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: 19
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
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?




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I was involved in a gay marriage discussion a long time ago in ATS with no other than anee
I think I can clarify the problem here
the reason why gays will not settle for a "civil union" is not because they like the word "marriage"
its more about principles

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



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

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.

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.

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.

As mentioned before, if the terms are different, it will be used by people in the future to discriminate.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

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


To try to teach people that a man/man, woman/woman, relationship is the same as a man/woman relationship is a discredit to society. Biology tells us that it is different. Is it accepted?

Now that's different. If a man/man or woman/woman union exists, it's no-ones business but the individuals involved.


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


Anyone call call anything what they want. Traditional church (re; marriage) speaks of a man/woman union called marriage.
If a man/man, or woman/woman union decides to call their union a marriage as well, then they should be free to.

But calling it a pastami sandwich will not make a ham and cheese sandwich a pastami sandwich.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
with homosexuality west will go further into family and psychology disaster, I bet.
fight with God and nature is useless. forget the wrong clerics that rape children in their churches, what if our creator wants our expediency and he knows well what he has created. selfishness is enough, we are living in societies. we should care about it
edit on 27-7-2012 by maes9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2012 by maes9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
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"



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

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"
Gay marriage is an agenda.
So, take it away from the gays.

Say, "Okay. Get married. Whatever."

And see what they complain about next.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


You really cannot change what I believe in accordance to my religion, or in accordance with my heart, and you cannot change what anyone else believes.... having a different belief than others, is a God given right. You can throw me in prison for believing something you dont, and it wont change that belief.

It wont stop me from believing you have the right to live your life the way you choose, God did after all give free will to all man kind....

We are different people, from different backgrounds, with different beliefs...... that is generally speaking ok, if we can agree to get along....The constutution provides that getting along factor.

Equality for all.... but it wont change even one thing I believe, that is thought police.... and I will not tolerate thought police.
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Tramadolnights
 




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.


Oh wow, that's gotta be the most deluded and paranoid response I have ever received.
Thank you for the laugh. However I suggest you actually read my post, and the posts of others on this thread, so that you can lean more about this topic.

I might be gay, but I am still a man. Being gay does not make me a woman.



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.


And this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I have no idea what concept you are trying to present here.
Why on Earth would your son be treated like a woman?

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)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


yeah thought police is of Medieval no one punishes anyone for his thought or something that he is doing in his private without harassment but if they justify homosexuality by passing law in the government it is a poison to our vulnerable society. we are not that free. we are living in societies.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by maes9
 


You really think there is any hope in this society or that it is not already poisoned? It is far gone..... and the poison isnt always where we are looking, or where we see either.What you see is only a distraction.

To each his own, we cannot shove our beliefs down anyones throat, or force anyone to believe. Be a good example to others, always doing our best, leaving ourself open so that people can speak, and ask questions if they wish, and feel comfortable doing so.

but this is all... someday it will all change, and until that day, I will live where I am free to openly practice my faith without anyone hindering me from that.... The constitution protects that.

The evil is already here maes..... and its not just here, it is literally everywhere in this world, in many forms.... we are now isolated, but not alone. Never alone.

And thusly, we wait.
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

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?











Personally? I cringe whenever someone gets their nose bent out of shape about this issue.

Allow 'em to get married!

Who cares!

Read my above analogy if you happened to miss it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 

So everyone deserves equal rights and the general right to live their life the way they want.
UNLESS it homosexual marriage? Everyone has the right to have their own religion/beliefs.
Not everyone relies on popular religious books to get their beliefes.

So when you say:
"My religion says I cannot marry someone who does not practice my religion"
Have you thought that maybe their religion allows them to marry whoever they want?
As long as one believes that a person named jesus christ who was crucified and then resurrected acutally existed is basicly a christian. As long as they believe in Jesus they can believe some of the facts mentioned in the bible or not, whatever they choose to. Its THEIR religion.

And honestly marriage nowadays is just a symbolical thing, its just a way to express love to the family of the couple. Like a small little statement. Divorce is also sort of symbolical, unless theres money involved.


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



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

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)


Of course, it couldn't be possible that the Catholic Church is just trying to hide their dirty little past secret, could it?

Boswell isn't really claiming that these ceremonies were exactly the same as marriage. The traditional marriage process back then was more complicated because it was pretty much a business deal between two families, whereas the same-sex unions were likely simple ceremonies of love between two people (of the same sex).



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Spotless
 


I never once said 'unless' a damn thing! I never once said what you just sat and accused me of! I have been saying I do not care if they want to have unions in their relgions and their manners....

so long as it never infinges upon my rights to freedom of religion and marriage for me is a part of that freedom of religion, and a very large part at that.

In my opinion, there is not one symbolic thing about a marriage, it is a part of my religion that religion dictactes every single aspect of.....its a hell of a lot more to me than a symbol....


But if my religion teaches me homosexuality is wrong, then guess what? I have every right to teach my children it is wrong, and teach my family what is written, and believe in my heart anything i please about it...

I willl fight to the death before you dictate to me what I will or will not believe....
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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.



This is all very cleverly written, but in the end -- it doesn't matter what you think. The fact is - we have tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of the state who want the exact same - repeat - the EXACT SAME benefits from the state that other citizens are getting. Plain and simple. Regardless of whether they can procreate, or can't procreate, or won't procreate, regardless of what religion they do or don't follow, regardless of whether it's for money, or for love, or for family, or whatever other reason, and regardless of what opinion you personally have of the state, and it's involvement in your personal life.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

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)


Don't wait for an answer - this guy's been banned. Can you guess why?

I think my answer to this question is that fear is a huge part of why people are so against gay marriage. Fear and ignorance. If only every one could "walk in the shoes" of a gay person for a while, just to go what they go through - it could change the world. The old "do unto others as you would have done to you" idea would mean so much more.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join