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.

 

Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Time will tell, I suppose. If the intent is not to force religions to recognize these "marriages", why would they not be content with civil unions, as so many hetero couples are? In other words, if all they are after is State recognition - a "Civil Union", why are they not content to call it what it IS, and rest in the same rights as hetero couple who engage in Civil Unions?


Religion has nothing to do with this.

Sorry - - I just can't deal with your "hang ups".




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Truth be told, women invented marriage BECAUSE the men WERE breeding willy nilly!

No self respecting hunter / warrior would have considered marriage if it were not forced on them by sexual refusal.

It reminds me of Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light."


edit on 27-7-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


If you say so.

What tribe are YOU? I'm Shawnee.

Among the Shawnee, no self-respecting warrior would have abandoned his family for a roll in the hay. We are taught that the only purpose of a warrior is to protect his own. That is OUR notion of a "self-respecting warrior".

So what is it in YOUR tribe?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
oops....
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrisGris

But a state sponsored relationship receives tax benefits from the tax paying society. Its not " more equal" it's just equal.


So the crux of the issue is money? They want to get married for the money?

They can have that - it's not anything I want.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by windword

What you should fear, and I don't mean you in particular OP/OB, is that multi-couple marriage is government sanctioned and your husband wants to marry his boyfriend too!
Three's Company!


Since when is Polyamory sanctioned by the American government?

Or did you mean another country?


Let me fix that. I meant "IF" multi-couple marriages were to become sanctioned, and you husband wanted to marry his boyfriend too.....

I will now go and edit my original post!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

The full sentence is: "Will they be content with civil unions?"

I didn't think it was necessary to spell it out.

You know "THEY".




So I have to join the club and be gay too?

Not gonna happen.

My neighbors are "they", too. It's how I refer to people who are not, you know, ME.

I thought that was why the word existed - to distinguish who you are talking about, rather than letting people assume you are referring to yourself.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm of the human tribe and I am referring to the time when the Shawnee weren't organized enough to call themselves Shawnees. A time when lonewolf hunters were tribes unto themselves and would take a woman by force, and then abandon them. That was curtailed by female wiles.
edit on 27-7-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by GrisGris

But a state sponsored relationship receives tax benefits from the tax paying society. Its not " more equal" it's just equal.


So the crux of the issue is money? They want to get married for the money?

They can have that - it's not anything I want.


But if you are married or have been, you are enjoying their tax dollars... While saying 'who cares' what the state says.

They do... And a majority of Americans.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Well... My husband would not have a boyfreind, I do not know what other people would do, I suppose it would be their private matter and most certainly not my problem nor my business to care what others are up to.....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by billy197300
 


Well, why are gays and lesbians not buddists then?



Maybe because their religious beliefs does not match with Buddhism. Are you saying that their religion means nothing unless other people believe the same? No freedom or religion, majority rules? America is supposed to be a democracy yes - but it is also a republic which is supposed to ensure people equal rights for freedom of religion, expression, and the pursuit of happiness.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by windword

What you should fear, and I don't mean you in particular OP/OB, is that multi-couple marriage is government sanctioned and your husband wants to marry his boyfriend too!
Three's Company!


Since when is Polyamory sanctioned by the American government?

Or did you mean another country?


Let me fix that. I meant "IF" multi-couple marriages were to become sanctioned, and you husband wanted to marry his boyfriend too.....

I will now go and edit my original post!


Hey! It works for some. And is on the upswing.

Now which Gibb brother was married to a BI and her girlfriend also lived with them?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu

Time will tell, I suppose. If the intent is not to force religions to recognize these "marriages", why would they not be content with civil unions, as so many hetero couples are? In other words, if all they are after is State recognition - a "Civil Union", why are they not content to call it what it IS, and rest in the same rights as hetero couple who engage in Civil Unions?


Religion has nothing to do with this.

Sorry - - I just can't deal with your "hang ups".


Which "hang ups" are those? are you assuming I'm religious? What religion am I, then?

You'll just have to be clearer on what DOES have to do with it if State recognized Civil Unions just won't do, but religion has "nothing to do with it".

PS - What you can't deal with isn't my problem - that would be yours. sort of like, oh, I dunno, what religious folks can't deal with isn't your problem, it's theirs.


edit on 2012/7/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrisGris

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by GrisGris

But a state sponsored relationship receives tax benefits from the tax paying society. Its not " more equal" it's just equal.


So the crux of the issue is money? They want to get married for the money?

They can have that - it's not anything I want.


But if you are married or have been, you are enjoying their tax dollars... While saying 'who cares' what the state says.

They do... And a majority of Americans.


Geeze!

What part of Equal Rights --- is that hard to understand? I don't get it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu

Time will tell, I suppose. If the intent is not to force religions to recognize these "marriages", why would they not be content with civil unions, as so many hetero couples are? In other words, if all they are after is State recognition - a "Civil Union", why are they not content to call it what it IS, and rest in the same rights as hetero couple who engage in Civil Unions?


Religion has nothing to do with this.

Sorry - - I just can't deal with your "hang ups".


Which "hang ups" are those? are you assuming I'm religious? What religion am I, then?

You'll just have to be clearer on what DOES have to do with it if State recognized Civil Unions just won't do, but religion has "nothing to do with it".



If you come up with anything new - - - I might have something to say.

But - I'm not going to continue rehashing what's already been clearly stated.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm of the human tribe and I am referring to the time when the Shawnee weren't organized enough to call themselves Shawnees. A time when lonewolf hunters were tribes unto themselves and would take a woman by force, and then abandon them. That was curtailed by female wiles.
edit on 27-7-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


So you have no tribe, but you presume to tell me how tribal people live?




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm of the human tribe and I am referring to the time when the Shawnee weren't organized enough to call themselves Shawnees. A time when lonewolf hunters were tribes unto themselves and would take a woman by force, and then abandon them. That was curtailed by female wiles.
edit on 27-7-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)


So you have no tribe, but you presume to tell me how tribal people live?





No, I presume to tell you, in a tongue and cheek sort of way, what anthropologist contend happened at the beginning stages of the neo-paleolithic history of mankind, my tribe.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
If a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to own a chevy and call it a mercedes, then they are free to do so. I have no problem with whatever they want to call their chevy.

Calling it a mercedes does not make it a mercedes. But if they choose to call it that, then fine. If the state recognises that their calling it a mercedes makes it a mercedes, then fine.

But it's still a chevy.

It does not affect my mercedes, nor does it lessen the value of my mercedes, because side-by-side, you can obviously see the difference between my mercedes and their chevy (that they call a mercedes).

Hope that cleared things up.

Peace.

beez



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
so what have we learned here so far in this discussion? has any progress been made?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrisGris

But if you are married or have been, you are enjoying their tax dollars... While saying 'who cares' what the state says.


I don't beg the State to sanction my relationships, nor do I accept their interference in them, so no, I'm not "enjoying their tax dollars".

I don't marry for money.



They do... And a majority of Americans.


They evidently care for a great deal more, if State Sanctioned Civil Unions will not suffice. It's that "more" that has folks worried. No one seems to know what the "more" is, but since Civil Unions providing the tax break is not enough, there has to be a "more" there some where.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Hope that cleared things up.

Peace.

beez


Nope. Opinions are opinions.

Equal Rights is Equal Rights.




top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join