Gay Marriage: We cannot afford to indulge this madness

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Again and again? Quoting the conservative Daily Mail? It's like asking catholics if they like the pope. My husband and I have been happily married for over 20 years, we have decided consciously not to have kids. What is the difference?
I think people who can't have a good marriage are trying to find an outlet. Forget the church, not everyone is a believer. A marriage between two people is a statement that they have chosen each other to stay together for the rest of their lives. Some people manage, others fail. What in the world does it matter what gender they are?

I see enough [family] of so called people of god do things in their marriage that I as an atheist would NEVER do because my love is true and not just painted on. So stop preaching and get a life.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I am a VERY STRAIGHT MALE....ALPHA MALE....from MASS. Gay Marriage is legal here....and it has posed no problems. I could care less about someone elses SEX LIFE! Neither should anyone else. Split Infinity


if you COULD CARE LESS means you care enough... learn your own language.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Marriage is a legal contract. If it were merely a religious one then there would be no need for a license from the State to be wed. To deny someone of a license based on sexual preference would be paramount to denial based on religious preference. Both are "lifestyle choices".

If one is so worried about marriage and its sanctity then perhaps making them harder to get would be a more appropriate course of action. Civil action for breaking the terms of the contract should be made sterner also.

If marriage is a primarily religious affair, then govt should have no business in it. No tax advantages given, no special perks afforded, no legal obligations recognized.

It would be statistically probable that the highest number of divorces in the U.S. are among those who would claim themselves to be Christian. Perhaps we should be looking closer at that group as being responsible for subverting marriage and deny them of this "holy right"?????
edit on 093131p://03America/Chicago04 by Tinman67 because: wording



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I have a question regarding gay marriage that I wish someone could address. Personally, I am not against gay marriage and have never quite understood why equal simply does not mean completely equal. For me, this applies to everything from gender, to race, to religion. In my (idealistic) mind, equal should simply mean equal with no advantage in place for anyone. Having said that, here is my actual question:

One of, and please note the word "one", the reasons people oppose gay marriage is because God defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Please don't go quoting scripture or anything, this is a generally held belief amongst Christians -- right or wrong.

If we as a society define the sexual orientation of a person using different terms: heterosexual versus homosexual; then why wouldn't the legal union of persons with differing sexual orientations also be different?

In other words, why wouldn't the legal union of two heterosexuals be called marriage, while the legal union of two homosexuals be called something else? Mind you, I believe no matter which term is used to differentiate the two unions, the rights should be the same.

Further to my question, would this differentiation and removal of the specific word marriage be enough to sway some opinions that base their opposition on gay marriage to a reference by God in the Bible?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


We cannot afford to indulge this madness

We, America, as a Nation, must "indulge" this question, or else a whole group of American Citizens, most of whom vote, and work, and serve, and spend money will be disenfranchised from the American Dream.

I am not a Gay person, but I do have a situation that relates to this subject matter. I live in Common with a woman I would really like to have as my wife. I am on social security disability, she is on SSI. She would lose all of her income if she were to marry me, or anyone else. She only gets an income as long as she remains single.
As I said, we live in Common, share a home and bed. We share in all things, and co-own all that we have. Our State, Ohio, used to have a Common Law Marriage law, but no longer do. We think of ourselves as being married, but cannot have the certificate of marriage.

I happen to agree on the word "Marriage," as meaning a male/female couple in contractual bond of marriage. I do not think this should be changed, it has stood as law for may years, and it would upset a lot of people were it repealed.

Why not a new designation of Civil Union? Two people wish to enter marriage contract together. They approach as a "Civil Union Couple" and sign the same marriage/bond contract as a Married couple does, perhaps changing the words, "Holy Matrimony," and having a different designation under the law. The same Rights would apply, as would the same services for United Couples, such as Insurance, Wills, Mortgage Loans, Rental Contracts, et al.
Thoughts?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
What if Homosexuality is just our species natural response to Over Population?


Do what ever you want.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hecate666
Again and again? Quoting the conservative Daily Mail? It's like asking catholics if they like the pope.


I quoted the DailyMail once.

It was to cite the fact that


Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

Daily Mail


Are you suggesting that 31 US states haven't voted down gay marriage?

Can you cite one state that has actually voted for gay marriage?

You can't. Because the majority of people don't support gay marriage.
edit on 4-3-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
I happen to agree on the word "Marriage," as meaning a male/female couple in contractual bond of marriage. I do not think this should be changed, it has stood as law for may years, and it would upset a lot of people were it repealed.

Why not a new designation of Civil Union?


They already have a 'civil partnership' in Scotland (where Cardinal Keith O’Brien is a leader of the Catholic Church) which grants gay couples all of the rights of a hetrosexual married couple.

Apparently that isn't good enough. Gay activists now want the 'civil partnership' to be called a marriage.


"When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien"

The Telegraph



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Miccey
I have this recent* (spelling)
against OLD men in TinFoil
hats...Specially those who
CLAIM to be living in the
real world....


It is worth noting that again and again, voters have rejected gay marriage.


Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

Daily Mail


Which shows how far behind USA is from other civilized countries.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote


Originally posted by juleol

Which shows how far behind USA is from other civilized countries.



Actually, my objection to gay marriage is calling it a 'marriage'. What happens when you tell someone you are married? Does that mean that you are perhaps gay?

If you are gay, are we only allowed to have husbands? If a lesbian civil partnership, only wives?

We should be told.


edit on 4-3-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sarra1833
 


how can you be pro smoking and anti drugs............. same thing



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Traditionally, marriage has existed to produce children. Without children, in the future, we will have no society.


I'm probably repeating others, I didn't read the thread - I just want to disagree in part with this quote.

Only sex exists to produce children. And we have more than enough of those. People will still keep popping out babies regardless of what the law says, and they won't get married to do it.


Marriage is a contract - no more, no less. In the past (and even still, today) people married for money, for land, for peace, sometimes by choice, sometimes ... not so much.


Most people in western society consider it a contract of love. To have, to hold, in sickness, in health, blah blah blah, you know the speech. Most of them aren't sitting down figuring out how they may benefit tangibly by being married. Some of them do not benefit and regret it later, I know a few.

IF I ever married anyone, it would be for no other reason than to have others recognize my partner (male or female, it doesn't matter) as my blood family.

Therefore, I think anyone should be allowed to get married - as many times as they like - to anyone they want to, regardless of gender, race, or religion.



I really don't understand it at the end of the day. Why does anyone even care if Ken and GI Joe down the street are married or just living together? Only Ken and Joe do. Maybe if Ken has a million dollars in the bank and Ken's sister wants to get her greedy little hands on it - then she probably cares. In my mind, married or not married, Joe is more entitled to it since he's the one committed to Ken, sharing a home, sharing the good, the bad, the ugly.

If a man croaks, and his girlfriend of 20 years doesn't get anything, people say "well you shoulda married him".
I think thats BS. The only reason why gay people want the government to recognize them as a couple is for this reason.
I personally don't think marriage should be required. I think Ken should've written a damned will, then it won't matter at all, to anyone, anywhere.


I think to sum it up what I'm trying to say is that the law needs to get out of the marriage business altogether. And if they wish to remain involved, then yes, it absolutely needs to be redefined. And it will need redefining over and over and over, just like most laws.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
It takes him a little minute to get to the real meat of it. In fact he doesn't really get it till the last sentence. But it's about children and what they need. The thought of these people raising children makes me nauseas. Am I going to be removed for saying this? Hmmm..... Let's see.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
It takes him a little minute to get to the real meat of it. In fact he doesn't really get it till the last sentence. But it's about children and what they need. The thought of these people raising children makes me nauseas. Am I going to be removed for saying this? Hmmm..... Let's see.
edit on 4-3-2012 by Hillarie because: Accidently posted twice. removing this one.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Cardinal Keith O'Brien isn't concerned with gay peoples' sex life. Rather, he is concerned with the redefining of marriage to include two people of the same sex.


You ever read the history of marriage?

Women had no rights. Were property - - bought - sold - bartered - used for political alliances - - etc.

Pretty much how things are today in parts of the Mideast - - - that many of the "sanctity of marriage" crowd love to condemn.

That sanctity of marriage?

It is a bogus argument - - conveniently used when ever the "self righteous" need an excuse.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
reply to post by deepankarm
 


You can get married and never have children, the whole having children thing is what we have created and related to it through out the years! After all, isn't that the reason we have opposite partners so you can pro-create? But you don't need to be married to do that!

Marriage is just a way of saying "I HAVE OWNERSHIP OF YOU"
In my personal view, any opposite sex couple which choses against having a chilld isn't married.
The main purpose of marriage is natural growth of a child and maintaining social order.
Otherwise, marriage is just a ''sex licence'' .


Dude look into the genuine history of marriage and you will find it was a 'property exchange" long before it had any religious meaning
LMAO "sex license".... And contraception is " whore pills"? How about Viagra? oh yeah that # is god's will cause it will help knock up a chick without enough "whore pills" as long as the " cloak of evil" is not placed on the rod and staff. Some days it is some high comedy and others just sad.
how many folks are felling like we are growing our own X-tian taliban? I have read the words of Christ repeatedly and have yet to read any of this crap. But for these folks it is like the notion of HIS covenant being law is not as reasssuring as an old testament religious dominionism.
Hey X-tian extremeists! focus on those red words. They will make you happier and more loving of your fellow man.
APB



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forevever
Marriage is a contract - no more, no less. In the past (and even still, today) people married for money, for land, for peace, sometimes by choice, sometimes ... not so much.


Yes - exactly - - - marriage is a contract - - - and that is really all it is.

Parents used to arrange the contracts themselves. Contracts would depend on culture and social standing.

When the Catholic church discovered they could make money by issuing marriage licenses - - they adopted the practice.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hillarie
It takes him a little minute to get to the real meat of it. In fact he doesn't really get it till the last sentence. But it's about children and what they need. The thought of these people raising children makes me nauseas. Am I going to be removed for saying this? Hmmm..... Let's see.
edit on 4-3-2012 by Hillarie because: Accidently posted twice. removing this one.


Let me see if I could rewrite my life......Live with my hetero-marriage Mom and step-creature and grow up as we did being brutally abused and molested, or have been adopted out to a gay couple who would have loved me and my brothers and been real parents I could be proud of....Hmmm.
Yeah I know it was....GOD"S WILL! Hillarie what would truly make you nauseous would be my account of the brutal molestations of children and bestiality with a Saint Bernard dog of my step-creature in my X-tian hetero house hold.
FWIW I have a great wife and have raised two batches of two kids ( first marriage) The most stable "couple" of our upline are my uncles who have been together 40yrs and are who saved us from a decidedly un-christian childhood. My brothers are both married and we have over sixty yrs of monogamy between us, 100 if you count who taught us about love and commitment,my gay uncles. not to mention the lessons in trusting God and loving the Lord never mentioned in your "Ideal" marriage of my Mom. Marriage is not "owned" by christianity.
APB



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino



Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote


Originally posted by juleol

Which shows how far behind USA is from other civilized countries.



Actually, my objection to gay marriage is calling it a 'marriage'. What happens when you tell someone you are married? Does that mean that you are perhaps gay?

If you are gay, are we only allowed to have husbands? If a lesbian civil partnership, only wives?

We should be told.


edit on 4-3-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


WHO CARES!!

I think its YOUR own fear telling you stuff that ISNT there....
If they are married WHOHO for them....
If they are GAY.....SOOOO?!?!?

Evolve frikkin neaderthals, this isnt the 13th century you know...
Get over it allready and move on...Thay aint threataning me..Or
MY style of living..I have a Female wife and two kids...Im happy
with that if there are ppl that do same sex i couldnt care LESS..
And i certanly will not care more if some geaser in some robes
tells me "The scriptures says it wrong"...What, what scriptures...
The ones YOU GUYS alterd to make YOUR lives easier...

FEAR, GREAD, POWER....FIKK that...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Evolve frikkin neaderthals, this isnt the 13th century you know...


People of a conservative nature do not assume that all change is neccessarily good. You appear to assume that it is (I apologise if I have missunderstood you), which perhaps leaves you somewhat open to manipulation.

Let gays have 'civil partnerships'. Don't call it marriage.

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Let gays find some other name for a 'civil partnership' but not 'marriage'.





edit on 4-3-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join