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.

 

Gay Marriage: We cannot afford to indulge this madness

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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


NO! Separate but Equal is Never acceptable.

Marriage is a contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household. That is all it is.

The real history of marriage - - shows just how ridiculous the "sanctity of marriage" argument is.

Legal Marriage - - is a government contract - - named "Marriage License". No where in that Legal contract is a god or religion mentioned.

Tuff Patooties!




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
You ever read the history of marriage?

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


So you are attacking the institution of marriage but advocating 'marriage' for gay couples. What did gays ever do to you?

Besides, why don't gays make do with all of the civil rights of a marriage (note: this is a Scottish case where gays can have a civil partnership) and keep on calling it a 'civil partnership' instead of demanding the right to call it a 'marriage'?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
so two people of the same sex getting married somehow makes a traditional marriage less legitimate? Christianity, or religion for that matter, doesn't have a patent on marriage



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Marriage is a contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household. That is all it is.


I'm not sure you read the article referenced in the OP.

Gays already have all of the rights of a marriage under Scots law if they wish - a civil partnership.

What they are demanding is the right to call their civil partnership a 'marriage'.

Why can't they call it a civil partnership?



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

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
You ever read the history of marriage?

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


So you are attacking the institution of marriage but advocating 'marriage' for gay couples. What did gays ever do to you?

Besides, why don't gays make do with all of the civil rights of a marriage (note: this is a Scottish case where gays can have a civil partnership) and keep on calling it a 'civil partnership' instead of demanding the right to call it a 'marriage'?


Why don't gays "make do"? Really?

Because they are 100% equal to heteros.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Why don't gays "make do"? Really?

Because they are 100% equal to heteros.


Equal but different.

Are mother equal to fathers?

Yes they are.

Does that mean that mothers should demand the right (in law) to be called 'father'?

Equal but different.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee

Why don't gays "make do"? Really?

Because they are 100% equal to heteros.


Equal but different.

Are mother equal to fathers?

Yes they are.

Does that mean that mothers should demand the right (in law) to be called 'father'?

Equal but different.


NO - - not equal but different.

100% Equal.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Who cares if marriage means of the same sex or different? Marriage isn't a religious thing, its controlled by the government. If you personally want to make it something of religion that is your choice, but do not force it upon me or anyone else.

Why would I listen to an organization that helps cover up pedophilia cases anyway?
edit on 4-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Laws are being enacted right now to change legal forms from "mother" "father" to "parent 1 and parent 2".

What each family calls themselves in a marriage - - is their choice.

Mother/Father are gender bias words. They are not a necessity.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
NO - - not equal but different.

100% Equal.


In that case, I demand the right (in law) to call myself 'Annee'.

100% equality after all.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Laws are being enacted right now to change legal forms from "mother" "father" to "parent 1 and parent 2".



When will this PC madness ever end?

"parent 1 and parent 2"? Which is which?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Laws are being enacted right now to change legal forms from "mother" "father" to "parent 1 and parent 2".


This illustrates the madness of this whole approach. The majority have to conform to the whims of the minority.


Originally posted by Annee
Mother/Father are gender bias words. They are not a necessity.


Thanks, that gave me a good laugh.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Who cares if marriage means of the same sex or different? Marriage isn't a religious thing, its controlled by the government. If you personally want to make it something of religion that is your choice, but do not force it upon me or anyone else.

Why would I listen to an organization that helps cover up pedophilia cases anyway?


The Legal Government Marriage License in America was actually enacted to prevent interracial marriage.

A legal government practice based in race discrimination - - not religion.

I'd say our government better end gender discrimination ASAP.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
Laws are being enacted right now to change legal forms from "mother" "father" to "parent 1 and parent 2".


This illustrates the madness of this whole approach. The majority have to conform to the whims of the minority.


Originally posted by Annee
Mother/Father are gender bias words. They are not a necessity.


Thanks, that gave me a good laugh.



I'm not laughing.

Whims of the minority?

NO! Whims of the gender prejudice and guilt/fear ridden "holier then thou self righteous"



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
NO - - not equal but different.

100% Equal.


In that case, I demand the right (in law) to call myself 'Annee'.

100% equality after all.


Go ahead.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Annee
Laws are being enacted right now to change legal forms from "mother" "father" to "parent 1 and parent 2".



When will this PC madness ever end?

"parent 1 and parent 2"? Which is which?


Parent 1 is parent 1

Parent 2 is parent 2

Pretty simple.

Of course their actual name would be filled in. They'd be known by their name.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   



I'm sorry, you make it impossible to take this thread seriously.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


We have two distinct terms separating the sexual orientation of people:

Heterosexual and homosexual

Then why wouldn't the legal union of these two groups also have two distinct terms?

The legal union of two heterosexual people should be called marriage, as it always has, and the legal union of two homosexual people should be something else.

However, BOTH groups should be afforded the SAME rights.

I don't see anyone fighting to abolish the term homosexual, so why wouldn't't different terms be used to identify the legal union of each group?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by Annee
 


We have two distinct terms separating the sexual orientation of people:

Heterosexual and homosexual

Then why wouldn't the legal union of these two groups also have two distinct terms?

The legal union of two heterosexual people should be called marriage, as it always has, and the legal union of two homosexual people should be something else.

However, BOTH groups should be afforded the SAME rights.

I don't see anyone fighting to abolish the term homosexual, so why wouldn't't different terms be used to identify the legal union of each group?


Here's a thought, how about we call every legal union of two people a marriage and if anybody wants to add certain conditions you are free to call it, for instance, a Christian marriage, a Muslim marriage, a gay marriage, an atheist marriage...etc.

Peace



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by Annee
 


We have two distinct terms separating the sexual orientation of people:

Heterosexual and homosexual

Then why wouldn't the legal union of these two groups also have two distinct terms?

The legal union of two heterosexual people should be called marriage, as it always has, and the legal union of two homosexual people should be something else.

However, BOTH groups should be afforded the SAME rights.

I don't see anyone fighting to abolish the term homosexual, so why wouldn't't different terms be used to identify the legal union of each group?


Because despite the sexuality of the relationship, the LEGAL relationship is the same. It's a marriage...it doesn't matter who it is, or what it is. People have married DOGS and called it marriage.

Should we give the union between dogs a different legal title too? No, because no one cares. The only reason we question this is because we want to make it clear (and by "we", I mean the church-goers of the government and voting society) that we don't approve, and still view homosexual couples as different from heterosexual couples.

That's exactly what it is. People want to make homosexual marriages different, because of religious qualms. Is that justifiable? I don't think so.

If we can call it marriage with dogs and not lose sleep, we can call it marriage with gay couples. I don't see a problem with it. Is it hurting anyone? Is anyone losing rights (besides gay people)? No.

So what's the problem? If you don't get your way, who is getting hurt? No one. But if you DO get your way, we have a form of discrimination. Because in affording them a different title, thereby separating them from the "generic" marriage, we discriminate.

What's so hard to understand? These are not the principles we were founded upon.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join