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: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by imjustcurious242
Just because canadians did something stupid doesn't mean rest have to follow that. Just because u can;t figure out how to write a document doesn't mean u can take someones basic human right.Anyways point taken.


But how can we deal with the problem of legal documents that currently say 'mother', 'father', 'husband' and 'wife' if the two parties to a marriage are of the same sex?

The Canadians introduced parent 1, parent 2, spouse 1 and spouse 2 onto official/legal documents for that reason.

I'm wouldn't be happy being referred to as parent 1 or spouse 1 on a legal or official document, but that is what we are talking about if gays are allowed to get 'married'.




posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Garfee
Not if it cruelty makes the 'majority' happy, no.


How do you define cruelty?



In this case, denying some of the population a freedom to enjoy what the others enjoy.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
In this case, denying some of the population a freedom to enjoy what the others enjoy.


Where is the cruelty you speak of?

No one is denying gays the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Nor are they denied the same civil rights as a heterosexual marriage. All they have to do is sign a civil partnership.

Gays can have sex with each other, live with each other and enjoy the same civil rights as a hetrosexual marriage.

What they are not allowed to do is call a civil partnership a marriage.

How is that "denying some of the population a freedom to enjoy what the others enjoy"?






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



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Where is the cruelty you speak of?


In the motive


Originally posted by ollncasino
No one is denying gays the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.


Unless you're a idiot you would know that gays don't want to marry the opposite sex because that isn't who they're attracted to.


Originally posted by ollncasino
Nor are they denied the same civil rights as a heterosexual marriage. All they have to do is sign a civil partnership.


That is not equality.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I really wanted to leave this thread alone, but......



If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined.


I'm really not trying to be arsey or anything but could you please explain exactly how this WILL happen?



People's careers could be harmed,


And again, how could people's careers be harmed?



couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded,


I can see that may be a possibility.



and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children.


Hmmm ....again I can see that but handled correctly and sensibly it shouldn't really be a problem.



If marriage is redefined once,


And what exactly would be the problem with that?
Surely that's a sign of a society growing and developing and altering it's laws etc to reflect the new dynamics of that society.
Give me a fluid, evolving society anyday rather than the staid, stagnated and regressive society we live in today.



what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?


And yet again, what exactly is wrong with that?
As long as no-one is being forced into a polygamous relationship I personally see no problems with that other than people's desire to impose their own morals and standards upon other people.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
That is not equality.


Why stop at demanding the right to call a civil union between 2 men or 2 women a marriage.

Why not equality for unions of 1 man and 2 women?

Or 3 men?

Where does it end?



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Garfee
That is not equality.


Why stop at demanding the right to call a civil union between 2 men or 2 women a marriage.

Why not equality for unions of 1 man and 2 women?

Or 3 men?

Where does it end?




And people of different races! Won't somebody please think of the children!



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I'm really not trying to be arsey or anything but could you please explain exactly how this (traditional marriage will be sidelined) WILL happen?


Calif. Gov Signs Gay Education Bill


California kids may be learning more about the first gay vice president and other obscure figures under a new law that requires an emphasis on gay accomplishments.

Michael Medved says it’s PC run amok.

The DailyBeast



Originally posted by Freeborn
People's careers could be harmed


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



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
And people of different races! Won't somebody please think of the children!


I have a son who is mixed race.

He went through a phase of being unhappy being mixed race and hence different from his classmates.

Of course things like that shouldn't exist in the happy politically correct environement that social engineers, such as gay pressure groups, are trying to construct, but hey, reality intertrudes now and then.


One such unfortunate reality is that while most people are somewhat indifferent to gays being gay, they are not indifferent to a gay civil union being called a marriage.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


As much as they would like otherwise, christians aren't the only people that exist in the world.

As for the examples you provided, businesses are regulated to be fair and equitable in the market. You can't open a shop and say only white people or straight people allowed in here.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Garfee
And people of different races! Won't somebody please think of the children!


I have a son who is mixed race.



There are people in the world who believe your son should not be allowed to marry because of his impure bloodline.

He had as much choice in being what he is as a person does in their sexuality.


Edit:

Originally posted by ollncasino

...such as gay pressure groups


Which wouldn't be anything like the christian pressure groups?
edit on 25-3-2012 by Garfee because: OH THE IRONY



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
There are people in the world who believe your son should not be allowed to marry because of his impure bloodline.


Who?

Only a fringe of extremists.

On the other hand, the belief that gays should be allowed to have a civil union, granting them the same rights as a hetrosexual marriage, but not called a marriage, is mainstream in the UK.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Sorry, that has nothing to do with gays having equal rights etc and everything to do with poltically correct do-gooders etc.

Not all gay people are politically correct you know.

And if that is the case in the USA then surely we can learn from it and make sure that we don't make the same mistakes.

For the record I support the couple who didn't want gay couples in their boarding house which was in the news here in the UK not so long ago; it's their business and they are free to choose and do as they see fit.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


You could probably find as many racists in the world as you could find homophobes.

Who are you to define what is a fringe group and what is not? You're fighting a losing battle anyway so kick and scream while you can mate.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
As much as they would like otherwise, christians aren't the only people that exist in the world.


So the rights of Christians to live their life according to their conscience is subservient to gays' rights?

Where is the equality you were talking about?

It could be observed that you are happy for the rights of gays to be advanced at the expense of other groups

FYI, I am not a Christian.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Sorry OP, all it proves is that those who oppose Gay marriage, -really- oppose Gay marriage and will go to any lengths to do so. See it all the time here is America, groups and individuals from out of one state sending funds and other resources into another to oppose Gay marriage.

Hate and ignorance is a powerful combination but rest assured they can and will be overcome.

Oh and by the way, its not that Gay Marriage isn't a Human right, its that Marriage itself is not a Human right.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




It could be observed that you are happy for the rights of gays to be advanced at the expense of other groups


Seriously, how is gays wishing to have the right to marriage advancing their rights at the expense of other groups.
All they are saying is they want the same rights, not different one's nor are they wishing to enforce their morals on anyone else.

Oh, and what about all the othe rpoints and questions I have raised in my last post and throughout this thread.

In the interests of clarity etc I would appreciate it if you stopped cherry picking your responses.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Garfee
As much as they would like otherwise, christians aren't the only people that exist in the world.


So the rights of Christians to live their life according to their conscience is subservient to gays' rights?


Since when does religion get to tell the rest of us how we live our lives? No one is saying they should be subservient, I have no idea from where you have formed this concept.

It's called equality. They get what we get and we get what they get.



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Sorry, that has nothing to do with gays having equal rights etc and everything to do with poltically correct do-gooders etc.


What has happened in California isn't some theoretical argument. It is real and it has happened.

It shows what we probably have in store for us if we don't stop the PC, gay rights bandwagon.


Originally posted by Freeborn
And if that is the case in the USA then surely we can learn from it and make sure that we don't make the same mistakes.


We? What influence have you or I had on the push for gay rights? There is no ground swell of support for making a gay civil union a marriage. What makes you think we have any control over this bandwagon?

Why is Cameron pushing this issue when there is little support for it?

What is driving this gay push for 'equality'? It certainly isn't public opinion.


edit on 25-3-2012 by ollncasino because: Fix error



posted on Mar, 25 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
In the interests of clarity etc I would appreciate it if you stopped cherry picking your responses.


To be honest, I have tried to answer your main points.

You raise so many points and introduce many of them in a manner that it is almost impossible to quote you.

To be fair though, you can't expect the person who's thread it is to answer every single point made by every single poster. There aren't enough hours in the day.

I will endevour to continue to answer the main points you make.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join