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.

 

300,000 oppose gay marriage in biggest petition since election

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
reply to post by ollncasino
 
Why does anyone care? How do same sex couples being married effect
any of these petitioners? The petitioners certainly have an effect on gay couples.
Silly fool, the petitioners invented marriage with their own straight and holy hands!! Everyone knows god hates love in any other form!


Honestly, it annoys me how a certain group of people can hi-jack something ancient and culturally relevant to so many people, and decide to use it for their own agenda. To me, no matter what culture, what religion, what sex or cultural preference, marriage is something subjective that stands unique to every individual. Everyone views marriage differently both internally and externally, and it`s just disturbing to me to say anything similar to "You're wrong, that's not marriage". Kills me that any government would feel justified in making a call on such a subjective thing.




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Are people still arguing over this?
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter at all? It will make people who love each other happy, so what? Who are these 300,000 people? I'd like to talk to them and inform them about their ignorance and intelligence (or lack thereof)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by aardvark888
 


Lot of things have changed over the last few decades ....economic trouble,war,socialism,unemployment,death of disco....... you can't pick two and assign blame. I will agree with you on the education aspect of your comment. Schools focus on lots of things but neglect to teach personal accountability

Ask a homosexual why they're unhappy. Ask a feminist why she's unhappy
How can your neighbors being a married homosexual couple have any bearing on the sanctity of your family unit.

Why must we infringe upon other peoples right to pursue happiness for us to be happy???



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mythos
 


mythos, I'm VERY passionate about this very subject, I won't allow nor honor anyone trying to force MY friends & FAMILY, to abide by a broken, archaic, ignorant, misguided, homophobic, racist, "right wing party" I won't condone it. I will if I have to derail this thread till the "WRONG wingers" decide to see the facts as they are. More people are FOR gay marriage & RIGHTS than they are against it. But leave it to the ignorant "WRONG wingers" to skew the truth, they are turning into the very thing this nation fought against in ww2. I SUPPORT and back GLBT and the right to be legally married & have every right everyone else has & there are plenty of polls showing more then 40% are for gay rights & marriage. So why is it you "wrong wingers" want to LIE, DECIEVE & be DISHONORABLE to this country? ask yourselves that very question. Oh and JP Morgan has TERMINATED the accounts held by the "vatican" they NO longer want to do business with such a group. Makes one think ...

edit on 25-3-2012 by MisticRebel because: grammar



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MisticRebel
reply to post by mythos
 


I will if I have to derail this thread till the "WRONG wingers" decide to see the facts as they are.


again, i respect your perspective. but a statement such as the one i have quoted above is just as 'wrong' as your 'wrong wingers' profess on their bully pulpits.

you do NOT have to derail a thread to get your point across. rage is met with rage. and blind rage will never convince anyone of anything... ever.

there is a way to blend your fierce passion with strong healthy debate skills that will bring about this change you so desire. check out MLK, or Ghandi for a few of the more obvious examples.


Ok... just to throw a love-bomb into all this banter: a little quote by Joseph Campbell, one of the more sensible fellows to have walked this earth, in my opinion:

“Marriage is not a love affair. A love affair is a totally different thing. A marriage is a commitment to that which you are. That person is literally your other half. And you and the other are one. A love affair isn’t that. That is a relationship of pleasure, and when it gets to be unpleasurable , it’s off. But a marriage is a life commitment, and a life commitment means the prime concern of your life. If marriage is not the prime concern, you are not married.”

mull on that folks, if you so choose, whilst i turn off this machine and embrace the day.

cheers!




edit on 25-3-2012 by mythos because: spelling



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky
Who are these 300,000 people? I'd like to talk to them and inform them about their ignorance and intelligence (or lack thereof)


I signed it so you can talk to me.

Its perhaps best to try to stay civil however and not assume that you are smarter than the people who signed it.

Here is a list and some of them are pretty intelligent.



Lord Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop
Prof. Sir Denis Pereira Gray, Exeter
Prof. Brenda Almond, President of the Philosophical Society of England
Prof. Kenneth Walters, Aberystwyth
Prof. David Paton, Nottingham
Prof. Roger Trigg, Oxford
Prof. John Turner, Belfast
Prof. David Watts, Manchester
Prof. Clive Osmond, Southampton
Prof. Mel Richardson, Portsmouth
Prof. R. Ivan Lewis, Newcastle
Prof. Andrew Tomkins, London
Lord Mackay of Clashfern, former Lord Chancellor
Baroness O’Cathain OBE, Conservative
Fiona Bruce MP, Conservative
David Burrowes MP, Conservative
Jim Dobbin MP, Labour
Joe Benton MP, Labour
Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe
Edward Leigh MP, Conservative
Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Crossbench
David Nuttall MP, Conservative
Stewart Jackson MP, Conservative
Bob Blackman MP, Conservative
Jeffrey Donaldson MP, DUP
Julian Brazier TD MP, Conservative
Peter Bone MP and Mrs Jennie Bone, Conservative
Jeremy Lefroy MP, Conservative
Craig Whittaker MP, Conservative
Richard Drax MP, Conservative
Lord Brennan QC, Labour
Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Independent Labour Peer
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (Director Network of Sikh Organisations)
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, UUP
Lord Tombs, Crossbench
Earl of Shrewsbury & Talbot, Conservative
Admiral Sir William O’Brien
Brigadier W I C Dobbie
Brigadier Charles Hince CBE
Lady Elizabeth Shakerley
Lord Grantley
Lord James of Lochaber
Lady Howard de Walden
Lord Fairhaven
Countess Carolyn de Salis
Rt Revd Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester
Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, Bishop of Hereford
Rt Revd Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter
Rt Revd James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle
Rt Revd Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry
Rt Revd Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough
Rt Revd Paul Butler, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
Rt Revd Timothy Dakin, Bishop of Winchester
Rt Revd Jonathan Gledhill, Bishop of Lichfield
Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn
Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester (1992-2011)
Rt Revd Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester (1994-2009)

c4m.org.uk...



edit on 25-3-2012 by ollncasino because: add link



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Gay civil union couples already enjoy all of the civil rights of heterosexual couples.

They just aren't allowed to call it a marriage, nor are civil unions governed under marriage laws.



I think you just shot yourself in the foot. Your statement of "not being allowed to call it a marriage" would be the main issue here. Why should there be openly accepted discrimination? Why shouldn't gays be able to call it marriage? Why aren't straight couples forced to call it a civil union?

The main issue here is segregation, and telling a minority they're not allowed to do something that everyone else is. Plain and simple. We've moved past this as a society...I hope.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I'm Lord Ryan and I disagree with this petition. I'm intelligent too! Who uses "Lord" in North America anyway?
edit on 25-3-2012 by Ryanssuperman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ollncasino


The Washington Post recently printed an article citing several examples in the United States of just how gay marriage and gay rights in general are stepping on the rights of Christians all across the country.



– A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney’s costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony.

– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

– A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

The Washington Post




Substitute the word "Black" each time you see the word "gay" or "lesbian". Discrimination is an ugly thing, and unfortunately many people use the Bible to justify their prejudices. The KKK claims to use the Bible to justify the superiority of the Aryan race.
edit on 25-3-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


this is sooooo illogical its a shame.
All I have to do is counter using your same backwards logic, or illogic as this is.
sample: just replace gay with the word pedophile, or just replace the word gay with beastiality, or "insert anything to do with sexual preferences"

Your logic is illogical for this discussion. If it isn't illogical then you have to accept my examples as they deal with sexual preferences and yours compares skin color to bedroom activities.
You simply have no arg in this direction and you bring it up in every gay thread.


Being gay involves two consenting adults. A pedophile abuses children. Beastiality abuses animals. Not the same thing at all. You could substitute "people who don't use the missionary position during sex", or "people who practice tantric sex". That would be more of an appropriate comparison than beastiality or pedophilia. The point is, discriminating against someone because of who they are, when they aren't hurting anyone else, is wrong.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I think you just shot yourself in the foot. Your statement of "not being allowed to call it a marriage" would be the main issue here. Why should there be openly accepted discrimination? Why shouldn't gays be able to call it marriage?


Why isn't a dog called a cat?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I'm Lord Ryan and I disagree with this petition. I'm intelligent too! Who uses "Lord" in North America anyway?


This thread is about the proposed change to the UK law.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I think the solution is relatively simple -

Step one - remove the government from the process of "marriage". They are only involved for the marriage license fee - which is just a tax. This would also require removing all the tax advantages/penalties of being married from the codes. Treat all citizens the same regardless of their relationship status.

The only reason government inserted itself into marriage in the first place dates back to feudal times and lords having the right to tax their serfs for the right. Many who couldn't afford the lords marriage tax simply got married in a church or stated three times on the square - I marry you... to each other.

Step two - remove the church from the government - a civil union is a legal mater not a religious one.

Require a civil union for all people (two men, man and woman whatever) who want to claim any advantages granted that status from being able to be included as a spouse on an insurance policy to inheritance etc.

In those cases in which a religious organization is willing to "marry" two people - it’s really none of the States business.

Religion and government don't really mix well....



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
I think you just shot yourself in the foot. Your statement of "not being allowed to call it a marriage" would be the main issue here. Why should there be openly accepted discrimination? Why shouldn't gays be able to call it marriage?


Why isn't a dog called a cat?



There are biological differences between a dog and a cat. Marriage is just a made-up social term. It means whatever we want it to mean. You want it to mean only between a man and a woman. Gays want it to mean between two consenting adults. Heterosexuals do not own the concept of marriage. There have been same-sex marriages throughout history, in many different cultures. This culture has felt a need to oppress homosexuals, but that is starting to change.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


You're right government & religion do NOT mix, but the "church" is hellbent on injecting itself into politics and deciding who gets to get married & who doesn't, there needs to be a seperation of "church" and state. The "church" doesn't deserve to have any say in who gets married or who gets rights & who doesn't, especially in light of cases of child sex abuse & illegal castration of innocent CHILDREN. That is NOT the way this country works, the "church" should be banned from all political decisions NO matter what is being decided.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by MisticRebel
 


i hate to say this
your actually talking scence this time
keep up the good work
you will be brainwashed soon



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
There are biological differences between a dog and a cat. Marriage is just a made-up social term.


There are biological differences between a hetrosexual couple and a homosexual couple.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
To be honest if we got a petition together to let gay people get married Iam pretty sure the good people of the UK would get alot more than 300,000 people to sign it.
The law will go ahead anyhow if they did a U-turn on this more people then 300,000 would do something about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
I think the solution is relatively simple -

Step one - remove the government from the process of "marriage". They are only involved for the marriage license fee - which is just a tax. This would also require removing all the tax advantages/penalties of being married from the codes. Treat all citizens the same regardless of their relationship status.

The only reason government inserted itself into marriage in the first place dates back to feudal times and lords having the right to tax their serfs for the right. Many who couldn't afford the lords marriage tax simply got married in a church or stated three times on the square - I marry you... to each other.

Step two - remove the church from the government - a civil union is a legal mater not a religious one.

Require a civil union for all people (two men, man and woman whatever) who want to claim any advantages granted that status from being able to be included as a spouse on an insurance policy to inheritance etc.

In those cases in which a religious organization is willing to "marry" two people - it’s really none of the States business.

Religion and government don't really mix well....


Most gays I know would be perfectly happy if civil union licenses were handed out to everyone, instead of marriage licenses for some and civil union licenses for others. However, they are going to refer to themselves as married, just like heterosexuals will.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join