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.

 

Why Are So Many People Debating About Gay Marriages? You've All Got It All Wrong!

page: 18
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
No thanks. I had a "wedding" in a "church" years ago with a Native American two-spirit ceremony but, it really doesn't help with health insurance coverage, survivor benefits, ability to have a say in medical procedures for my spouse.. The church service wedding only benefited in personal ways since we agreed to stay together for the rest of our lives. When my niece asks about a new car or some trinket I remind her that I pay about 1200.00 more per month than necessary because of these people.

No way am I stepping up to mom and pops and telling them their marriage of 45 years is a sham because they only went to the courthouse to get a marriage license instead of getting some expensive church ceremony performed. They used that money to put a down payment on a house instead. I'll let the Christians dabble with that. Something like, "In the name of Jesus make all these marriages void." As a member of the gay community I have no desire to null anyone's marriage.

I certainly don't want to be caught with my pants down as with a retired older gay couple that thought they had all the legal requirements tied to secure themselves and find out that when one of them died the next day his deceased spouse's family were over in droves trying to pick through their belongings while the poor guy was in still in shock. His spouse's sister being the next of kin dragged him through more legal wranglings for two years and voided his partner's will and evicted him from the home he helped pay for during the 38 years they had been together. He has to start over at age 68. He is a retired school teacher and one of the nicest people on this planet.

Fact is that Christians hate gays. They may dance around the notion of hating the sin when they sin themselves by judging others according to their own book. You can read hate on people's face immediately by facial expression with the whole "I just ate raw sewage." look they give when they find out about your life. Remember this...A Christian needs an adversary and someone to judge, has always happened with this religion. They don't love you and they don't care if you suffer due to inability to see the man instead of what they view as sin.



Maybe I should go the traditional pretend o marriage path though. I want the original traditional path from the bible though. I want 50 wives and 30 concubines kinda like Solomon and my current spouse to look after them as my Eunuch. I don't think many want cows or goats for trade these days. I suppose an equivalent these days would be trading a riding mower or cheap car for a wife or something to that effect. That's not such a sour deal for me as I can have a truckload of women doing the tasks I don't have time for, mowing the lawn, planting the vegetable garden, working extra jobs to bring in more income, driving the kid to school. I'll let my Eunuch treat them like living dolls, fixing their hair, makeup, prom gowns. Sign me up. Tell your 20-30 something daughters that I am accepting applications. No love required. (Sarcasm Intended). Sorry ladies I won't pretend and break your heart later.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Gay marriage is not a right, and neither is a straight marriage....period!
How can a man-made institution be a human right?
That's like saying owning an Xbox is a human right

It should be up to the church to decide, and different churches can have different opinions.
And hey guess what, gay churches can open up too, private ones that is.

It's not the role of govt. to tell you who you can't marry
But wait... don't agree with me just yet, because it's also not the role of govt. to tell you who YOU CAN marry either.

So the entire debate becomes a non-issue, and so much energy is being wasted on it


im confused so should the church decide if you can own an x-box, because if it was an extremist fanatical religeon church i wouldnt be able to have an x-box be gay or get married, but i could have a pair of black nikes a wierd hair cut, sing songs with a guy who plays guitar, and or commit mass murders. private churches are cults dude. :O



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by repeatoffender

private churches are cults dude.


All churches are cults dude.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Gay marriage is not a right, and neither is a straight marriage....period!
How can a man-made institution be a human right?
That's like saying owning an Xbox is a human right

It should be up to the church to decide, and different churches can have different opinions.
And hey guess what, gay churches can open up too, private ones that is.

It's not the role of govt. to tell you who you can't marry
But wait... don't agree with me just yet, because it's also not the role of govt. to tell you who YOU CAN marry either.

So the entire debate becomes a non-issue, and so much energy is being wasted on it


Dear MA,
I get what you are saying here, and agree with the point. However, you're actually slightly incorrect in your assumptions. Marriage, the act of marrying, is so different throughout cultures that in some it is a right. In others it isn't a right without consent from a Church or state.

I would suggest you read the section History of marriage by culture in this link to understand what i'm saying.

en.wikipedia.org...

I realise it's Wiki, but still it's quite a good history lesson on the practice of marrying. What you're saying is that modern society has butchered what was once a basic human right and twisted it into a social/taxable institution.

As I said I get what you're saying, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Personally I don't think there should be any benefits or penalties for being married. It has nothing to do with the state.

T



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


I agree with what you say. On top of that, when church disagrees, people become outraged as to WHY they disagree, and start flame wars. Well isn't this a free country? So the churches should have the freewill to choose whether they want to or not.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Gay marriage is not a right, and neither is a straight marriage....period!
How can a man-made institution be a human right?
That's like saying owning an Xbox is a human right

It should be up to the church to decide, and different churches can have different opinions.
And hey guess what, gay churches can open up too, private ones that is.

It's not the role of govt. to tell you who you can't marry
But wait... don't agree with me just yet, because it's also not the role of govt. to tell you who YOU CAN marry either.

So the entire debate becomes a non-issue, and so much energy is being wasted on it


Honestly, I haven't read the entire thread. I mean, who could at this point? But, for once, I agree with you. It's not a right; it's something that shouldn't even be questioned. The problem is that there are certain effects that are applied to hetero married couples that gay couples do not get to enjoy.

Definition of marriage? Leave that to the various churches and religions, I agree.

Definition of domestic partnership? That's the issue. Even if it is just a hetero life mate (see Jay and Silent Bob), that domestic partnership should get the same treatment as any other "married" couple.

I may be on the other end of the spectrum, but I totally agree with the OP.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


That marriage is something that belongs for the church to decide upon is something I've been saying for a while.


I'm of the opinion that that term marriage needs to be struck from the legal vocabulary and everyone should be allowed to enter into "civil unions".



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


That marriage is something that belongs for the church to decide upon is something I've been saying for a while.


I'm of the opinion that that term marriage needs to be struck from the legal vocabulary and everyone should be allowed to enter into "civil unions".


The word does not belong to the church. If they wish to employ a special religious word for it they can but it ought to be a religious word, not secular.


edit on 5-4-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Definition of prejudice:
-" the injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregards of one's rights." No one has been injured or damaged by my actions or beliefs. I have not disregarded anyones rights. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage. The union of a man and a woman. But they want to change the definition to include same sex marriage. They want a concession made for them, they want special rights.

Merriam Webster's definition of special: "distinguished by some unusual quality"; especially: being in some way superior" "readily distinguishable from others of the same category "

The heterosexual couples in this country who choose not to marry, are not screaming for the same rights as married couples. It is their choice.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul


Definition of prejudice:
-" the injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregards of one's rights." No one has been injured or damaged by my actions or beliefs. I have not disregarded anyones rights. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage. The union of a man and a woman. But they want to change the definition to include same sex marriage. They want a concession made for them, they want special rights.

Merriam Webster's definition of special: "distinguished by some unusual quality"; especially: being in some way superior" "readily distinguishable from others of the same category "

The heterosexual couples in this country who choose not to marry, are not screaming for the same rights as married couples. It is their choice.



I have the right to the same happiness with my partner as a heterosexual couple. Marrying a member of the opposite sex obviously does not make a homosexual happy.

It's not a petition for any special right.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by newsoul
 


This is a long thread, which shows that folks have strong opinions on it.

I do not. Here is why:

Gay Marriage has no place in politics. It's the "None-Ya" clause to me. It's None Ya Damn Business. If I love Rose or Troy, I can fiddle around, commit my love, or dump 'em for a different life.

To me, it's like the political screaming about Abortion. My uterus is not a political platform, get off of it. It's None Ya damn business!

Love is free and comes from inside. I won't condemn you, if you don't condemn me. Freedom.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Couldn't agree more with the OP ...

This just illustrates why we should have limited government and why the government shouldn't be connected to things like marriage ...

Since the government is involved they can dictate who can and can't get married ... ridiculous!

Just imagine what it will be like when government gets completely involved in your healthcare ...

edit on 5-4-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Apparently you missed my earlier post about animal behavior. Animals eat their young, animals engage in cannibalism. Animals engage in homosexuality, mostly to show dominance. I would like to think that we humans are above certain behaviors. We have an intelligence that goes above basic instincts, we can think critically. Well, we should be able to think critically.





Animals engage in a multitude of behaviors. Compassion, Loyalty, Friendship, Generosity etc. etc. In Nature there is no good or bad behavior, there is only behavior. Human morality though takes behavior A and says "bad" and then says behavior B is "Good". However the truth of morality is that it is as mercurial as nature itself and is always changing. It was not so long ago that morality said the Blacks and Whites could not marry. It was not so long ago that morality said it was OK to burn woman as witches.

As for critical thinking, that too is always changing, it was not that long ago the many critical thinkers said women were to "Hysterical" to vote.

So there you have it, you can plant your flag and defend your worldview but it won't change the fact that your taught perceptions of morality have backed you into a corner that limits your worldview instead of expanding it.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul


Definition of prejudice:
-" the injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregards of one's rights." No one has been injured or damaged by my actions or beliefs. I have not disregarded anyones rights. Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is the definition of marriage. The union of a man and a woman. But they want to change the definition to include same sex marriage. They want a concession made for them, they want special rights.

Merriam Webster's definition of special: "distinguished by some unusual quality"; especially: being in some way superior" "readily distinguishable from others of the same category "


No, they want the SAME rights. If you were told by government and society that you were not allowed to marry the person you love, that you had to choose from another group of people, none of whom you could possibly be attracted to -- I'll bet a million dollars, you would be screaming from the rooftops that this was not fair. You would say, "how dare anyone tell me who I can and can't marry". If you found out that another group of people did have complete freedom to marry whomever they loved, it would upset you even more.

Gays are not criminals. They are not evil monsters. They are people - just like you. They are as much a part of the human race as you are. They are not superior - they are not inferior. You are not more valuable than they are, just because you are a heterosexual. They have the same right to marry the person they love, as you do. If what they want is not hurting anyone, they have every right to demand it. Just like you do.





The heterosexual couples in this country who choose not to marry, are not screaming for the same rights as married couples. It is their choice.


That's right. They have a choice. Homosexual couples do not.

Why are you so insistent that only people who can procreate be allowed to marry? Why is it ok to you that a heterosexual couple who can't procreate be able to marry, but a homosexual couple who can't procreate not be able to marry? How is it hurting anything if homosexual couples marry? If this so called "natural law" isn't followed, what happens to the planet? Will it explode? I don't understand what awful thing will happen if gays are allowed to marry. The states that have legalized gay marriage haven't exploded. Everyone in those states seems to be alive and well. What do you think the consequences are in allowing gays to marry?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helmkat
Animals engage in a multitude of behaviors. Compassion, Loyalty, Friendship, Generosity etc. etc. In Nature there is no good or bad behavior, there is only behavior. Human morality though takes behavior A and says "bad" and then says behavior B is "Good". However the truth of morality is that it is as mercurial as nature itself and is always changing.


You are correct.

However, as humans we have the ability to reason, which allows us to interpret behaviour as constructive or destructive to our development. Constructive behaviour usually leads to positive outcomes; destructive behaviour usually leads to negative outcomes. Therefore, it is in our best interest to take part in behaviour that results in positive outcomes and avoid taking part in behaviour that results in negative outcomes.

Many people who oppose homosexuality do so on the grounds that it is a form of destructive behaviour. Consequently, officiating marriage between two people of the same sex (Gay Marriage) is seen as the State's endorsement of destructive behaviour and this is why some people oppose it. People have the right and freedom to take part in destructive behaviour if they choose, but should the State sanction such behaviour?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


The state should get out of everyone's business full stop. Seeing as that isn't very likely, I'll settle for the unfair government intrusion.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


Be careful what you wish for. The State is the reason you can log on this internet forum and voice your opinion without getting thrown in jail, among doing many other things you probably take for granted.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Helmkat
Animals engage in a multitude of behaviors. Compassion, Loyalty, Friendship, Generosity etc. etc. In Nature there is no good or bad behavior, there is only behavior. Human morality though takes behavior A and says "bad" and then says behavior B is "Good". However the truth of morality is that it is as mercurial as nature itself and is always changing.


You are correct.

However, as humans we have the ability to reason, which allows us to interpret behaviour as constructive or destructive to our development. Constructive behaviour usually leads to positive outcomes; destructive behaviour usually leads to negative outcomes. Therefore, it is in our best interest to take part in behaviour that results in positive outcomes and avoid taking part in behaviour that results in negative outcomes.

Many people who oppose homosexuality do so on the grounds that it is a form of destructive behaviour. Consequently, officiating marriage between two people of the same sex (Gay Marriage) is seen as the State's endorsement of destructive behaviour and this is why some people oppose it. People have the right and freedom to take part in destructive behaviour if they choose, but should the State sanction such behaviour?


Who gets to decide what is destructive? Homosexuals (and many heterosexuals, such as myself) will say that homosexuality is no more destructive than heterosexuality. The State is supposed to be of and for the people. Gays are people, are they not? They are not hurting anyone, they are not killing anyone, they are not taking away anything from anyone, so why is their happiness disregarded?
edit on 5-4-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Garfee
 


Be careful what you wish for. The State is the reason you can log on this internet forum and voice your opinion without getting thrown in jail, among doing many other things you probably take for granted.


Sorry, I'm not following what you mean.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


The State has an interest in sanctioning Heterosexual relationships; they have the potential to provide future citizens for the State without the need of a third party. (The exception being those that are baron and those not wishing to have children, but these are a minority. Most marriages produce offspring. And the incentive for starting a family unit is there.)

Homosexual relationships provide no potential benefit for the State (the exception being the adoption of orphaned children, I suppose) and therefore should not be sanctioned. This is not because homosexuals are any less deserving of rights and freedoms, it is because their union does not carry the same potential benefit for the state as does a heterosexual union.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join