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.

 

Forget being called husband and wife, gay rights group wants 'parties to marriage' in bill to lega

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail link
edit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I suppose I don't understand what's wrong with "husband and wife" - or in this case "wife and wife" and "husband and husband."

I've never met a gay person who would actually support this crap, so my guess is that this particular group is just trying to get attention.

Then again, maybe it is time that we change marriage from a romantic and reproductive ideal to a mere "life partnership," whether romantic or not.


+8 more 
posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Whipfather
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I'm gay and don't support gay marriage at all.

I didn't have "gay lunch" today, I didn't "gay park" my car.

Stupid gay community and their nonsense. It's marriage and yes they should be allowed to do so, and call it whatever the hell they want, but this is too far.

Again, nonsense and insanity from this community. And we wonder why people have such a problem with the gay community?

~Tenth

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/18/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by deepankarm
 


Actually, I agree with this stance.

We need two separate entities.

We need "marriage" as defined by the church and performed in the church, according to whatever the church thinks is best, but without any legal, tax, or other repercussions.

THEN, we also need what the government recognizes as "legal unions," with two "two parties to the union." This legal union should be what the States recognize, and what is important for tax and legal repercussions.

Everyone should be eligible for a legal union, and sexuality should have nothing to do with it. As far as marriages, there should be no regulation whatsoever. It shouldn't be banned or recognized by any government entity. If some church wants to marry gay couples, fine, if others don't that is fine too.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Homo phobia



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by deepankarm
 



Yeah...people are being over-sensitive as usual.

What else is new?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail link
edit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)


On the contrary, the majority has NO right to eliminate the rights of minorities.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
If "marriage" was not regulated by the government then this would not even be an issue.

Who cares what people do and what people call it as long as it does not step on the rights of others? This entire issue is getting old and we should keep our noses out of other people's lives...and the government should keep out of it too!



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Absolutely nothing needs to change,
except gay couples should be allowed to get married
by what ever institution they wish that will do it.
Their rights need to be indistinguishable
from straight couples.

This is a forum full of libertarians.
This should be a non-issue.
A civil union or ANYTHING
that differs from what me and my wife have
is an abuse of their rights.

Its not unlike the "yeah they can ride the bus,
they just need to sit in the back."



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather
 


Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.
edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Human beings are animals.

Did you not pay attention in biology class?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by theBigToe

Originally posted by deepankarm
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail link
edit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)


On the contrary, the majority has NO right to eliminate the rights of minorities.


And in equal measure, the minority has no right to eliminate the rights of the majority!

The government is going to have to find middle ground, maybe let the people getting married choose what 'titles' they want, as opposed to forcing titles?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by theBigToe

Originally posted by deepankarm
I knew that was coming.
Now a minority within minority will define the rules of an institution formed by majority of us.
Really now its gone too far.
We have to stand up and fight this nonsense.
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????
dailymail link
edit on 18-2-2012 by deepankarm because: (no reason given)


On the contrary, the majority has NO right to eliminate the rights of minorities.


And in equal measure, the minority has no right to eliminate the rights of the majority!

The government is going to have to find middle ground, maybe let the people getting married choose what 'titles' they want, as opposed to forcing titles?



Nobody is trying to take away your rights. You want segregation to stay present in the law. The LGBT community wants equal representation. Nobody is eliminating any of your rights.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Pretty much all I see is some QQ about not being a special snowflake anymore. Who CARES what they want to call it? Why does it matter to you? it's not really affecting anything in your life. If they want to call each other different names so what? I mean really with all the other actually important issues going on in the world, THIS is what matters. Marriage is not exclusively owned by any party. It was here before religion, and it will probably be here afterwards.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
They can ask for this, and should be respected in terms of an identified gay marriage, but that doesnt mean they can override our words and terms and what the majority wish for themselves.

I have no problem with 2 sets of names or terms however, as I don't think they will be able to hide their identies, ie, everyone involved will know its the marriage of the same sex.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Actually -- this reminds me of the issue with the Passports. Where Father - Mother was changed to Parent 1 - Parent 2.

I actually agree with the base of this argument.

For legal purposes (forms and such) - - "husband and wife" does exclude gay couples.

The alternate "Partner 1 and Partner 2" - - should be - - at least - - included on all documents/forms etc.

Who cares what terms individuals in their personal life use.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
They can ask for this, and should be respected in terms of an identified gay marriage, but that doesnt mean they can override our words and terms and what the majority wish for themselves.

I have no problem with 2 sets of names or terms however, as I don't think they will be able to hide their identies, ie, everyone involved will know its the marriage of the same sex.


On the contrary, just because you have a belief it doesnt mean that you have the right to pass legislation which affects other people and segregates them into various groups by the government. I dont want to be rude, but your beliefs dont have any evidence to back up their claims. Absolutely no substance whatsoever. Therefore, nobody has any reason to take them seriously. They are just beliefs. I could believe that you are evil and should be executed by the government. If I convinced the majority of the country that this is cool, do you think that gives them the right to impose it?? This is not even blowing things out of proportion because going by your freight of thought you open the doors for religions to dictate legislation. You are imposing your religion on the rest of the country. What will be next? Selling your daughter into slavery? Stoning anybody that works on a Sunday to death? Executing homosexuals? Endorsing incest? Pedophilia? How about we invade the rest of the world and force the rest of the world to submit to Christianity?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whipfather
 


Why do we have to change from a romantic ideal to an animalistic partnership just because some people view sex as merely a way to get off? That is so secular sounding, so sterile. Instead of the romantic ideal, everyone just do it like animals, oh yah some people do.
edit on 18-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Human beings are animals.

Did you not pay attention in biology class?


Actually - I think animals are a lot smarter in "hooking up".

The males have to prove their worth first.



edit on 18-2-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by theBigToe
 


Actually I don't believe in our governments or laws, its beyond not believe I renounce and denounce all evil and corruption.

However, why do you think its fixed and remains like a rock over your head?

Of course they need to address this and make those changes, since gays are finally allowed to marry, they will need their own terms, and WHY NOT, have the real people choose instead of their servants?


That one makes sense!

What wouldn't make sense is if they had the right to force an across aboard change on us, the majority, when we don't want that change.

Would much rather have two sets of guidelines than that one.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lovebringer
Pretty much all I see is some QQ about not being a special snowflake anymore. Who CARES what they want to call it? Why does it matter to you? it's not really affecting anything in your life. If they want to call each other different names so what? I mean really with all the other actually important issues going on in the world, THIS is what matters. Marriage is not exclusively owned by any party. It was here before religion, and it will probably be here afterwards.
lol..
Marriage is a religious institution but i guess due to the fact that your history books mention only one religion i.e. christianity, you make such ridiculous statements.



new topics




 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join