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.

 

Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? How Do We Untie This Knot?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I'm leaning towards allowing gays this right/privilege/punishment and I know it will be personally a little uncomfortable at times.

While the idea of two men doing their thing repulses me personally, I must admit, I rather enjoy the idea of two women doing the same, and of course any combination will repulse somebody somewhere. That said, these are our PERSONAL tastes and I understand that shouldn't pull me around by the nose if I'm really trying to live by the mantra of freedom and tolerance.

Like it or not, this will affect our society in many ways. I can't say I'm looking forward to gay supporters using any momentum to push beyond what is fair and into the realm of abusing it the same way affirmative action was, and on that note, the same arguments were used when blacks were given equal rights. While it can be argued that some of the fears racists of yesteryear had were realized, in the end, it was still the right thing to do.

It's the price of freedom in the end, it boils down to whether or not something SHOULD be allowed, and I think if you take a step back and look at it objectively, the answer is fairly obvious.




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I would argue that it's neither a religious or a government issue, though if any of those two its government since only the government can decide to start defending the rights of everyone.

What it IS is an equality issue, in the same way that interracial marriage was and many of the arguments made against same sex marriage are eerily similar in nature to those made against interracial marriage.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
If 2 people of the same sex want to ruin their life with Marriage then go right ahead.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by rebellender
 


My reply is that I would like to see liberty promoted.

The government should be involved only to the degree that there is a dissolution process for those who opt to end their contract.

The church can have its own standards for those who wish to divorce (from a church sanctioned marriage) yet want to remain in fellowship within their chosen denomination. We do not live in a theocracy.

This is the only way I see that we can ensure equal rights, yet keep the separation of church and state. I do not want the government to have any means to interfere with what the church can do.I don't want the church to impose standards onto citizens who do not ascribe to any particular religious ideology. In my opinion what I propose is the only way to keep that separation.

Father Abraham Lincoln proclaimed all men were equal, Dr.Martin Luther King jr. Preached Equality from the streets of Washington D.C. "Thank God almighty We're Free at Last"
then a seed is planted "You are not free." "You there, you are not free" "You all the way over there, you are not Free" "Here let me fix this." A campaign ensues so as to enlighten them that they are not free. Political agenda is born. Enter Move on.Org!!!

when one mans freedom is another mans bondage who then is really free. Or were they all free to start with, before someone said no???? answer that one!!!! It could make you famous
think about it
I have had enough of special freedom here and special freedom there at the whim of only to gain a vote by a politician.
That is what this is, there is no answer and because there is no answer, there can not be true freedom in it or and real bondage either.

I am calling crap on the agenda!!!
Thats where I stand.

why not, Anne Heche did!!
edit on 12-5-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
IMO, Gay marriage is neither a Government nor religious issue. it's a PERSONAL preference/choice.
I care not, for what someone does sexually, so long as it's:
1) CONSENSUAL
2) LEGAL(as in..NO animals/KIDS ALLOWED)
3) both parties are in it, to win it!

I'm a straight man, that's been hit on PLENTY by those who either play for both teams, or switched all together, since i've lived in the Atlanta area.

Instead of flipping out(ergo homophobia) I told the person(s) "i'm sorry, i'm straight...No thanks....I don't do that....thats not me, bud...etc."

there's enough fuzz flying around, to be worrying about, than how 2 consenting adult persons want to relate.

Let 'em be happy...

If the NWO theory is correct...you may spend your last hours alive, in a "euthansia" cell with someone brought there for being gay. CHILL......



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Kali74
 


Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue?

Neither.

It should simply be a personal choice, which should not have any correlation to the government or the church. None of their dam business.


i agree...just because these religous people have a constitutional right to "freedom of religion"...does not give them the right to pass laws based on a mythical "god". the arrogance of these people, along with their naivate of the "rest" of the constitution, disqualifies them from decison-making affecting my life


Your defiance and rebellion against God is the direct result of those who despise Him - those who have systematically changed the beliefs in this country over the past seventy years by fooling people into adoring and loving sinful behaviour. Every generation thinks that their own parents and grandparents were. "prudes" and "restricted", yet they can't see that as PROOF that it's their OWN generation's beliefs that have been changed. Why did it take a concerted and coordinated media agenda to get two generations of western peoples to become morally bankrupt - labelling evil things as "good"? Unfortunately you are spiritually blind as to the human heart that rejects its God because of the LOVE of wickedness, that will reject God because of their love of sin. So whilst you may never understand what I am saying, maybe you will understand it this way...you are what you EAT, what comes out of the mouth is resident in the heart, what you see you copy. Hitler did it to his entire country through his Ministry of Propaganda & Indoctrination - using nothing but films,radio, posters and newspapers - to put the poison right into the minds and hearts of his countrymen and effectively changed their BELIEFS. Now add science fiction, 200 tv channels that despise Jesus, and the Internet. It's YOUR beliefs that were changed, and now you will fight and rebel against God because YOU have bought the indoctrination hook, line and sinker. You now rebel against Him because of what you've grown to love.

I won't even quote scripture to you, but I will give you a secular quote: Lenin said "The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of morals". He and his cronies certainly knew how to take down the western nations, the descendants of faithful Christian forefathers - the descendants of Israel. So you may be free to bang on about the 'arrogance' of God and those who love Him as if they were to blame for trying to ruin what you may see as your "party", when in reality it's nothing but a funeral. One that you can't see, and one that you have no interest in uncovering. But even after these words, Christ Jesus died for sinners, He died for those who were blind, deaf and lame - those that could not understand the errors of their ways. He saves them from the coming fire! All He asks is repentance, a change of mind to turn from evil to seek good.

Here's where today's morals came from:
1963 US Congressional Record
45 Current Communist Goals

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
 
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
 
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
 
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
 
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
 
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
 
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

The red beast of Revelation. Moral-less societies reject God - they call evil 'good' and good 'evil'. This entire debate has NOTHING to do with marriage, it has everything to do with shaking His Israel OUT OF THEIR SLUMBER. It's about realising the lowness of our fall in deeming a sexual practice as valid grounds for a marriage instead of the blessing of a man and a woman to produce a family.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Is Same Sex Marriage A Government Or Religious Issue? It can't be both

your right its neither, I'm 100% straight and my personal belief is what the hell has it got to do with me?

when i was in my teens i was " gay how wrong is that"
20's " Jim is gay dam, i thought he was the same as us"
30's Jim is the same as us he just likes guys, great less of a threat when i chatted up women, in fact now and again an asset.
40's who gives a F%$K he's a nice genuine guy (and so is his partner) believe it or not no threat to me, or my son or anyone i know, funny what a bit of life experience does to the way you see things.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


Currently they are treated differently under the law. This is not equality. I am not talking about a state of mind, I am talking about actual law.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





I think the federal government either needs to start recognizing Civil Unions or stop recognizing Holy Unions.


i think that's an idea crafted very well.

Garry Wills did a nice piece in the New York Review of Books the other day, it's titled The Myth about Marriage.
Here's a quote :-)




Certain religious groups want to deny gays the sacredeness of what they take to be a sacrament. But marriage is no sacrament.

Some of my fellow Catholics even think that “true marriage” was instituted by Christ. It wasn’t. Marriage is prescribed in Eden by YHWH (Yahweh) at Genesis 2.24: man and wife shall “become one flesh.” When Jesus is asked about marriage, he simply quotes that passage from Genesis (Mark 10.8). He nowhere claims to be laying a new foundation for a “Christian marriage” to replace the Yahwist institution.


as I said in other threads, I for one don't understand the need of people to have their love for each other confirmed by the state and i would appreciate it a lot if the state would stop discriminating people who reject such confirmation.

s&f

edit on 12-5-2012 by NeverSleepingEyes because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Just a message to the religious sorts out there: If your god hates homosexuals so much, why did he make so many of them? Seems like a great population control device, if you ask me.

Either way, it's none of your concern what two consenting adults do including whether they want to form a civil or religious bond with certain enumerated rights and responsibilities.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by rebellender
 


Currently they are treated differently under the law. This is not equality. I am not talking about a state of mind, I am talking about actual law.

all freedoms are a state of mind

Here lies the kicker.

Am I free to say "Hell No" "I dont like it" "I dont respect it" "I dont want it" "It isn't Right" "Its immoral"

will you go to bat for me to have and voice and legislate these points of view?

the answer is no because I have those freedoms already so long as it doest tread on any one else right?

The Ideal that makes the position right also makes it wrong. It is why Freedom is pursued and never attained, but the quibble to gain what the other has will never end at Gay Rights.

Pandora's Box has been opened because someone wants to say the word "MINE"



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
The red beast of Revelation. Moral-less societies reject God - they call evil 'good' and good 'evil'. This entire debate has NOTHING to do with marriage, it has everything to do with shaking His Israel OUT OF THEIR SLUMBER. It's about realising the lowness of our fall in deeming a sexual practice as valid grounds for a marriage instead of the blessing of a man and a woman to produce a family.


So what I am getting from your mostly off topic, puffed up diatribe full of your own self importance that borders dangerously close to claiming to know the very will of God, is that you think that this is an issue for the religious sector rather than the government sector?

I happen to stand firmly behind Kali, the OP, in that it is neither the business of the Government (Federal, State or Local) nor the concern of the religious sector to impose their biased view points on any of us. When we start to treat one another with respect, care and concern as individuals the divisions that keep us from living in some semblence of harmony will disappear.

Not meaning to be too confrontational here, but in all honesty I am curious about one thing. Why is it that the extreme religious of this planet seem to think that just because Steve prefers John over Johanna, or Susan prefers to share her life and love with Michelle rather than Micheal that automatically excludes them from the same basic rights that I, as a heterosexual, automatically receive?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by BioSafe
 




Its a PERSONNEL issue !

I'm not being asinine. This is a sincere question.

How is it a "personnel" issue? Or did you mean personal?


edit on 5/12/2012 by Klassified because: clarity


whoops. Thanks for the catch. amazing what a few misplaced letters will do to the context.
It is" Personal" and NOT Personnel



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This to me is a personal matter legally and a distraction publicly.

The states should address this. The people should be able to decide to issue marriage licenses. Government only come close to this issue when it needs a good distraction. People then think this is important and somehow is a counterpoint to their real problems.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


Do politicians use this is a football? Absolutely. They're liars and manipulators. Does that mean we shouldn't discuss an issue as important as allowing some citizens to be second class? No. I think it would be pretty important to you if there were an issue that placed you in the have not category as far as rights go.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Same sex marriage is neither a government or religious issue. It is a PERSONAL issue and right of anyone born on our planet.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


See, the problem among the gay community......they want same sex marriage rights yet here in Australia few are prepared to step up to Centrelink and admit they are in a relationship when collecting the dole (unemployment) or admit on their tax returns for fear of having to pay more taxes like married working couples and having to go through an assets test of their gay partner when claiming pensions.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Quite interesting to read through this thread -- as many tend to agree that the private and personal contract between two consenting adults should only be legally recognized by the government as is. Just like if you and I were to agree to be partners in business -- partners in life is really no different.

Though those stating it shouldn't be a religious issue are not seeing the point in the freedom of choice that religious groups (churches, synagogues, mosques, temple, whatever it may be) should also be free from social and governmental pressure to decide if they will honor such a union.

Overall, refreshing to see a large portion of respondents agreeing that the Government overall shouldn't even have a say in what is a "valid" arrangement in terms of two persons agreeing that they want to live in harmonious partnership. Should it is a bit of wordsmithing -- but it gets the job done.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Asking the State for their permission (with the contribution to their coffers) to validate a relationship is ridiculous.


But isnt that the dream of every little girl? To one day stand in line at town hall, fill out an application, pay $50 to the state, seek out a state sanctioned justice of the peace, spout off some hocus-pocus gibberish, then spend the next year and a half changing names and beneficiaries while lugging around copies of government approved documentation?

It's a magical time in a womans life. Oh, the romance of it all!


Absolutely! Imagine not only does one have to get the permission from their parents (archaic I know) but also from the State and the Church to prove one's commitment towards another!

As I stated -- it should be contract law; as it goes for the Government -- and nothing else. They could easily ask the following to find out if two people will be legally be seen by the State as a "couple":

1: Was the contract agreed upon and signed by two consenting adults of legal age?
2: Was there a witness to corroborate the signing of the contract?
3: Does the consenting parties understand the implications of their contract?
4: Do all parties agree upon the terms?

That should be all the Government should be worried about.
edit on 13-5-2012 by ownbestenemy because: There, their and they're.....sadly I wrote quickly but it is fixed now.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74


I think the most obvious answer is to not differentiate between the two. The legal definition of marriage needs to be reformed from a man and a woman to two consenting adults. On the other hand, activists in support of same sex marriage need to not demand that all religious institutions accept and perform such. People have the right to worship God as they choose same as they have the right to love and partner with whom they choose.


The point here is that you mention "activists" who tend to be zealots. Zealots of ANY flavour are bad news. It is why I avoid protests, the zealots tend to diminish the message.

Also as a Neopagan (Druid), I am used to being discriminated against, and there are ways around it
The US gives us "tax free" status with 501.3c status. I am back in New Zealand now, and here we have "civil unions" for all, and hopefully marriages soon to. Well if the current right of center government removes its head from its ass.

Here is another reason to allow it www.youtube.com...), if not just to watch this woman implode?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join