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 just disagree with them stealing the term marriage.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.”
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.
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.