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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I can agree with that. There must be a contract or an agreement that allows all couples, gay or straight, to be granted legal rights to one another. That would include things like property, children, insurances and many more.

I am not opposed to any of that as long as all couples are granted equal rights and we are finally able to put this silly issue to rest. Are we so barbaric in our thinking that gay "marriage" is still an issue? I mean, c'mon...really?




posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Are we so barbaric in our thinking that gay "marriage" is still an issue? I mean, c'mon...really?


I would say those of "barbaric thinking" - - - are fear motivated - - not God motivated.

They are losing the "Lock Hold" they've had on America for way too many years. They don't like it.

Its about control. And they're in the "loser" corner.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Can't we just invent something that's exactly the same as marriage except we call it something else so the religious people don't get frustrated?

I mean really, how hard can it be?



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ssupp
Can't we just invent something that's exactly the same as marriage except we call it something else so the religious people don't get frustrated?

I mean really, how hard can it be?



NO!

Separate but Equal is NEVER OK!



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm
Ever read the 'camel and tent' story????


No, what is that story? I'd actually be interested to hear...



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Civil partnerships are nothing more than being "separate but equal".

Marriage is marriage, gay or straight. I didn't have a heterosexual sandwich this morning, nor did I have a homosexual stroll in the park (oh jeez, I could think of a few jokes..
).

I'm gay, and I obviously think everyone should be able to marry. Husband and husband, wife and wife, husband and wife, and wife and husband should all be titles. To erase such titles is too far, for me. "Partner 1 and Partner 2" do sound a little odd, but then again, I can see the other point of view as well.

I'm rather ambivalent. Interesting thread, S&F for you!

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



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
changed my mind.
edit on 18-2-2012 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mamabeth
Partner 1 and partner 2...
I don't want to be refered to as partner 2 because some gay or lesbian
has a wild burr under their tail.I am a wife not a stupid,bloody number
on a piece of paper.


I agree that it does sound a bit weird, but allow me to play the devil's advocate.


You are what you define yourself as. Who cares if legally you're considered partner 1 or partner 2? If you're married to a man you'll obviously be identified as his wife, and he your husband. In some countries you'd be "Guardian #1" or "Guardian #2" to your children on school documents, yet you and your husband would obviously still be your children's mother and father. The number doesn't define you, what you define yourself defines you.

That goes for both sides.




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



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by deepankarm
 


To be completely honest, I can care less what they do concerning this. The way people are married today is so far away from the way it was done a long time ago. A man and a woman were considered married if they had intercourse a long time ago. That is actually the way the Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, structured things. I do not need a piece of paper or a government to tell me that I am in union with a woman in the eyes of God. I will serve the Lord. It does bother me that so many people put so much stock into worldly things. If people would focus on their eternity half as much as they they do in this life, the world would be better off.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Just more politically (in)correct idiocy. I am sorry, but it is the government's responsibility to protect freedoms, not feelings. how about we eliminate the words mother or father, i take offense to the fact that i cannot have a baby as a male, oh, how about male and female? Replace them with , oh, i don't know, comrade, no more actor's or actresses, just humans who act, or, waiters, or waitresses, now we shall call them, food carry to your table specialists, .... ah, forget it, let's just remove all individual identity from anyone, so no one is offended. To be honest, I don't like the fact that the word which described a positive state of being, such as happy, is now limited to the male homosexuals. why can't i describe myself in that manner without association to such? Maybe we should introduce legislature to have that word changed back, and no longer affiliated with homosexuality.

We have labels for identity purposes, for clarity. less time describing. D*****, be proud of the titles and labels you carry, gender related or whatever. who cares.

I am not anti gay, just anti idiocy. Just making a point.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by resist2012
. . . how about we eliminate the words mother or father, . . .


That's already been done with the Passports.

It is now: Parent 1 and Parent 2.

As it should be - - to make it fair and equal to every parent.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The OP title is retarded,

because of course same sex gays WOULDNT want to be called "husband and wife"

(DUH?)



Talk about close-mindedness. Sheesh.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


well, who is parent one and two? And what determines it? What if I want to be parent one? Maybe the mother should be, since she actually gave birth to the child, or what if I want to be parent one, because I am older.
Maybe I will be offended by the number scale, since usually one is a better number, if it were in placing order. But then again, 2 is a bigger number so therefore, can also be better. And isn't the term parent offensive to non-parents? that's not fair they get a title and people without kids are something else. I think we should just take our language back to a series of grunts and tones. the cavemen had it right.

Guess my point is calling something by another name doesn't do anything. There is no equality in ANY label given to anything, and no way to make it equal. All it does is create confusion and frustration.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by resist2012

well, who is parent one and two? And what determines it? What if I want to be parent one?


Useless drivel.

You apparently feel threatened.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by PhantomLimb
 


You are talking to a Christian who believes we are more than just animals. And besides being Christian, I have practiced yoga for many years. I believe as the yogis believe, that the spark of the Divine dwells within. A wise Brahmin knows that even in his devotion to his wife, he is giving adoration to God.

Incidentally, there is a teaching that the energy dwells in us as kundalini fire which runs through the spinal column. The Hindus have given names to the three channels of energy that spiral up the spinal column. These are the Ida, Pingala, and Sushumna. The energy starts at the base of the spine, the base chakra. The three channels represent the male, female, and neutral energies. As the energy rises, the male channel crosses over the neutral channel and changes polarity to the feminine channel, and they cris cross up the spine in such manner. This action is called the cadeucus. You may have seen an image of this cadeucus on a doctor's office door.

www.google.com... C3Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQsAQ&biw=1080&bih=644
In some people, the energy is imbalanced.


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

edit on 19-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


A sensible statement. Marriage is a religious institution after all( a crowning achievement of Christian Women and the Catholic Church, as marriage really didn't exist among the Germanic peoples as we define it today).

The problem is, there are some who use the gay issue to hide their real motives: The abolition of religion, heterosexuality/hetero-normalism, basically they are psychopaths who want to make a mess of things for the heck of it. People who won't be satisfied until they are dancing in the street while covered in the blood of those they slaughtered(See Bolsheviks).



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by resist2012
. . . how about we eliminate the words mother or father, . . .


That's already been done with the Passports.

It is now: Parent 1 and Parent 2.

As it should be - - to make it fair and equal to every parent.


This is why gay's should be given their own country. If all the countries in the world deported homosexuals to one place, there would be a large enough population to support a real country.

It is ridiculous how homosexuals are terrorizing the heterosexual community into submission. Nothing but tyrannical bigots. Incapable of leaving others alone, forcing themselves upon a society that wants little to do with them.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ssupp
Can't we just invent something that's exactly the same as marriage except we call it something else so the religious people don't get frustrated?

I mean really, how hard can it be?



Umm, that would be matrimony


but heterocentrics seem to now collectively pretend it doesnt exist,

that way they can "defend" straight "marriage" to call 'their own'




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by resist2012
. . . how about we eliminate the words mother or father, . . .


That's already been done with the Passports.

It is now: Parent 1 and Parent 2.

As it should be - - to make it fair and equal to every parent.


This is why gay's should be given their own country. If all the countries in the world deported homosexuals to one place, there would be a large enough population to support a real country.

It is ridiculous how homosexuals are terrorizing the heterosexual community into submission. Nothing but tyrannical bigots. Incapable of leaving others alone, forcing themselves upon a society that wants little to do with them.


In reference to your signature... You're trying to swim through the ocean of perspectives, how haven't you drowned in your sea of bull$%*#?


We will have an amazing country, where well-dressed unicorns run rampant and rainbows fulfill the night sky. I like it!
Thankfully, you don't speak for all of society.
edit on 19-2-2012 by ofNight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Agree with this 100%.

Then all the religious people could get out of the gay marriage argument.


edit on 19-2-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join