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.
Originally posted by SilentKillah
Let the gays have the same rights under a different term.
Originally posted by adigregorio
Originally posted by SilentKillah
Let the gays have the same rights under a different term.
You do realize that same, and different, well those are not the same...
Why do you think you are better than gay folks? Why do you get to be "married" and they not?
Why not change the definition of marraige, that would be "cool" wouldn't it?
No? That "sucks", they never change the meaning of words. All well, if they ever do it will be pretty "groovy" and really "rock".
EDIT (Afterthought)
I wonder if when they changed "gay" from happy to homosexual, if there was an outcry like this...
edit on 5/23/2012 by adigregorio because: Added quotes around groovy, also thought of another word but I don't want to be an "ass".edit on 5/23/2012 by adigregorio because: Afterburning a thought, sweet
Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Yeah I hate when people hijack words and make us redefine traditional crap...*shakes fist
Now those darn liberals are making us redefine "marriage" as a union between 1 man & 1 woman after thousands of years of being between 1 man & many women
Log Cabin Republicans is the only [Republican organization dedicated to representing the interests of gay and lesbian Americans and their allies. The 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, DC, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.
that is basically rewriting history
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by Cassius666
We got seperation between state and church, to be our own masters, now we have the marriage construct in the state, where you have to take the marriage to a judge when either party wants to break it up. I dont see the appeal of a one size fits all contract. State marriage should be done away with and the obligations 2 people want to enter with each other on the legal level should be up to them and customizable. Marriage was supposed to be a promise, not a contract.
That would be perfectly acceptable, but in order to do it, all the government "perks" would have to be removed from those promises and that's the part the opponents are unwilling to let go of.
They don't really care about "marriage" at all, they don't care about tradition, they don't care about theology, they care about two other people of the same gender getting the same "perks" they get and they won't be "special" anymore. ... only my opinion only of course, I have absolutely nothing to back that up with.edit on 23-5-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by geewizz
It's none of anyone's business who someone choses to be with! It's funny how when it comes to 2 gay men it's seen as something bad but 2 gay women it's fine total joke! If 2 people love each other it's up to them! Some laws in USA are frigging stupid!
Originally posted by Cassius666
Perks? You mean tax breaks? I dont think not all states and countries have them, or at least not tied directly to marriage, but to things such as being a parent.
I guess adoption is another perk for married couples.
Originally posted by Cassius666
You mean tax breaks?
Originally posted by ollncasino
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're wrong. The majority of Americans agree with marriage equality.
Yet
Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote
What should we believe?
One opinion poll or the results of 31 states that have voted against gay marriage?
It would appear that the balance of evidence suggests that you are mistaken.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Perks? You mean tax breaks? I dont think not all states and countries have them, or at least not tied directly to marriage, but to things such as being a parent.
Only married taxpayers may file a joint return for a taxable year. Filing jointly enables you to take advantage of many tax credits and benefits that aren't available to couples who file separately.
The main advantages of filing a joint return are:
The total tax liability of you and your spouse will usually be lower if you file jointly than if you file separately
There's less cost and time to complete one joint return
You can receive the largest standard deduction. This deduction reduces the income amount subject to tax if you're not claiming itemized deductions
A married person who files a joint return is allowed to contribute to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) even if that person doesn't work
Social Security Benefits
Spousal survivor benefit.
Spousal retirement benefit.
Lump-sum death benefit.
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS.
Creating a "family partnership."
Estate Tax and Estate Planning Benefits
Estate and gift tax exemption.
Estate Tax "Portability."
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Procession101
Which one? The Republicans who were once liberal? The Democrats who were once conservative? It really depends on 1. how far back you are willing to go, and 2. what is against you. Creating a cradle-to-grave care system and repeatedly keeping predominantly 1 race into it is just as evil as not wanting to take care of any who are in need.
Originally posted by Gemwolf
reply to post by kaylaluv
Come on. As we all know, if we allow two men or women to enter into a marriage, it would allow for all kinds weird behaviour. Next people would want to marry their pets because a dog has legal rights and can sign a legal document... And once again, there goes the sanctity of marriage right out the door.
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by freakjive
I agree, personal liberty should trump Christian dogma everytime!
P.S.
It is easy to get Christians to act. You need only poke a stock in the hornets' nest (Bash Jesus publically) and then make it look as though the country is ailing. Most immediately start to think of Sodom and Gomorra, and they are then ready to act to reaffirm their faith, save their country etc...edit on 23-5-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by Gemwolf
reply to post by kaylaluv
Come on. As we all know, if we allow two men or women to enter into a marriage, it would allow for all kinds weird behaviour. Next people would want to marry their pets because a dog has legal rights and can sign a legal document... And once again, there goes the sanctity of marriage right out the door.
Interesting point. I have three pugs, two of which are male. Which of the three should I be allowed to marry if they should ask?
(please, for the sake of God let no-one think that is a serious question)edit on 23-5-2012 by something wicked because: for the bit in brackets
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by freakjive
I agree, personal liberty should trump Christian dogma everytime!
P.S.
It is easy to get Christians to act. You need only poke a stock in the hornets' nest (Bash Jesus publically) and then make it look as though the country is ailing. Most immediately start to think of Sodom and Gomorra, and they are then ready to act to reaffirm their faith, save their country etc...edit on 23-5-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)
Why are you making this a Christian issue? What faiths allow same sex marriage? That has nothing - nothing to do with the state granting a marriage license to a same sex couple. The fact that a church of whatever faith may not recognise it is neither here nor there.