300,000 oppose gay marriage in biggest petition since election

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



That was very funny, I'll give you that.
Well done. We just disagree. Very funny though .




posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Don't care.

Majority has no right to "vote" over a minority.

Equality is a Human Right you don't vote on.


That's exactly right.
That is why a republic is the great savior.
Cuts down on mobs trying to kill you out of
fear and ignorance.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Why is a civil union between homosexuals not enough?


Why should it be "enough"?


Why should the a loving couple be "satisfied" with what amounts to only a "partial" social recognition of their commitment to each other simply because they happen to be of the same gender?


It boils down to ""What make you think you are any better me?"

In a pluarlistic society, where everyone is considered equal under the Law, no one is "better" than his or her peer.

Your very question, "Why is a civil union...not enough", belays the fact that You, Yourself recognize that a "civil union" is somehow "Less" than, or of lower social standing than, being "married"!


Therefore, if a man and a woman can be considered "Married", not just "civilly united", would you force them to be satisfied with "just" a civil union?


Why should anyone accept less than their full due under the law?


Unless You consider homosexuals to be somehow Less than Full citizens of the society?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
You failed to answer any of my questions relating to why gay marriages are a problem and who they hurt.


Why should civil unions be called a marriage?

Currently

Gay Union = civil union
Hetrosexual Union = marriage

Why should anyone change that?


Originally posted by Freeborn
A civil union is not the same as a marriage and why do the 'majority' have a right to dictate to a 'minority'?


A civil union has the same rights as a marriage. Why should gay people dictate to the majortiy that the legal meaning of marriage is to be changed at their bequest?

What gives the gay minority the right to dictate to the majority?


Originally posted by Freeborn
Does that mean that the majority Christians have, or should have, a right to dictate to atheists and people of other religions?


The issue here is simple: should gays have the right to call their civil union a 'marriage'.

Why shouldn't a Buddhist demand right to be called a Christian?

Why shouldn't a French man demand the right to called a German?

Why should a pack of wolves now be called a pride of wolves?

...because they are different.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
It boils down to ""What make you think you are any better me?"


If that were true, then why not call cats dogs?

Neither has a separate name because one is better than the other. They have different names because they are different.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
That was very funny, I'll give you that.
Well done. We just disagree. Very funny though .


Thanks.

I don't have a problem with gay civil unions. I just object to their demand to call a civil union a marriage and I don't think I am alone.

Gay unions and hetrosexual unions are different. Why should they have the same name?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Why does anybody care? Why do we all care what a person does? Normally we wouldn't. Everyone would go on about their business and let people be people.

But then, you have the folks who have nothing better to do than to find fault in others beliefs. The only reason that anyone notices these situations is because someone feels they have a right to dictate what others do.Than makes a fuss big enough to get it in the news.

I don't care if they get to call their union a marriage, I don't care if they choose to live their life differently than mine. It's their choice. I wish people would leave other people alone.

Maybe we should be focusing on why someone feels they should have a say in another person's business. Maybe we should get upset and show outrage against the people that think they have the right to control what happens in another person's private life. Those are the people that upset me. Let me make my choices, let me live my life. It will all sort itself out in the wash eventually. And I will either be happy about the decisions I made, or learn my lessons from them. But let them be mine.

If its not hurting you, than you shouldn't have a say in it. Unless there is something I missed, I don't think letting them have their marriage be called a marriage is hurting anyone else, so, why not?

Why do we feel the need to get involved?

Blend57



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
A civil union has the same rights as a marriage. Why should gay people dictate to the majortiy that the legal meaning of marriage is to be changed at their bequest?


...because they are different.



A Buddhist has different beliefs than a Christian.

A Frenchman is a Frenchman because he was born in France, not Germany, or he would be a German.

And a pack of wolves is a pack of wolves because English-speaking Humans thought "Pack of wolves" sounded better than a "Pride of wolves".

The wolves couldn't care less what some smelly humans thought.


If a"civil union" has the "same rights as a marriage" (they generally do not), then how (and Why) are they differnent?

Which you, yourself, seem to recognize in the statement above.


You seem to be terribly confused.

Is a civil union the same as a marriage?

And if it is, why not just call it a "marriage"?


Or is a civil union different from a marriage?

And if it Is different from a "true" marriage, why must it be different?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




What gives the gay minority the right to dictate to the majority?


They don't want to dictate to them, they just want the to be treat the same and not to have the same rights, pretty straight forward really, where's the problem and who does it hurt?
It's not as if they are wanting any special treatment or anything, if they were then I would be very much against it, but they aren't.



The issue here is simple: should gays have the right to call their civil union a 'marriage'.


Yip, pretty simple....yet you have failed to give one sensible, reasonable reason why they shouldn't.

Even if as you say gay and heterosexual unions are different just who does it hurt if it's called 'marriage'?



Why shouldn't a Buddhist demand right to be called a Christian?

Why shouldn't a French man demand the right to called a German?

Why should a pack of wolves now be called a pride of wolves?


Are you serious....that doesn't even warrant a reply.

I just don't understand why people get so wound up and upset over such a triviality.
Look at the world and the suffering and injustices and then try and think about this......really, just what is the problem?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by blend57
I don't care if they choose to live their life differently than mine. It's their choice.


If gays wish to live with another gay, then fine. What gives gays the right however to demand their civil union be called a marriage?

Can I demand the right to be called a women, even though I am a man?


Originally posted by blend57
I wish people would leave other people alone.


Perhaps gays should leave hetrosexuals alone and stop demanding that the law changes the meaning of the word marriage?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I just don't understand why people get so wound up and upset over such a triviality.
Look at the world and the suffering and injustices and then try and think about this......really, just what is the problem?


If it is so trivial, why don't the gay pressure groups just let it drop then?



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage should be a human right?

I thought they could have civil partnerships already?

If these gay people actually gave a damn, they wouldn't be wasting people's times in the courts of human rights and could allow the courts to actively engage in REAL issues such as torture and murder and such.

edit on 24-3-2012 by mr-lizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Sure, if you want to be called a women, take it through the proper channels and earn your right. I would have no issues with calling you a women if thats what you preferred.

I don't think gays are trying to upset your life, I think they are trying to get one of thier own. They want to be able to live together with everyone else,not hide who they are and what they believe.

Again, who cares? let them be who they want. You don't have to associate with them, its not harmful to you, so, whats the problem?

Why can't they be who they want to be and you be who you want to be? If it is not harming anyone for them to do so?

Blend57



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   


Gay unions and hetrosexual unions are different. Why should they have the same name?

reply to post by ollncasino
 


They are not really that different, 2 human beings in love wanting it to be recognised as a mariage? Are you concerned about the sanctity of mariage? It's not like hetro sexual's haven't ruined the sanctity of mariage with things like Las vegas weddings and the current divorce rate.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
A Buddhist has different beliefs than a Christian.

A Frenchman is a Frenchman because he was born in France, not Germany, or he would be a German.


You have proved my point. A frenchman is different from a German.

That is why the have different names.

A gay civil union is different from a hetrosexual marriage.

That is why they have different names.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I still don't understand why people would want to belong to an institution that has a 50% failure rate (at least in the U.S.). If someone wants to get married, sure, go ahead get married. None of my business...OR YOURS. Get over it already.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
They are not really that different, 2 human beings in love wanting it to be recognised as a mariage?


But different they are. That is why they have different names.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by sealing
That was very funny, I'll give you that.
Well done. We just disagree. Very funny though .


Thanks.

I don't have a problem with gay civil unions. I just object to their demand to call a civil union a marriage and I don't think I am alone.

Gay unions and hetrosexual unions are different. Why should they have the same name?


Why do you object to what someone wants to call it? Please, please explain to me how this impacts your life. Remember when blacks weren't allowed to drink from the same drinking fountains as whites? Or sit in the same part of the bus? Please explain how this is any different.
edit on 24-3-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Why don't they drop it?

Because they are being treat differently to everyone else, pretty straight forward.

You consistently refuse to answer any of the questions I've asked of you.

If civil unions and marriage are exactly the same why isn't a civil union called marriage or vice versa?

And please tell me exactly what the problem is and who would get hurt if gay people were allowed to be married?

If gay people were wanting to be treat differently to heterosexuals I would be the first one to voice my opposition, but they just want to be treat the same and have the same rights.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



If these gay people actually gave a damn, they wouldn't be wasting people's times in the courts of human rights and could allow the courts to actively engage in REAL issues such as torture and murder and such.


Oh, like heterosexuals are? Ha ha
this is probably the funniest statement ever made on ATS. Thanks for the laugh. And thanks for broadcasting your ignorance all over the world.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join