were raised to TV and being latch key kids, as both father and mother were absent during the years of growth, only being there on their days off.

Also the number of single parent households rose up, along with divorce rate, where one or the other parent was missing, and yet those children came out all right, have not broken any laws, and do what every one else does. Why are they so different than those in the Ghettos, where the complaints about no father figure is mentioned? Did they have an advantage or is it that the parent that was there set an example for the child to follow? Lots of men and women grew up either being a latch key child or having only one parent, and they seem to be alright.

And of course there is the religious aspect that people would use to promote the very idea of discrimination against one group, all on the grounds of morality. The question then must be asked whose morality should we go by? Yours? The morality of the Catholic Church, or the Baptist, or the Protestants, or the Judaic, or the Lutheran, or the Calvinist, or the Methodist, or any one of the Judaic religions? Funny that sort of looks like the very same thing that goes on in countries like: Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Syria, or Turkey, or any number of Islamic republic and states, where the breaking of any one moral laws is punishable, to include death in some cases.

And those who quote the bible, do not even follow all of the laws in the bible, save when it is convenient for them to do such. Oh they find the passages, that are there, yet when asked about the other laws in the bible, the some 615 laws that were set down, along with those that are against homosexuality, they can not answer such or choose to ignore such. That is hypocrisy at its finest, after all who here is willing to go, as it is written in the bible as a law, 5 miles out of town to go to the bathroom, then do the ritual to cleanse themselves before coming back into town? Or how about the hot dogs and shrimp that some like, should we use the laws that are in the bible against those people, stone them to death or even shun them cause they broke a religious law and edict? After all it wasn’t that too long ago, when it was considered an offence to eat meat on Friday’s and be refused heaven.

We are a nation of laws, not of religion, our very foundation was based on that principle, law first, god second, and as sad as it may seem, that has to be. To do anything else, to base an argument solely on the very notion that we need to follow the Bible when it comes to any issue, using the morality as an argument sets up for a bad law and a country that would be willing to discriminate against any group cause they did not believe as you did. We are not all Christians, and we should not be expected to follow those beliefs, there are 5 major religions or beliefs in this worlds: Judaism, (That consists of Islam, Christianity and Judaism) Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism and Ancestor worship. All beliefs and religions falls into one of those major 5, so then which one is the correct one for the country, or should we leave religion out of the mix and just stick to the laws of the land to guide us, knowing that if you use one set of morality to guide a law, you would ultimately discriminate against someone who does not believe as you do.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Ditto!!

One thing I’ve noticed from gay men is they have a hard time being monogamous. I say let them get married. Hetero sexual males shouldn’t be the only ones who have to pay or divide their assets after a divorce. Once gay men loose $$ or property they'll think different about tying the knot!



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beowolfs
reply to post by whaaa
 


Ditto!!

One thing I’ve noticed from gay men is they have a hard time being monogamous. I say let them get married. Hetero sexual males shouldn’t be the only ones who have to pay or divide their assets after a divorce. Once gay men loose $$ or property they'll think different about tying the knot!


At least the state and lawyers would be making a boodle of money. I heard the average homosexual relationship lasts about anywhere from a month to six months, and usually ends due to multiple sex partners while in a relationship. I lived in an apartment building with two homosexual men next door, and all they ever did with fight with each other over other guys continuously.





edit on 7-9-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


So what? You proud or something?

You're not a consistant Christian if you arn't a homophobe, You're just someone with "vague" faith.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverForget
You're not a consistant Christian if you arn't a homophobe


And there you have it folks!
To be a REAL Christian, you must persecute gay people! After all, that's what Jesus did, right? What? He loved and protected sinners? He left the judging to God? I guess he wasn't a "consistent Christian", whatever that is...


That was hilarious. Thanks for the blatant display of hypocrisy. I needed a good laugh this morning.

I am proud of the OP. Too bad more so-called Christians don't follow the teachings of Christ.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by NeverForget
You're not a consistant Christian if you arn't a homophobe


And there you have it folks!
To be a REAL Christian, you must persecute gay people! After all, that's what Jesus did, right? What? He loved and protected sinners? He left the judging to God? I guess he wasn't a "consistent Christian", whatever that is...


That was hilarious. Thanks for the blatant display of hypocrisy. I needed a good laugh this morning.

I am proud of the OP. Too bad more so-called Christians don't follow the teachings of Christ.


Jesus would have warned them of hell and ask them to repent, and they would not and they would go to hell, if we are to follow the pattern of his ministry. A Christian would not be able to accept homosexual actions as not being sinful unless he was ignorant of scripture or took a liberal interpretation.
edit on 7-9-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Herp derp, I'm a Christian but let's forget about the Old Testament.

Herp derp, I'm a Christian and I don't realise that Jesus agrees with the laws and the prophets of the Old Testament.

Herp Derp.

Christians talk about "objective morality" but they soon change their attitude to homosexuality in this modern era of liberty. I find it laughable, and it just goes to show how stringent they are when it comes to their own scripture.

PS. Good old Jesus, eh?

At least the Old Testament didn't preach something as wicked and detestable as hellfire, not until the "gentle Jesus; meak and mild" was eternal damnation introduced.

Also, laughing at an argument doesn't add any credence to the rebuttal of it.

Have a pleasant day.
edit on 7/9/2011 by NeverForget because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beowolfs
reply to post by whaaa
 


Ditto!!

One thing I’ve noticed from gay men is they have a hard time being monogamous. I say let them get married. Hetero sexual males shouldn’t be the only ones who have to pay or divide their assets after a divorce. Once gay men loose $$ or property they'll think different about tying the knot!


i've seen varying statistics from various sources that state hetero men on average tend to have several times less partners than gay men.

also, that avg gay marriage only lasts 1-2 yrs. (how long does hetero marriage last on avg?)

i'm pro gay-marriage and see good things coming out of most all liberation movements, but i think there's *too* much focus right now on sexuality pride/rights and i would even say new gay marriage statutes remain a sugar-coating on the underlying problem in the gay community which is promiscuity/high risk lifestyle as fact remains at very least, 25% (probably even more) of america's gays are HIV+ and that's a bloody shame

looking forward to statistics that show homosexuals who have married actually are more monogomous during the rest of their life time but if you look at who's getting married its the very older gay folk (mostly) who have been around and now want to settle down. no problem with that but preliminary statistics show that married gay couple are reporting a high rate of infidelity so im thinking when whats not being addressed (marriage or not) in the gay community is testosterone levels plus some type of instability where two penises prefer lust & adventure over storybook wedding happily every after.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Marriage is bad period. I'll explain why:

Marriage under god is meant to be a life long commitment to your partner. "till death do us part".

When the system gets involved it's a life long commitment to the state -- you can divorce a partner but till death do you and the state part. The marriage license surmounts to a submission of your free will to the state (of the permanent sort). Sneaky bureaucrats....

I'd rather get married under god than the satan that is this system any day of the week. That includes their "fee" they can shove it where the sun don't shine. I never needed the state's blessing for it in the first place, I should not have to beg their permission to get married to someone who is equally willing. My relationship is not of their business. Straights and gays alike need to tell the system to butt out of the bedroom and mind their own business in terms of relationships people make. Having a relationship is a willing act -- who you choose to have one with depends entirely on what you value in a relationship, if you value commitment and family those values will be what you look for in a partner, if not, you'll likely be treated like a trick. If you adjust your values to give people a chance, give the person who has always valued a commitment priority and leave it unto them to prove their interest in a commitment. If someone else takes their place, too little too late it's not worth the bother wasting your time fixing damaged goods.

I say this because I am happily married, but I won't be paying no priest of jerk off bureaucrat to bless such a union, ever.

I view this silly ritual of submission as surmounting to hiring some clown in a robe or suit, if I wanted my wedding to be a circus I'd go and hire a clown. Frankly my wedding is to be a clown free zone and there won't be any strangers invited. We decided we didn't really need a wedding till it was economically feasable to have one, for that we both need to get a little more settled. That doesn't change the fact that we identify as married and have done so for years due to the fact that we are committed, and no silly ritual could ever change that.

Marriage is a sham, the system's definition of it is totally perverse and you can see the proof of such as the end result of a majority of people failing to have respect for the idea of this sort of commitment. The proof is in how many marriages fail it shows how morally bankrupt we are as a society.
edit on 7-9-2011 by TheLastStand because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
I wonder about the physiological aspects of a child growing under a gay marriage. Would a boy with gay fathers grow up yearning for affection from another man? After all, the most influential aspects of our character happen during our infancy.
Would the adopting couple guide the child to become heterosexual, or would they encourage homosexuality upon him?

I don’t doubt the fact that a gay couple can provide a good home, care and education for a child. Perhaps even a more loving atmosphere then other ordinary couples might provide.
Never the less, how would this upbringing affect a child’s perspective of his/her sexual preference?

edit on 7-9-2011 by Beowolfs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by spw184
And also to the people who where talking about civil union but not religous union, Isn't that kinda what new york did??


No. Gay marriage is completely legal in New York. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and the District of Columbia all have legal gay marriage.

You miss understood the question being asked.

Even though gay marriage is legal in those states, that does not mean religious organizations are forced to participate. In order to become a member of a religious group (unregulated entity), you have to follow their specific membership rules. Remember what the first amendment of the US Constitution says? Government cannot make laws that prohibit the establishment of religion. Its a double edged sword.

Religion is protect by law.

edit on 9/7/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beowolfs
I wonder about the physiological aspects of a child growing under a gay marriage. Would a boy with gay fathers grow up yearning for affection from another man? After all, the most influential aspects of our character happen during our infancy.
Would the adopting couple guide the child to become heterosexual, or would they encourage homosexuality upon him?

I don’t doubt the fact that a gay couple can provide a good home, care and education for a child. Perhaps even a more loving atmosphere then other ordinary couples might provide.
Never the less, how would this upbringing affect a child’s perspective of his/her sexual preference?

edit on 7-9-2011 by Beowolfs because: (no reason given)


most studies (even the boy raised as a girl one) prove nature > nurture

in that regard (sexual orientation).

sexual preference is mostly developmental (has to do with testosterone effects on the fetus in the womb in early pregancy)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Good for you !


I'm happy to read there are still some open minded individuals around, not afraid to express their thoughts.

P.S.

I'm not gay... But for all no... sayers... Gay people are people to !

lol.

And usually so much fun.


edit on 9/7/2011 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I am in a curious place

I am for the right of a couple to get married in regards to fed or state
however
I am not for gay people getting a christian marriage. Why? because the bible is pretty firm in its stance on homosexuality in general, so it isn't a proper ceremony for gay people. Its similar to Pepsi becoming a spokesperson for weight loss...it clashes.

So, for the right to get married, sure...but for a priest, minister, etc...to actually marry homosexuals, I don't see how its a proper ceremony.

Keep in mind, I am atheist, but you know, if your going to do a religious ceremony, at least follow the guidelines of said religion...or just choose a different religion that is more compatible with what your doing. Respect to gays wanting to endure unions with each other...and surely the more intelligent can chime in and support the stance I am stating.
What government needs to do is stop giving any and all benefits to married couples and simply make a civil union that has equal weight to where marriage is now...along with hospitals, legal, etc...stop recognizing religious christian marriages, and recognise instead unions that can be done a multitude of ways, be it through marriage, or other ceremonies...or just a simple signing of papers at city hall.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I am straight and always will be straight. I feel a little angry by the forum moderater justifing actions that are immoral and sickening. If you are gay so be it. But don't try to convience me you were born that way, because it's a crock of poopie. You have allowed yourself to become that way by living in the flesh and not putting faith in jesus christ. It's still not too late to change and have eternal life. What will you say on judgement day? I have done alot of bad things in my life, that I feel remorse for, as for everyone else reading this post. But, I do feel some sins outweigh others. Yes I feel that homsexuality ranks just below murder and equal with adultry. Our news media and entertainment industry has ruined not only american values, but values of all humans. So continue on living for yourselves and will continue to pray for you. God bless.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
since someone mentioned their views such as likening homosexuality as equal to adultery,

i do agree married straights that go 'gay' for whatever reason (horny, prison, bicurious, seduced. etc) are what the christian scriptures speak against.

as for 'God said so and so' anti-homosexuality on whole, that sounds like a whole lot of 'thorn in the flesh' self-prosecution being shoved down the throats of dumbed down so called 'believers'
edit on 7-9-2011 by ignant because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join