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 ronnieray123
A marriage is the Union of a man and a woman.. It is what it is. Look around, all around..all over the world.
So all that is being asked of those who support this issue is to choose a different name. Name it Steve, or Sarah, I don't care what ya call it. Its kinda like that mosque they wanted to build in NY, and the whole country was like....mmmmm maybe not there,so close to were the twin towers were.
Now the anti gay marriage crowd is asking you mmmmmm maybe you could name it something else, something not so close to our hearts........and they get a big middle finger as a response
Originally posted by quietlearner
like the analogy with ham and cheese vs the pastrami sandwich
the problem is not what word you call it
the problem is that you think of it as inherently different
its that intrinsic belief that man and man or woman and woman are different to woman and man that is the problem
what people like pro gays are fighting for is for analogies like the sandwich analogy to be impossible
it would be like they are having a ham and cheese sandwich and wanting to call it pastrami
while heteros also have a ham and cheese sandwich only that they are allowed to call it pastrami
but in reality both are the same ham and cheese sandwich
Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by nenothtu
For the record, I agree that I don't need a peice of paper to tell me I love someone.
My question to you is, how do you define marriage? I understand you don't think the state has power over it. Is it spiritual only? Do you think gay people can be married under your definition?
Originally posted by Grambler
Originally posted by ronnieray123
A marriage is the Union of a man and a woman.. It is what it is. Look around, all around..all over the world.
So all that is being asked of those who support this issue is to choose a different name. Name it Steve, or Sarah, I don't care what ya call it. Its kinda like that mosque they wanted to build in NY, and the whole country was like....mmmmm maybe not there,so close to were the twin towers were.
Now the anti gay marriage crowd is asking you mmmmmm maybe you could name it something else, something not so close to our hearts........and they get a big middle finger as a response
First off, historically marriage was something far different as has been discussed numerous times on this thread. Your culture took that word and made it something different and gave those cultures the big middle finger. If you truly feel that way, the you should push to call marriage something new, and then advocate gays not use that word.
ok fine marriage used to mean the union of a man and a sheep.....
Also, couldn't this same argument been used as a reason not to allow interacial marriage. At that time, if you looked all around, people were marrying people of the same race, so shouldn't interacial couples have called theyre marriage something different? You see how ridiculous this sounds.
(i dunno is the interracial marriage between a man and a woman?) someone sounds ridicules
Lastly, why is the name so important to you? You say to change it to something not so close to our hearts. Who is "our"? Christians? I just don't see how you can on one hand say gays shouldn't make a big deal anout the name of it, but make such a big deal of it yourself.
Wanna know why smart guy......What if the against crowd said," ok fine call it marriage, but would you do something for us in return, would you stop dressing like women in public and tell the militant "in your face" gays to tone it down." If your answer is no way they have a right to dress how they want bla bla bla, this is the problem the whole ME ME ME frame of mind
As mentioned before, if the terms are different, it will be used by people in the future to discriminate.
Gay marriage is an agenda.
Originally posted by drbatstein
Gay Marriage is just something they use to distract people from the real issues, you'll notice that when there's something else in the headlines that they don't want you think spend too much time thinking about, they quickly flash up a headline about "Gay Marriage"
Originally posted by Tramadolnights
You are doing it to spite heterosexual people. You are doing it to spite Christians. You are doing it to spite the family unit. You are doing it to turn our society into one where gender roles mean nothing.
It is actually scary if I'm entirely honest, to think that I could bring a child onto this earth and he will not know his place because he is treated like a woman.
Originally posted by mctor
reply to post by beezzer
You do realise that gay people are not an activist group that all share the same views? I cringe on this thread every time I read 'the gays'. Nobody talks about 'the straights' as if all heterosexual people share a similar mindset and a part of a special interest group.
Also, what's with the people assuming they have more of a right to be a Christian than a Gay person? You do realise that you can be a Christian and believe in God and Jesus' teachings without having to agree with every word in the bible? They might want to get married in a church because they are a passionate follower of Christ, maybe more so than a straight person. Ever thought of that?
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv
oh brother! Chairman of Yale's history dept. I'm sure there's no revisionist history there lololol Antony Sutton must be rolling in his newly dug grave.
I knew it! the guy is changing the meanings of old rituals
www.newoxfordreview.org...edit on 27-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by Grambler
reply to post by nenothtu
For the record, I agree that I don't need a peice of paper to tell me I love someone.
My question to you is, how do you define marriage? I understand you don't think the state has power over it. Is it spiritual only? Do you think gay people can be married under your definition?
Well, I've been hammering on the State-sponsored angle because that's the usual excuse i hear for gay marriage - they need the recognition from the State, for whatever excuse they give. In the modern US, the only real advantage is financial, in the tax breaks.
For my own view, sure it has a spiritual dimension, but also a biological one, and probably most importantly, the level of commitment, and what one is committing TO. If you're in it for the financial dimension, then you are, in reality, committing to the money. As a secondary consideration, you are committing to the State, as a means of getting TO the money, and giving them permission to regulate your love life in consideration of... the money. It doesn't seem like a proper trade to me. You either love your significant other, or you do it for the money, and accept governmental oversight of the relationship for that remunerative consideration. You are, in effect, asking the State to step into your personal relationships, BETWEEN yourself and your partner, for monetary consideration. That's not love, or even like, in my book - it's a business arrangement.
Biologically, higher organisms are sexually dimorphic, male and female, for a reason, and that reason is the propagation of the species. Now, whether a specific pair of people is capable of procreation is not the issue, It's the precedent of the potential. There are plenty of hetero couples incapable of procreating, but they still obey natural law, by pairing off in a procreational configuration. You may find homosexual liaisons in nature, but no homosexual mating pairs.
The spiritual dimension is probably best left to be discussed among the spiritually-minded. No one else is going to understand it, specifically because they reject the spiritual dimension in all aspects of their lives, not limited to marriage, and there is no particular reason any one else should force the concept on them
For me, the totality of those three things are what make or break a "marriage", but two out of three ain't bad. Relying on only one of them, in isolation, is treading shaky ground.
Whether gay couples would qualify is a solid "maybe", with the only absolute prohibition the biological imperative. I'm sure some of them entertain some form of spirituality, and they can, of course, already commit without State intervention, but they can never, ever form a sexually dimorphic mating pair with each other.
Originally posted by Davo163
Also, for the record: I am a Christian too – same as you.
I'm wondering if maybe that's why you fear gay people being granted marriage equality – that those you consider 'below' or 'lesser' than yourself, would have equal rights, that they would be 'equal' to you. Would this be correct?
edit on 27/7/12 by Davo163 because: (no reason given)