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.

 

Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

page: 12
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
I disagree with you in the idea of calling it gay marriage, like many others I see the word marriage as meaning a lifelong partnership between a man and a woman.


There is only Marriage. Not gay marriage not straight marriage - - just marriage.

Separate but Equal - - - never is.

We've already tried that one at least once in American history. It was wrong then too.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tribaltrip

Just saying, if people care so much about "marriage" then maybe they should practice what they preach and provide an example of what the "perfect marriage" is, because nowadays highschool relationships last longer than marriages.


The leaders of NOM (National Organization of Marriage) were asked if they did anything to promote healthy hetero marriage and reasons for divorce - - - as Christian divorce is more then 50%.

NO. The sole purpose of this group - - the exact reason it was created - - is to stop Gay Marriage.



But that is missing the point in my humble opinion. That is a group of people with an opinion hiding behind a flag called a faith. But, in fairness, America responded to the IRA in a similar manner and provided funds that directly led to the deaths of hundreds because they saw the flag and didn't look at the small print.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by something wicked
 


BS!


So erudite, such a thought out response. You make a knee jerk comment and have no way to respond when it's questioned? Best thing to do is not make the comment in the first place, that's half the problem.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tribaltrip

Just saying, if people care so much about "marriage" then maybe they should practice what they preach and provide an example of what the "perfect marriage" is, because nowadays highschool relationships last longer than marriages.


The leaders of NOM (National Organization of Marriage) were asked if they did anything to promote healthy hetero marriage and reasons for divorce - - - as Christian divorce is more then 50%.

NO. The sole purpose of this group - - the exact reason it was created - - is to stop Gay Marriage.



But that is missing the point in my humble opinion. That is a group of people with an opinion hiding behind a flag called a faith. But, in fairness, America responded to the IRA in a similar manner and provided funds that directly led to the deaths of hundreds because they saw the flag and didn't look at the small print.


Could you please stay in this country.

When we get equal gay rights in America - - then I'll look elsewhere.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
What a mess.

Why are we even discussing this? Why did the government decide one day it was a good idea to recognise a religious institution?!!

What a stupid move to begin with...now, the bigger problem is that this happened in America, where we simply refuse to acknowledge a bad call when it was made.

So, instead of doing the -right- thing, which is to say the government stop recognising marrage across the board as the government is not a church, we will get trapped in a multitude of endless nonsense about it..legislating religion, which corrupts both the government, and religion.

Anyone whom puts a tiny bit of thought into this at the bigger picture will acknowledge that this isn't the governments business..


Down the road, maybe 40 or so years, there will be such complex artificial intelligence put into very realistic robotic bodies..this isn't science fiction, this is someone in 1900 discussing flying based on solid physics...only the daft disagree.
Now
Eventually a new challenge will come up..why can't we marry synthetics?! Just because the external is composed of different elements doesn't negate life..
And back to this crap again...

No...its time we change this discussion..from wanting the government to weight in, to demanding the government to butt out.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
We have thousands of years of tradition.

Traditional marriage also included polygamy.

I am not against polygamy...as a choice..but state benefits and such should extend only to a couple, not several..I personally don't care about what the couples forms are...nor do I even actually care if love is there actually..its a legal thing (decisions, stability, etc..hell, let em be bff's.)

But ya..so, your view that since its tradition, therefore your all for it, means you also support polygamy.


I have 31 states on my side.

Lets keep a close eye on that number.

I see it rising to 32 very soon.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by something wicked
 



Originally posted by something wicked
Why are you making this a Christian issue?


Christians are the largest (and maybe only?) group to so vociferously oppose marriage equality, pressuring the lawmakers to keep it illegal. If the Christians got out of the way, gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states.



Well, I hate to say this, but I think that may say more about Americans than Christianity. Please show me a Jewish or Muslim place of worship that will perform a same sex marriage...... sorry? You can't find one? No, you can't.

It doesn't matter. The state issues a marriage license, not the church. Faiths should be allowed to agree or disagree and frankly I believe that is their right. The state on the other hand should be blind to that and issue a marriage license and allow marriage in a state owned registry office to two concensual people regardless of their sex - sorry, only my opinion.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

So, instead of doing the -right- thing, which is to say the government stop recognising marrage across the board as the government is not a church, we will get trapped in a multitude of endless nonsense about it..legislating religion, which corrupts both the government, and religion.


We can't go to "government should not be in marriage". That is a different issue.

Equality has to be addressed on what is happening right now.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
We have thousands of years of tradition.

Traditional marriage also included polygamy.

I am not against polygamy...as a choice..but state benefits and such should extend only to a couple, not several..I personally don't care about what the couples forms are...nor do I even actually care if love is there actually..its a legal thing (decisions, stability, etc..hell, let em be bff's.)

But ya..so, your view that since its tradition, therefore your all for it, means you also support polygamy.


I have 31 states on my side.

Lets keep a close eye on that number.

I see it rising to 32 very soon.


Yes, fine..you got 31 states
I got a constitution allowing freedom of religion.
therefore I win since this is a republic and not a democracy.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012


I have 31 states on my side.

Lets keep a close eye on that number.

I see it rising to 32 very soon.


Supreme court is the only majority that counts



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Insults? Pointing out the progression of things isn't "insulting". Apparently we are getting closer to the crux of your issues as you are becoming quite defensive.


Calling someone homophobic isn't an insult?

Please, try to debate and not get personally abusive.

The fact that you are resorting to insults does suggest that you are frustrated in some manner.

By the way. I am still waiting for a coherent reason why the tradtional, legal and theological meaning of the word marriage should be changed?



We're still trying to figure why the word means so much to you? It's just a word. Words and meanings can change over time. Maybe it's time for this one to do so.

/TOA



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SaturnFX

So, instead of doing the -right- thing, which is to say the government stop recognising marrage across the board as the government is not a church, we will get trapped in a multitude of endless nonsense about it..legislating religion, which corrupts both the government, and religion.


We can't go to "government should not be in marriage". That is a different issue.

Equality has to be addressed on what is happening right now.


We have civil unions..this allows for two partners to union up..be it same or opposite sex.
This is all the government should be pressured into
if some religion wants to marry only hetro, or homo couples..thats their personal choice on their organization...but means absolutely nothing (no tax benefits, no legal consequences).

This would resolve equality right now for all parties, and ensure no other issues come up down the road.

The conversation is something we shouldn't be having about a government
We are demanding the government alter a religious viewpoint
We need to be demanding the government remove the religious viewpoint...not alter it.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
That's your response? You don't want to give "marriage" to gay people because of "the sanctity of marriage" or "traditional marriage".


I said nothing about "the sanctity of marriage". That was your straw man, not mine.

Nor did I refer to "traditional marriage" except in the sense of marriage having the tradtional meaning of a legal union between a man and a women.


Originally posted by Gemwolf
I point out that marriage is hardly considered sacred or traditional - especially not by heterosexuals, and your response is "straw man"? Excellent job of defending your argument…


You appear to be having an argument with yourself.

First you set up your own argument and present it as mine then you demolish it.

Classic straw man tactics.



edit on 23-5-2012 by ollncasino because: Fix error



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
We have thousands of years of tradition.

Traditional marriage also included polygamy.

I am not against polygamy...as a choice..but state benefits and such should extend only to a couple, not several..I personally don't care about what the couples forms are...nor do I even actually care if love is there actually..its a legal thing (decisions, stability, etc..hell, let em be bff's.)

But ya..so, your view that since its tradition, therefore your all for it, means you also support polygamy.


I have 31 states on my side.

Lets keep a close eye on that number.

I see it rising to 32 very soon.


Yes, fine..you got 31 states
I got a constitution allowing freedom of religion.
therefore I win since this is a republic and not a democracy.


I have my eye on the 31 states.


Majority rules!
You lose.

It appears that the people of Florida agree with me.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SaturnFX


Right, just wanted to get the technicals correct here. Globally (eventually we as a species are going to have to start thinking globally verses nationally)


I'm a Globalist. You don't need to go there with me.

As far as Islam - - I see it the same way I see others of religion. Everyone is an individual.

There are extreme vocal leaders in Christianity - as there are in Islam.

I will NOT slam Islam.



You seem happy to slam Christianity, why do you see a divide? You are making it about individuals rather than accepting a faith can make its choices and people follow it or not follow it. Fundamentalists will always be around - strangely if someone is a fundamentalist atheist it's hard to say they are part of a cult as they follow nothing, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Religion should have no say in if the state allows same sex marriages within a building that is not faith based - isn't that the point of separating the two?



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SaturnFX

So, instead of doing the -right- thing, which is to say the government stop recognising marrage across the board as the government is not a church, we will get trapped in a multitude of endless nonsense about it..legislating religion, which corrupts both the government, and religion.


We can't go to "government should not be in marriage". That is a different issue.

Equality has to be addressed on what is happening right now.


We have civil unions..this allows for two partners to union up..be it same or opposite sex.
This is all the government should be pressured into
if some religion wants to marry only hetro, or homo couples..thats their personal choice on their organization...but means absolutely nothing (no tax benefits, no legal consequences).

This would resolve equality right now for all parties, and ensure no other issues come up down the road.

The conversation is something we shouldn't be having about a government
We are demanding the government alter a religious viewpoint
We need to be demanding the government remove the religious viewpoint...not alter it.


Fine, the government should only be allowed to do civil unions, period. No marriages. Churches can do the marriages and of course, there are churches that marry gay couples, so... gay marriage exists. The end.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by something wicked
 



Originally posted by something wicked
Why are you making this a Christian issue?


Christians are the largest (and maybe only?) group to so vociferously oppose marriage equality, pressuring the lawmakers to keep it illegal. If the Christians got out of the way, gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states.



Well, I hate to say this, but I think that may say more about Americans than Christianity. Please show me a Jewish or Muslim place of worship that will perform a same sex marriage...... sorry? You can't find one? No, you can't.

It doesn't matter. The state issues a marriage license, not the church. Faiths should be allowed to agree or disagree and frankly I believe that is their right. The state on the other hand should be blind to that and issue a marriage license and allow marriage in a state owned registry office to two concensual people regardless of their sex - sorry, only my opinion.


Bingo! You win!

The state issues a marriage license, not the church.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked


Well, I hate to say this, but I think that may say more about Americans than Christianity. Please show me a Jewish or Muslim place of worship that will perform a same sex marriage...... sorry? You can't find one? No, you can't.



Orthodox rabbi marries gay couple in historic wedding in DC


by: shakimia - Monday, November 14, 2011

The two major identities that stick out for me are my Jewish and Queer identities. Anytime I see or read something about the intersectionality between the two, I get extra emotional.

This week was the first ever orthodox ordained gay wedding.

www.amplifyyourvoice.org...



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
We're still trying to figure why the word means so much to you? It's just a word. Words and meanings can change over time. Maybe it's time for this one to do so.


I'm trying to fugure out why the word means so much to gays.

If your argument is that the word 'marriage' shouldn't matter to me, then it shouldn't matter to gays either.

They should just drop it as being of no importance.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tribaltrip

Just saying, if people care so much about "marriage" then maybe they should practice what they preach and provide an example of what the "perfect marriage" is, because nowadays highschool relationships last longer than marriages.


The leaders of NOM (National Organization of Marriage) were asked if they did anything to promote healthy hetero marriage and reasons for divorce - - - as Christian divorce is more then 50%.

NO. The sole purpose of this group - - the exact reason it was created - - is to stop Gay Marriage.



But that is missing the point in my humble opinion. That is a group of people with an opinion hiding behind a flag called a faith. But, in fairness, America responded to the IRA in a similar manner and provided funds that directly led to the deaths of hundreds because they saw the flag and didn't look at the small print.


Could you please stay in this country.

When we get equal gay rights in America - - then I'll look elsewhere.


Errrm, that was about Americans giving funds to a terrorist group thinking they somehow actually represented a faith, thereby showing the American view? That was about America, but frankly, I'm not American, America is not the world and isn't the deciding factor for the rest of the world. Was this thread in a 'local politics' section? Forgive me if it was, I thought it was a wider topic that the rest of the world was allowed to have an opinion on.




top topics



 
19
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join