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.

 

The Same-Sex Marriage line is drawn. What do you think?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I have a few thoughts on the same-sex marriage debate.

My first thought is to let them do it,it's not the governments business.
What happened to separation of church and state?

And as far as the church goes on they're opinion on it,lets take a look at what the bible says,shall we?



www.gospelaccordingtohate.com...

What is it going to take to get government out of our private lives?
As long as they are paying taxes and serving our communities,why should they care?
We are a people,in this mess of a world together.

edit on 13-5-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Great illustration. Every configuration except Man and Man.

Funny how the woman always is subordinate.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Personally, queer marriage disgusts me.

With that said, it should be a state issue. Nothing more and nothing less. I'm not going to let my personal bias get in the way of common sense.

I hate both Romney and Obama, so their stance on the matter is meaningless to me.
edit on 5-13-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
What famous person was it that said something to the effect of "why shouldn't they have to suffer through it just like the rest of us"?
Oh well, anyway... It would be an option, not a requirement. If you are opposed to it, don't participate in one, but don't keep anyone else from being able to do it either. There are athiests out there who don't approve of church, would you want them to make it illegal for you to go to one? There are thousands of things all of us take for granted, but other people are opposed to them, should they get their way and those things be made illegal?
For gay marriage, it's the consensual committment made between two people who are living as though they were married anyway, it just gives them the same benefits that other married couples get and the legal standing. I don't have a problem with it.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Great illustration. Every configuration except Man and Man.

Funny how the woman always is subordinate.


That is why all the Christians are so against it.
They like to keep it that way.
When you go messing around with "what is written", confusion sets in and it goes against all that they were taught.
But that illustration I posted is ok.
It is "written" in the bible.

What would you call that?



I'm waiting......




Hypocrisy?


The Bible refers to homosexuality several times, but the extent to which it mentions the subject, and whether it is condemned, has been variously interpreted. A passages like one in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibits "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story Sodom and Gomorrah have been interpreted by some social conservatives as condemning homosexuality, as have several Pauline passages. Scholarly debate over the interpretation of these passages has focused on placing them in proper historical context, for instance pointing out that Sodom's sins are historically interpreted as being other than homosexuality, and on the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages in question. In Religion Dispatches magazine, Candace Chellew-Hodge notes that the six or so verses that are often cited to condemn LGBT people are referring instead to "abusive sex."[1] She states that the Bible has no condemnation for "loving, committed, gay and lesbian relationships" and that Jesus was silent on the subject.[2] Both the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament contain passages some have interpreted as describing same-sex relationships, for example David and Jonathan or the centurion and his servant; these are also the subject of scholarly debate, with most arguing that the relationships depicted are platonic.


en.wikipedia.org...

And to clarify,I'm a straight guy who has never been down that road.
I feel each person has a right to be who they are,be it white,black,hispanic,asian or what ever.
We are all given a chance to to live peaceful,prosperous lives.
edit on 13-5-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
Personally, queer marriage disgusts me.

With that said, it should be a state issue. Nothing more and nothing less. I'm not going to let my personal bias get in the way of common sense.

I hate both Romney and Obama, so their stance on the matter is meaningless to me.
edit on 5-13-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)


Like the old school thinking.
Like my granny calling blacks *Snip*. (sarcasm)

And I'm with you on the current picks on presidents,not much of a choice.
But the government should back away from social issues.
Much more important issues to worry about.

Wasn't long ago there was the issue of blacks marrying whites.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.


en.wikipedia.org...

Is this any different?
edit on 13-5-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-14-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
'First Gay President'
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Suddenly Joe Biden's promise that the President has "a big stick" makes a bit more sense in context



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
'First Gay President'
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Suddenly Joe Biden's promise that the President has "a big stick" makes a bit more sense in context



ROFL!! Ok, that was a very very good one!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
I'm about as straight and conservative as a person can be, but I have absolutely no problem with people who love each other getting married. I would, however, have a problem with the government forcing a church to marry someone they don't want to marry. Whether 2 men or 2 women get married isn't going to make my relationship with my wife any better, or any worse. I wouldn't piss on Obama if he were on fire, but I don't see anything wrong here. I think the whole "gay marriage" issue only hurts the conservative cause, because it drives conservative homosexual individuals away, because they just want to be EQUAL!

Then again, Down's Syndrome kids have Down's Syndrome "by choice"...just like gay people, right? NOT!


First and foremost, NO government, at least in the US is going to "force" any church or member of any faith to marry ANYONE they don't want to for whatever reason. I am a passionate believer in the separation of church and state. The way Obama explained his "evolution" on the issue was both interesting and showed he actually thought about it relative to his experience with gay members of his staff, and the "family arrangements" of friends of his daughters, himself, and wife.

I also thought his views on the concept of civil unions was something I could identify with. If two people had the exact same legal status in a civil union as a marriage I never thought it was all that important. But thats because I have no intention of getting married (for the rest of my life likely). But the definition of the civil rights and legal qualifications is at best "variable" from state-to-state. But marriage is very cut and dry from the point of view as to how states treat the spouse in areas like life and death decisions for their partner, inheritance assuming no will etc.

But for many gay couples marriage is very important to them. The ceremony, the public acknowledgement of a commitment. Seems odd so many in the US freak out over the very institution that is not exacting doing so well for straight people. And I'm a gay man, just am not all that wrapped up in the marriage thing. But to those whom its important, God bless.

By the way the statistics show having a committed couple living in a home or apartment make for as a general rule, a more stable neighborhood. Married couples bring a certain stability, as do any committed partners. Gay people having that option can only help, if you want to be rather cold about it, property values. Ask any realtor.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture1200
 


Apparently you people are missing the point that we ,as the United Stupid people of America ,have been down this road before,but in a totally different,but fundamentally same situation.
African Americans were treated the same way.
Marriage was not only not allowed between the two races,but banned by government laws.
Government needs to butt out in such instances.




edit on 13-5-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by arbiture1200
 


Apparently you people are missing the point that we ,as the United Stupid people of America ,have been down this road before,but in a totally different,but fundamentally same situation.
African Americans were treated the same way.
Marriage was not only not allowed between the two races,but banned by government laws.
Government needs to butt out in such instances.




edit on 13-5-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)


I agree. Government shouldn't define marriage at all. Either open it to everyone of a certain age or do away with it completely and leave it up to the churches if they want to perform holy matrimony. Take away all the incentives, or offer them to any partnership regardless of gender.
Justice in this country is supposed to be justice for all, not just for those who fit in the majority. Either let them get married and get all the same breaks and incentives or do away with all government related marital priveldges or justice doesn't exist.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Let this battle be fought out at the state level, like the death penalty. If the states can decide life or death issues they can decide what a marriage is, voters can vote there feelings at the state level.

Personally I am against it, but I respect liberal states may want this.

This is Ron Paul view as well.

Freedom means you take the good with the bad, and fight it out at the local level.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Let this battle be fought out at the state level, like the death penalty. If the states can decide life or death issues they can decide what a marriage is, voters can vote there feelings at the state level.

Personally I am against it, but I respect liberal states may want this.

This is Ron Paul view as well.

Freedom means you take the good with the bad, and fight it out at the local level.


The problem is, when we left the slavery decision at the state level, we ended up in a civil war. There are certain universal rights that need to be decided at the federal level. Matters of taxation and so forth are more suited to the state level.
Would you want the right to have a Baptist Church exist or not exist decided by popular vote? Then the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Catholics, the Jehovah Witnesses etc may vote it down and the Baptist Church would no longer be allowed in your state or in the country. Is that fair? It would be the will of the people.

Democracy is set up so the rights of the minority aren't taken away by the choice of the majority. There are rights that need to be considered for all people, then there are choices that can be decided by popular vote.
The question is, does this group of people deserve to be given basic human rights or do they get excluded because they aren't in the majority? ... much like slavery



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
How far will the state go with this. First they will allow gay marriage and in 10 years bestiality will be allowed. What you want to do in your personal live should stay personal and not forced upon us to be accepted.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


I get your points, but slavery is/was wrong at very fundamental moral level.
Slavery harmed civilization to me you can't compare the two.
The breakdown of the traditional/basic family also harms civilization, it is known that this contributed to the slow decline in Roman society.

Gay marriage is in the eye of the beholder, some believe it is morally wrong and goes against 4000 years of Judish/christian values. It is really is just opinions. And it worries me what immoral taboo freedom will be proceed next once this is accomplished, we are on a slippery slope sliding down in the pursuit of political correctness.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I say abolish legal marriage entirely and lets move on to real issues. Who needs a paper from the government? Any family subsidies should be tied to parenthood instead.

Also, some time in the future, this whole circus will repeat with polygamy/polyandry.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
if gays just want society to socially approve or accept that they want to get married that doesnt mean the same spiritual implications of a man and woman being in unison will be granted. i missed the question.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Perhaps the federal government could simply guarantee a couple whether straight or gay all the same legal rights, and let 'marriage' simply be a personal religious ceremony, where the individual church/minister can accept to wed you or not? America is still a very religious country, that tends to provoke strong emotions...one way or another a lot of people will be angry.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alchemst7
How far will the state go with this. First they will allow gay marriage and in 10 years bestiality will be allowed. What you want to do in your personal live should stay personal and not forced upon us to be accepted.


That is one of the most ridiculous arguments out there. First, gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Second, an animal can't give consent, so it's not a relationship, it's an act of "rape" on the animal. Third, the biggest problem with marriage is divorce, not whether or not gay people can get married.
I don't like the guy the lady down the street married. Since it offends me, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to be married? I may think your wife's husband is the ugliest man alive, should I be forced to accept that marriage? Do we get to go up and down the block and say "Ok, you stay, you stay, no, you have to go, you're ok, you're ok, nope, don't like you." ???
If its their personal life, let it be THEIR PERSONAL LIFE and allow them the same benefits of marriage that you have, otherwise, it's not their personal life at all, it's public.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I could care less if two guys wanted to booty bust each other for the rest of their lives. Most people don’t care. We have more important things to do, like… work, raise our families, try to live with $4.00 gas, exorbitant food prices, taxes up the a$%, (gay guys should enjoy that analogy) the cost of everything but salaries going up, the war on terror... We don’t have time for this s%$@, but just like if you put pineapples on dough with sauce you shouldn’t call it a pizza, two guys screwing each other and living together doesn’t make it marriage. Call it something else but not marriage. That’s what pisses people off. We don’t call lacrosse baseball cuz it aint da same. Get it? Good!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join