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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The reason why it has to be stopped is because it's one more step in displacing the standards and foundation that kept successful nations going for centuries. Under the guise of "equality" and "tolerance" homosexuals/bisexuals seek to gain power through "causes" that they endlessly advocate for. And what's their ultimate goal? Power. And once they attain it they're going to wreak havoc, using their authority to get "even" with society. I understand the anger, but any decent, law-abiding person will do their utmost to keep such a group from attaining their mischief. And as anyone who has observed and interacted with LGBT's can attest, they truly are a mess. I have nothing against gays, and I'm aware of their great contributions to the world ( many of my favorite writers, artists, poets, musicians, actors, historical figures, etc. ) were/are. It's just that they're incapable as a whole of properly handling power, and should be given their due without exceeding their capabilities.




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightwalk
 



And as anyone who has observed and interacted with LGBT's can attest, they truly are a mess.

In what way(s) are they a mess? I'm pretty sure you're going to bow out on this question - but I sincerely hope you don't - since you seem to be so sure of you're experience


I have nothing against gays,

oh, but clearly you do - now you're just being dishonest


and I'm aware of their great contributions to the world ( many of my favorite writers, artists, poets, musicians, actors, historical figures, etc. ) were/are.

as were/are some of your favorite politicians - if statistics are anything to go by

so, these people you so admire for their contributions to this world don't deserve to be treated the same as heterosexuals? Why is that?


It's just that they're incapable as a whole of properly handling power, and should be given their due without exceeding their capabilities.

oh, please...give us some evidence of gay people not properly handling power - and then evidence of non-gay people handling power especially well

:-)

this should be good



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightwalk
The reason why it has to be stopped is because it's one more step in displacing the standards and foundation that kept successful nations going for centuries. Under the guise of "equality" and "tolerance" homosexuals/bisexuals seek to gain power through "causes" that they endlessly advocate for. And what's their ultimate goal? Power. And once they attain it they're going to wreak havoc, using their authority to get "even" with society. I understand the anger, but any decent, law-abiding person will do their utmost to keep such a group from attaining their mischief. And as anyone who has observed and interacted with LGBT's can attest, they truly are a mess. I have nothing against gays, and I'm aware of their great contributions to the world ( many of my favorite writers, artists, poets, musicians, actors, historical figures, etc. ) were/are. It's just that they're incapable as a whole of properly handling power, and should be given their due without exceeding their capabilities.

Excuse me but that is just stupid.

Everyone want power. E V E R Y O N E.

The gender is irrelevant. Was Napoleon gay? Was Hitler gay? Was Stalin gay? Was Ceasar gay? Was Alexander The Great gay? Well maybe the last one was, you never know. Because in some of the most successfull empires ever to rule upon this world, homosexuality also existed - and in many ways, far more tolerated.

What exactly are you saying that gays are supposed to do with all this "power" you seem so very afraid of? Threaten other countries? Threaten people? You mean sort of like... What happens every day?

If you say that they are incapable of properly handling power, are you saying that current leaders of the world are properly handling their power?

... Or are you saying that YOU wish for the power to stop it? Slightly confused with what that would imply.
edit on 13-5-2012 by merka because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


the truth is - you and I have no real argument :-)

but - you're a stickler for detail - and maybe miss the nuance

marriage is what they're after and marriage is the word they want to be able to use - along with everything that comes with that word - the whole ball of wax

seems silly - but it's not

the very real effect of one word is the difference between true equality and separate but equal

separate but equal won't fly - and it shouldn't be allowed to fly

of course we are free to believe what we want and to believe and to assign meaning to words in a way that makes sense to us

but in this situation - marriage is the word


Just an FYI, my brother is gay and I would LOVE for him to have equal right rights under the law.


well, we're not quite there - but we're closing in

but just for grins, ask your brother - if he was ready to be in a committed relationship - would he prefer a civil union - or a marriage?

:-)

you know - I do understand what you're saying - I'm just not willing to settle

I'm stubborn like that
edit on 5/13/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)


I know you are not willing to settle and I think that is the major issue with this debate.

One freaking word.

You know, I can't speak for my brother but I bet he would be willing to sign a piece of paper for a civil union to satisfy the government's requirements and then call his union to his partner, a marriage or whatever they wanted to call it.

I think the major issue is that gay/s lesbians want the word 'marriage' and they are trying to wrestle it away from generations of tradition. That isn't an easy task.

What I've presented makes a lot of sense.

And, this whole separate but equal argument only exists because of the government's intervention into trying to define marriage. They need to remove themselves from trying to define that word. I think from a purely legal standpoint, assigning the phase civil union for all makes better sense and removes a HUGE stumbling block to this issue.

Would people (m/w) who get married be upset with this, probably, but nobody is telling them that they won't be able to call their UNION whatever they want.

I don't agree with my brother's lifestyle, but it doesn't mean I don't love him. I've met his partner many times and I think he's a nice guy. I don't have an issue with the person, it's just that lifestyle isn't for me. But, I think its also unfair that they can't be afforded the same rights as a couple.

You know, I am a Christian and Christ only gave us two commandments:

(paraphrasing)

Love the lord with all your mind, strength and soul.
Love your neighbor as yourself.

It doesn't say hate gays or lesbians, nor does it say condone that lifestyle. It simple says to love each other. The implication is essentially the golden rule: we treat others the way we want to be treated.

Logic has to overcome the emotional aspect of this debate. Marriage is just too controversial of a word to be defined legally in the context of government. If I were in congress, I would put forth legislation to legally define a civil union as a partnership between two adults, whether of the same or opposite gender, with all the legal rights afforded to them as a couple.

No Supreme Court rulings
No marching on Washington
No bashing of either party

But, a part of me says, that people love contention, they love the aspect of "winning" and pointing the finger at the other side and saying, "I told you so." That's why I think this issue won't die in my lifetime.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


I know you are not willing to settle and I think that is the major issue with this debate.

One freaking word.

let's both take a moment to enjoy the humor in our predicament :-)

I think the major issue is that gay/s lesbians want the word 'marriage' and they are trying to wrestle it away from generations of tradition. That isn't an easy task.


Tradition sees it as something being taken away - but with a very small change in thinking Tradition might see that it will lose nothing. This is not about forcing people to change their beliefs - and traditional values will remain the same. The only thing that will change is the power Tradition has over the rights of others. If I were to be less courteous, and less generous - I would step up and say - this is about Tradition losing control and nothing more

In reality - they'll lose nothing except the ability to point at certain other segments of society and say: they are different from us - and what they are is less

This shared government of ours doesn't owe the religious special privileges - and it certainly can't afford to sacrifice the rights of a few just so the many get to hold on to their feelings of specialness. We can't sacrifice rights to uphold tradition

In the end - nothing will be lost - and everything will be gained

I'm not willing to settle, it's true - this is about the right to be married - and nothing less


What I've presented makes a lot of sense.
And, this whole separate but equal argument only exists because of the government's intervention into trying to define marriage.

You do make sense - but only because you want a solution that offends nobody and doesn't make anyone uncomfortable :-)

It won't work - it really won't. One word, one meaning - for everybody


Love your neighbor as yourself.

It doesn't say hate gays or lesbians, nor does it say condone that lifestyle. It simple says to love each other. The implication is essentially the golden rule: we treat others the way we want to be treated.


I'm not a Christian, but I do live by this. So, why not treat your neighbor as you'd have them treat you? Let them marry - same as you


Logic has to overcome the emotional aspect of this debate.


Yes!


But, a part of me says, that people love contention, they love the aspect of "winning" and pointing the finger at the other side and saying, "I told you so." That's why I think this issue won't die in my lifetime.


We're on the brink of change - real change. This isn't about being right for the sake of it - to win - to stick it to the other side...

This is about real people with real lives who want the same things as everyone

Change isn't easy - but it's necessary

This isn't one of those situations where compromise will work - it has to be marriage - along with all the rights afforded to every other citizen - no difference

You think calling it a civil union for everyone will patch this all up - but it won't. We'll have to disagree to disagree on a few things here and there then- but the law has to be the same for everybody. It's the only way - and calling it what it is - marriage - is only being honest



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by crazydaisy
 


NO - marriage is a union, ordained by God, between one man and one woman. Gays should find another name for their unholy, depraved desires. 'Marriage' is not it.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
1. Equal rights for all American Citizens. Regardless of your age, sex, religion or sexual orientation, we should not discriminate against anyone as long as their practices do not harm others.

2. Separation of Church and State. If church's do not believe gays should be wed, then they don't need to conduct weddings for them in their churches. Gays can get a captain or a judge to conduct their ceremony.

3. Religious people need to go back to the basics and relearn what it means to be a good, god fearing human being. Stop discriminating against those who aren't like you. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Leave the judgement up to god, not yourselves.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Marriage is in no way any business of the government, whether it be straight, homosexual, or poligamous. What a person does in the privacy of their own relationships is none of the governments business.

The hypocrisy of the entire issue is that all we ever hear from the government is "seperation of church and state" yet historically from the very beginning marriage has always been a religious act. However the government has no problem jumping into the religious act of marriage.

People have been endowed with free will to choose to pursue their own happiness and if they are happy marrying a man or a woman, or 3 men or 3 women then that is their right as long as no one else's life, liberty, or rights are not violated by that persons actions.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I think marriage is highly personal, and religions should be involved only when invited, and otherwise it is a union between two adults and the state.

I'd go even further and allow polygamy amongst adults, which should satisfy a lot of customary marriage based on traditions, and especially the Old Testament (although I wouldn't allow Biblical or God ordained rape, concubinage and wife inheritance, although some cultures still do).

Our African President Jacob Zuma just married his fourth wife, and he's both a Christian and stands for African values.

I'd also impose an age of consent, which religion never has, like 18.
I wouldn't support child-brides of 13 (even with parental consent) which many Bible-belt states still had in the US into the 1970s.

I'd also support Jesus when He said not all men should marry women, and some are made eunuchs in the womb, and others become eunuchs for God (Origin castrated himself to that effect).

The original Biblical relationship was between a male deity and Adam.

A really practical purpose for Eve (or procreation) only became apparent after the material fall.
edit on 13-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Not every citizen is religious.

Same sex marriage needs to be legalized on a federal level.

I can't wait for our grandkids to read about these days and wonder what the hell the right wing America was thinking.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by aardvark888
NO - marriage is a union, ordained by God, between one man and one woman. Gays should find another name for their unholy, depraved desires. 'Marriage' is not it.

Assuming you believe in God. Last time I checked, most nations have religious freedom, yet there is still the fact that marriage is the definition of a legal contract between two people.

Its very much a human idea. And no, you dont really have to call it "marriage" if you dont want to. You can simply call it a "union" if you want. As long as it have the same legal state as what a goverment define as "marriage". Notice that it doesnt even involve God and Christianity. Only the legal state.

Why doesnt it involve God? Because it doesnt have to.

What if both partners happen to be Christians? Maybe they dont believe in the same narrowminded, vengefull and cruel God that you do. Maybe they believe that God will accept them for what they are and how they are. And maybe they believe that love for your fellow man, here and now is more important than being judged in Heaven for something you believe is right. God didnt make us slaves, He gave us our own free will.
edit on 13-5-2012 by merka because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
The real issue revolves around money. A traditional family is readily able to obtain healthcare for spouses and dependents, couples are able to file joint tax returns to reap financial benefits from that, and even into death there is clear succession for the holdings of the deceased - with survivor benefits for those who live on.
A truly free society would make it illegal for employers to provide any form of health care benefit, retirement fundings and similar. Employers should only pay wages or salary to the employee that works for them.
Think about this for a moment. The only interest government really as in all of the family events is that the next generation is cared for well enough that they can become fully functional tax payers. Government has no direct interest in marriage at all. It began as a way to help families raise children.
My thought is this: At age 18 (or some age determined to be 'adulthood') every person must file their own tax return, provide for their own healthcare, their own decisions about education and employment, and their own decisions about sex and procreation. Simply require parents to provide for their children - by law. If you cannot or will not provide medical care, education opportunities up to age 18, and a safe and secure home environment then the government will find someone who will. Male or female - your child, you raise them or pay for them to be raised.
Marriage is a religious event, not governmental. I really don't care who lives with whom or who has sex with whom or anything like that at all. There is plenty of contract law in place to allow people to come together to purchase housing and the amenities with clear clauses for dissolution of those contracts. There is plenty of family law in place that would only require small modifications that would allow the courts to make determinations of the best interests of children - especially if divorce is completely removed from the domestic courts and moved into the civil courts that handle contract law. As a taxpayer I really don't care that spouse X or Y was allegedly cheated on by the other spouse. I don't care and there is no practical benefit to the government one way or the other. If your church doesn't like it, tough. That is between you as an adult and your own religious beliefs as to what is proper behavior. Finally, there is a wealth of estate law to determine where assets belong upon the death of an individual, as well as any debts.
What I am saying is simple. At age 18 you become an adult. You pay your own way and you pay for any children you have - whether you are female or male, intended to have a child or not. Employers pay wages and salaries - period. You seek out and buy the healthcare you require, for you alone and your minor children. It makes little difference to the government whether parents are married or not. Each files separately and each bears the same tax burdens and shares equally in the care of their children.
This is how free adults are meant to live. They are not meant to live beholden to an employer or insurance company and especially NOT to the government for their needs. Freedom, real freedom, implies nothing more than opportunity. It does not even come close to a determination of outcome based on your choice(s). Smart, dumb, good luck or bad, freedom is just that, the right to make the choices and nothing more.
The only caveat in all of this are those people who are, by their nature from accident of birth, disease or injury unable to care for themselves. No society with any merit would foresake those who are clearly and truly in need. However, as a responsible person, the care of those who need you extends as far as you can spread your bounty and will. The last place those who truly need help should be is under government care.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well doesn't it come down to who is marrying you? Some churches won't marry gay people - that's their right. So as religion goes, it should be up to that particular religion/sect/church if they want to perform the marriage. As government goes, it's up to them to recognize that marriage as legal or not. That's about it. It's pretty simple as far as I can see. I would not like it if the government forced churches to marry gay people. And I am gay. But seriously, it's up to the church if they want to or not. I mean, if they don't, go to a different church - or go online and get one of your friends certified as a minister of whatever frigging church.

All in all though, what escapes me is how few people seem to recognize that marriage is an antiquated practice that is clearly not successful. Over 50% of them end in divorce, and of the 50% left, about half of those SHOULD get divorced but don't because of kids, money, fear. So great for that 25%. Too bad the other 75% never realized that they could have done something different - but society pushes down everyone's throats this ridiculous notion of "the family unit" along with strict definitions of what this means. Finally, nowadays, most single women raising children don't raise too many eyebrows, but there was a time it did.

Think outside of the box. The only reason I'm for gay marriage is so that the people that want it, can have it. Do I need to marry the person I'm in love with. Nooooooo!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I thought America was a great nation but now i think its a dumb nation.
Marriage was never a right.
You can't seriously believe anyone needs it to have sex and no, love isn't sexual.
How you became so perverted to equalize hetero and homo sex???
Personally i would like you to become more and more perverted as it will help destroying your once great nation to the core.
You westerners make me sick sometimes...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The problem is this.

As it stands now, marriage is the issue on the table because government is being asked to define it. It is this word that creates legal rights to couples. And a marriage license is a contract between the couple and the state. As an aside, my belief is that it makes you part of a corporation and gives the state control over your children. But I digress.

The word does have religious meaning and has had for many generations. The gay community sees this one word as their way to have equality.

I'm suggesting that another/phase word be used to denote equality at the federal and state level.

In now way would defining all unions civil unions detract from the meaning of the word marriage for those who hold traditional views. In fact, it pushes the discussion out of the realm of government and back to the individual/couple. This is most ideal.

For gay couples, they would be afforded the same equality as show previously to m/f couples. The issue then moves to who conducts the ceremony. If a church is unwilling, then they should be allowed this right. If a church or other officiate is willing to conduct the "marriage" ceremony, then fine.

Furthermore, marriage is a lifestyle. Every couple should be allowed the right to live it as they see fit.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
It won't work - it really won't. One word, one meaning - for everybody


And that should be 'civil unions' for everyone!


Remove the word marriage from government trying to define it and this is a non-issue.

If the word marriage has evolved in the past to mean different things, then let it evolve again outside of the control of government. This is the only way you get what you want.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Gay and lesbian couples do deserve the same equal treatment as heterosexual couples. It's so pathetic certain Americans can't accept that...

Also, one major problem: A state legalizes marriage but another state fails to recognize it as one. This is cue that it needs federal protection.

edit//

By protection, I mean it needs federal definition that marriage is open not just to one group of people, and not the other.
edit on 13-5-2012 by SeventhSeal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


Gay and lesbian couples do deserve the same equal treatment as heterosexual couples. It's so pathetic certain Americans can't accept that...

Also, one major problem: A state legalizes marriage but another state fails to recognize it as one. This is cue that it needs federal protection.

edit//

By protection, I mean it needs federal definition that marriage is open not just to one group of people, and not the other.
edit on 13-5-2012 by SeventhSeal because: (no reason given)


You so didn't read ANYTHING I wrote.

What would be the harm if the federal government said tomorrow that all unions between couples of the same gender or opposite gender will be known as 'civil unions' in order to create equal protection under the law?

Please go back and read what I wrote. I am trying to advocate a solution that works for everyone.

edit on 13-5-2012 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightwalk
The reason why it has to be stopped is because it's one more step in displacing the standards and foundation that kept successful nations going for centuries. Under the guise of "equality" and "tolerance" homosexuals/bisexuals seek to gain power through "causes" that they endlessly advocate for. And what's their ultimate goal? Power. And once they attain it they're going to wreak havoc, using their authority to get "even" with society. I understand the anger, but any decent, law-abiding person will do their utmost to keep such a group from attaining their mischief. And as anyone who has observed and interacted with LGBT's can attest, they truly are a mess. I have nothing against gays, and I'm aware of their great contributions to the world ( many of my favorite writers, artists, poets, musicians, actors, historical figures, etc. ) were/are. It's just that they're incapable as a whole of properly handling power, and should be given their due without exceeding their capabilities.


This is one of the most hilarious responses I've ever seen.

LGBTs are truly a mess? Being a mess is not something reserved just for gay people. And if there ARE any gay people who are a mess, or if more of them are a mess than compared to straight people, might it be that they were born into a completely rejecting society that had something to do with it?
The "guise" of equality? It's hardly a guise when it's real. Right, I'm sure they want all kinds of power to wreak havoc in the world. I think the word you're looking for isn't power, but equal rights. The ones I know who have gotten married, live their lives and that's about it.

"Standards" that kept successful nations going for centuries. That's a LAUGH! More like kept successful churches and governments in power over people.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Your first sentence, "it has to be stopped" isn't going to happen. The train is running away, and in one year, 5 years, 10 years, more and more people are going to be okay with it, and your attitude will just single you out as an intolerant person unless you change it. Your attitude is what needs to be stopped.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The government shouldn't dictate what gay people want to do. That being said though, gays shouldn't (traditionally) marry.

I'll explain why.

Marriage is typically a religious ceremony combined with a legal binding.
If you keep the religious ceremony, like most people [including gays] with the whole preacher setting and all that,
it's a slap to the face for christians. Now, I'm not one, but I can understand the insult they must feel.
THAT'S why gays should ONLY have non-religious weddings,even if they're religious
I'm straight, btw.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join