Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





I just disagree with them stealing the term marriage.


Sorry pal, but you are a bigot. But in all honestly, probably the best possible bigot if that makes sense? I'm not trying to flame you, but if you think they should have the same rights, then the term is meaningless.

and you actually said "steal" which makes no sense at all, they aren't stopping straight couples from getting married.




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SerialVelocity



Second, I am SICK of seeing everyone around here being so quick to jump on someone's case about having a certain viewpoint... I understand that "hate" exists, but most of the time the people on here are expressing their OPINION in a civil fashion... Stop being ignorant to that fact and have a damn discussion!!! I am a Christian, but when someone goes on here and "bashes" my faith, I don't get all pissy because of it.. I recognize that everybody has their own world view, and who am I to tell them they are stupid because of it. Seriously people grow up and have the ability to discuss a "touchy" subject like adults!


If this was in relation to my anti-bible comment, it's just my opinion and I am just as welcome to believe it's worthless as you are to believe it to be a holy book. You can't complain about people's opinions and regard it as "bashing" you faith because it isn't, it is just a different viewpoint.


You are mistaken, but all is good. I wasn't referring to your statement at all. What I am getting at is the lack of understanding that other people have other beliefs. When I'm in a thread and someone expresses a viewpoint that is completely against my viewpoint, I don't go on there and flame someone about it. I am disappointed in the fact that so many people will get up in arms like there was a personal attack being made at them, when in fact these forums are means to *discuss* opinions and beliefs. In regards to your statement I didn't view it as bashing, i am generalizing a theme frequently discussed on ATS... And how we should all be able to discuss any topic civilly, no matter how flawed someone seems to be. I enjoy hearing other people's beliefs because it challenges me to think critically of my own beliefs, which in turn helps affirm my true feelings.

Have a good one!



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Even though it may not be all that to some, Here is an example of how it is inevitable.




Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage on Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. Supporters in the public viewing galleries stood and cheered as many on the Democratic side of the House floor hugged after the vote.

The state Senate approved the measure last week, and the bill now goes to Democratic governor Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law next week.




www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Thank you hawking for makeing that point. I would have use far more insulting comments to discribe his intelligence !

I find it very VERY insulting when people say "well then if we make gay marriage leagle then why can't I merry my farm animal". They are saying gay and lesbians are as low as farm animals on the evolutionary ladder!!!

I can call him a moron and an idiot but I won't get my post and reply removed for TandC. Violations

I'm just sorry I can use str



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by IanPaul
In respect to others who's faith doesn't agree with using the term "marriage", why wouldn't the gay community work for the conditions rather than the term?


It's to do with equality.

Agreeing to call it something different would be implying a lack of equality or a difference. I personally have no idea why persons want to give Religion a foot up on this. You can have wiccan weddings, you can have hindu weddings, you can even have an athiestic wedding ... but not a gay wedding? We already have terms for it, so why make more?

I don't understand any of it anyway. For example, I wouldn't want to marry a Chinese person perhaps, and I don't like banana yellow cars. If I see someone driving past in a banana yellow card holding hands with a Chinese person I'm not going to start posting fliers about it, start an organisation, or claim they're violating the color spectrum and we need to have a different word other than 'color' for the shade of vehicle driving past. Perhaps I call it ... domestic spectrum partnership or something.

It's the equivolent to agreeing to sit on the back of the bus. If Christians want their marriage to be unique and different from everyone elses ... come up with your own word? Find a Jewish or Arabic term or something otherwise you have to sit in the same aisle as anyone else that wants to prefix the word marriage with their faith/religion/undying devotion to the flying spaghetti monster.

Lets be honest though ... if it was called legal partnership and everyone kept it in the cupboard, the exact same people would have some other problem anyway so nothing would be solved.



I believe I understand where you are coming from, but I see where the general consensus is coming from too... I mean that in the end, if gays want the same rights as hetero marriages, meaning all of the benefits (and lack there of) to being married, wouldn't the fight be about gaining the same benefits recognized, by means of going to court to state that a domestic partnership is equal to marriage in benefits?.... So in agreement with some of the OP's statements that would have probably sat better with the general public. Just remember what seems logical to you may not seem logical to others... ie. people who just don't think the term marriage should be used for whatever their reason. (not making them right of course but again that is their thought process.)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Thank you hawking for makeing that point. I would have use far more insulting comments to discribe his intelligence !

I find it very VERY insulting when people say "well then if we make gay marriage leagle then why can't I merry my farm animal". They are saying gay and lesbians are as low as farm animals on the evolutionary ladder!!!

I can call him a moron and an idiot but I won't get my post and reply removed for TandC. Violations

I'm just sorry I can use stronger terms for him!!!


Be safe people..............yes I mean everybody
edit on 9-2-2012 by viperdave because: Didn't Finnish the post. Please remove first post on this page



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by casenately
Even though it may not be all that to some, Here is an example of how it is inevitable.




Washington state lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage on Wednesday, setting the stage for the state to become the seventh in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

The action comes a day after a federal appeals court declared California's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional, saying it was a violation of the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

The Washington House passed the bill on a 55-43 vote. Supporters in the public viewing galleries stood and cheered as many on the Democratic side of the House floor hugged after the vote.

The state Senate approved the measure last week, and the bill now goes to Democratic governor Chris Gregoire, who is expected to sign it into law next week.




www.guardian.co.uk...


Exactly. It is inevitable. I predict this issue of gay marriage will eventually go to the Supreme Court. I predict the Supreme Court will find a ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, therefore all states will be forced to allow it. This is exactly how it happened with interracial marriage, which was a VERY intensely debated topic as well. Here is an interesting article comparing interracial marriage opponents with gay marriage opponents.

www.law.virginia.edu...


Opponents of gay marriage use many of the same arguments as foes of interracial relationships did before Loving v. Virginia outlawed state bans on interracial marriage in 1967, said law professor Kim Forde-Mazrui at a talk sponsored by the Center for the Study of Race and Law and Lambda Law Alliance Sept. 30. “If religious, scientific, moral opposition to interracial relationships—sex, marriage, and adoption—were wrong, notwithstanding the sincerity and good faith of those who believed in the opposition, then are the same arguments any more justified when they are used to oppose same-sex relationships?” Forde-Mazrui asked. “It seems that the similarities at least shift the burden….We’ve tried this before. We’ve learned in hindsight this is wrong.”



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
What is the main benefit in marriage. You are united as one and if you divorce you are divided by half. Half your house, half your money, half your crap.

"Gay Marriage" it is all just a big conspiracy for the one whom is designated the woman in the marriage. Reason being, so they can get half of everything their partner has just like a marriage between a man and a woman. Assuming, some dude out there was in a 20 year relationship with his partner and they split up. He left with what he brought into the relationship while his partner, the man of the relationship, took everything he had worked for.

It's not rocket science. You have the butch partner that is a CEO to some company worth a lot of money, then you have the woman in the relationship that is a flight attendant, that brings in $30k a year. Everything is separated because there is no union so there are no rights to each others belonging. Now there is gay marriage and BAM, I'm leaving you and I want HALF!!!!

Beat it up as you see fit, but it makes sense one way or another.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I am pretty sure those who are gay may at some point in time experience some incontinence problems too. Not so tight there anymore now are yeh?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


This just goes to prove that gays are the same as everyone else and that the right to "marry" should not even be a discussion.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
My best mate, whom i have known for more than 30 years and whom I consider a brother is not only gay but he is also married. They have been together for almost 20 years now and married for about 5, they are going strong and have never strayed. As a matter of fact they are quite boring, they hate the 'scene' and both have very professional jobs. The are no more or less loving towards each other than any other heterosexual couple. My mate is a decent guy, funny and intelligent. He is no lesser being.
I myself have been married in a hetero marriage for over 20 years and we are going strong. Shame that in all that time, we had to see almost all of our hetero friend's marriages fail. It is annoying when they are both friends and they get divorced. I am so glad that my gay mate has a solid relationship because those two deserve nothing less, even though theirs is still called a 'civil partnership'. However to us and to themselves they are MARRIED. They are more civilized and mentally advanced than the OP can ever imagine to be.
How can you live in the 21st century and still talk such utterly insulting rubbish about fellow humans [and animals from what I have read]?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


People that start their point with "Im not gay" or "I'm not anti-gay" tend to actually be one of those two.

What is the issue with calling it marriage. Why have it both ways? If we've got two ducks that both walk, quack, act and look like a duck why call one of the ducks a "Webbed foot, billed water fowl"? (hopefully someone is following this).

And even though marriage wasn't bliss to them, 14 gay couples have been married (according to the article.) and one of them is being divorced. That's what, roughly a 7% divorce rate now? I'd say their still doing better than heterosexual couples.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Ok, so the title and the article is about one of the first gay couples getting a divorce, but you are talking about you don't like the word "gay marriage".

Unless you are saying you don't like the word "gay marriage" because gays are getting a divorce, your argument and your article and title does not match.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
For me personally marriage has been tainted by too many straight couples. It's lost its meaning and its magic long time ago , with all these kids rushing to get married only to divorce a year later.

Nobody seems to respect the vows of marriage and what it means to share such a special bond.

The gays can call it marriage if they like because the straights have already tainted the beauty of marriage beyond recognition .

I do not believe you are a homo-phob for wanting to not call it marriage , its just your view , and opinion . Means nothing of your character. and i personally am ashamed to see so many people call you homophob because of it.


I guess homophobes is the new anti-semtisim.
You critize one thing and they point the finger and cry , look he is a homophob!! lol

kinda like when you critize israel and they cry anti-semtism .


For what its worth op, i do not think you are a homophob , and i am sorry you had to hear some of these ignorant comments , and the finger pointing .

Its easy to label someone so you don't have to hear their arguments . Its worked well for the zionists! As soon as that title is set upon you , character assination and kil the messenger takes place.

Sad times we live in .
edit on 9-2-2012 by seedofchucky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV


Emphasis on HE can never divorce her as long as HE lives. So technically the sanctity of this marriage remains intact right? I mean, heterosexual union, perfectly legal, socially accepted, religion approved, and most importantly, no divorce.

I have nothing else to add.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I've often said that simply changing the term for it, from "marriage" to "social union" would quiet a lot of the religious fervor.

Simply put though, same sex "spouses" do not get the same benefits of the partnership that a heterosexual couple do, and this can often cause a lot of problems.

While hetero myself, I do know quite a few gay couples, and I've seen the challenges they have with things like medical insurance, life insurance, even when it comes to seeing them in the hospital, etc. (most lie and say my sister or my brother)...or even when it comes to filing taxes, etc.

No real reason this is as complex as it is... (and, in time, it will be one of those no-brainers).....



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I've often said that simply changing the term for it, from "marriage" to "social union" would quiet a lot of the religious fervor.


But why? Why should the gay community have to kowtow to religious bigotry?



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Gay people getting married should not have the word "marriage" involved. Ill tell you that right now. Marriage is before God , and it is for religious reasons generally , or use to be , now it is a simple tradition.

The Christian God , Yahweh , lets you know blantly that he is NOT a fan of gay couples. Not because he doesn't still and will always love both of them , but because of the sin they are living in every second of their lives. Though we all sin constantly , this is what bible scholars would call a saturation sin where it affects every nano second of your life.

Though they may be good people , i do not agree with gay marriage.

I believe they should have access to "Civil Unions". They have rights , but i want to protect marriage before my God and before myself. Marriage is for a Man and a Woman - through tradition - and Civil Unions are for same-sex couples.

Churches should not be FORCED to give marriage ceremonies unless they do so willingly which they would be pertaining in that sin along with the couple , and will be held most likely in a more accountable fashion , they willingly and blantly broke the sanctity of Christian marriage.

Circumstances do apply.

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

Marriage - (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same-sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Marriage was CHANGED to include same-sex couples in 2003 when the same-sex marriage thing started to kick into gear.

We changed a definition of something that had value of the 1st definition for hundreds of years , make that thousands of years.

Same sex marriage is not traditional. It should NOT include same-sex couples.

Civil Unions should.
edit on 9-2-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
Marriage was CHANGED to include same sex couples in 2003 when the same sex marriage thing started to kick into gear.

Same sex marriage is not traditional. It should NOT include same sex couples.

Civil Unions should.


Your point is lost on me. 170 years ago slavery was CHANGED because of social enlightenment. Same as this issue. About a 100 years ago women were granted rights that they should have had all along. Because of social enlightenment. Society learned that past behavior was WRONG. One question... where was religion in those issues? Head in the sand? Change can be a good thing. You've got to bring religion kicking and screaming into the right avenue though.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Do i not have the right to my religious beliefs? The government does not have the constiutional ability to supress religious beliefs , and their hand in marriage , which is a religious ritual is discriminating on Christian beliefs. Same-Sex couples , even if the church agreed , should still not see the marriage because the government took the definition of marriage from the religious ritual of the Christian marriage.

A NEW definition should be given to same-sex marriage , becasue the Christian definition - from which it was taken and accepted into government benefits , does not include same-sex marriage.

Civil Unions should - if you want to say marriage as a personal term , then whatever. The governemnt should not change a definition and tradition that is part of a religion.

When i say government , it could mean either state / or the federal government. I am bad about saying governemnt when i some time means the states. So if you would be so kind to apply to either or.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The status of common-law marriage in the United States varies by state. In Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877), the United States Supreme Court, relying on Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126 (1875) ruled that Michigan had not abolished common-law marriage merely by producing a statute which established rules for the solemnization of marriages, because it did not require marriages to be solemnized: it required only that, if a marriage was solemnized, it could be solemnized only as provided by law. Otherwise, the court found that, as the right to marry existed at common law, the right to marriage according to the tradition of that common law remained valid until such time as state law affirmatively changed it. The Court did not find it necessary to pass special legislation specifically outlawing the common law contract of a marriage, but it was sufficient for a state's general marriage statutes to clearly indicate no marriage would be valid unless the statutory requirements enumerated were followed.

While a number of U.S. states recognize either same-sex marriage, or domestic partnerships with the same legal incidents, as marriage, no U.S. state except Iowa, where the law is untested, currently recognizes same sex common-law marriages. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act permits any state to not recognize same-sex marriages from another state, and provides that the federal government will not recognize any same-sex marriages.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 9-2-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join