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: 24
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Spotless
 



Originally posted by Spotless
Tell me, can there be a gay christian ?


Can there be a shellfish eating Christian? The bible supposedly says both are an abomination...




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I'm going to probably take a beating for stating my "honest" opinion on the subject of why I believe many people are hesitate or uncomfortable using the term "marriage" for gay couples in a civil union.

Gay marriage is not "exactly" the same thing as a marriage between a man and women...and infact while I personally could care less who anyone else loves, and what they call thier union.....I think to insist that wanting to marry someone of the same sex should be seen as being as "normal" as a marriage between a man and women...is to deny the obvious facts of nature....we could discuss all day why people are gay, but it certainly is a completely different thing then being black, white, etc., and I don't see it as discrimination to say that being gay is an anomoly of nature, and I would venture to say that many kids that grew up gay know this first hand, they were different from other kids, and I don't condone being being mean or cruel to anyone for being different, but it's a lie to say they aren't different, they are.

I could jump up and down because I can't join a black gentleman's club, still won't change the fact I'm a white female, and it's "thier" club, but I can certainly start my own club, and call it whatever I want....but it's never going to be a black gentleman's club, and why would I even want it to be one?

If gay people want a special word for thier unions, make one up.......but "marriage" is already taken by men and women......and anyone that has ever been married knows we earned it !



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Gay marriage doesn't make your "normal" nature any less "normal".
They're not freaks of nature. I had a chance to meet a few gays in my life, even a lesbian. They were all amazing people and so what if they want to marry, i say good for them. Gays who want to get married are doing so and have been doing so for a long time. Don't worry, they aren't here to take over the world.

It seems like you think that they're stealing something from upi if they call their union marriage.
And thats makes them mad, because thats straight up discrimination however you put it.

Marriage is not reserved for christians or strictly men/women. Get over yourslef, its freakin 21 century.
Just because a human is different than you it doesn't make him anomaly of nature. You can fool yourself by saying its not discrimination, but it is.
You really need a nice warm cup of COMMON SENSE.

"If gay people want a special word for thier unions"
They don't want a special word, they want the usual word.

"And anyone that has ever been married knows we earned it"
Oh boy... I'm losing faith in humanity with your each sentence. Big time.

"Being gay is an anomoly of nature"
You feel free to label gays as anomaly of nature, then i'm feeling free to label you a homophobe/sexist.

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



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Spotless
 


Why is an anomoly bad? For the record, I am the furthest thing from a homophob, I live in a state that allows civil unions for gay folks, and I actually support equal rights under the law for gay couples. You don't have to tell me how cool gay people are, one of my dearest friends growing up was a gay male, and he would be the first to tell you he's an "anomoly"...and he was certainly different then the other boys....he taught me how to place chess, turned me on to lots of cool music, and him and I threw some GREAT parties...lol...we always had a theme.

I also have worked in the floral industry most of my life, and have worked with many very "gifted" and talented gay designers...and again most of them seem to outwardly enjoy being gay and different then hetro men. So please don't label me a 'hater"

Why is wanting a special word for a man and woman's union such a bad thing? To me that word is Marriage, and since most gay people I have known are extra creative types I'm sure they can think of a very special word for thier unions, that will make everyone happy....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spotless

Just because a human is different than you it doesn't make him anomaly of nature. You can fool yourself by saying its not discrimination, but it is. You really need a nice warm cup of COMMON SENSE.


Simply being "different" doesn't make one an anomaly of nature, but going expressly against the way nature has set things up DOES make one an anomaly of nature. Luckily, there is nothing natural about government, there is no "nature" in it, so government can do as it pleases in the matter of gay marriage.



"If gay people want a special word for thier unions"
They don't want a special word, they want the usual word.


I have an idea that works for me. Gays can have the "marriage" franchise altogether. I want nothing more to do with it, or the government sanctioned licensing scheme. I'll call mine a "Spiritual Union", and leave it at that. So there you go. have at it, and marry away. I'm backing out of the club, so do with it what you want. "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" - I'm not allowing them to license me in order to give them a say in what they sunder. gays can have the paper, right along with their newly-minted ability to "marry". I don't need it.

When gays decide they want my "Spiritual Unions", too, I reckon we'll have another problem. I may back out again, or I may not.

There is only so much backing up one can do.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 

So why not call civil unions - marriages and forget get on with your lifes ?
Why do you feel that gays are not entitled to call their union the same as ours ?

"Why is wanting a special word for a man and woman's union such a bad thing?"
What gives you the right to deny them this priviledge ?

Wait, so if anomaly is good what is all the fuss about ?

@nenothtu that idea perfectly fine. You can call the man/woman uninion however you want.
But that doesn't fix the problem. You'll start screaming again when one or two gay couples want to call their union a "Spiritual Union".

But your whole idea is not friendly toward gay people at all. Why do you feel the need to run away from them and name your union something different, like you're superior in some way.
You're not.

Me and my wife are atheist but got married. We did not do it in a chuch, but we did have a priest and we exchanges rings. Does that sit right with you ? Or should i call my marriage a union or whatever ?
We did it symbolicaly and we really wanted a big party.
edit on 27/7/2012 by Spotless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by NullVoid

Gay marriage = civil partnership agreement. Nothing religious about it.


If you are going to go that route,

straight marriage = civil partnership agreement. The state is not a religious organization.


Straight marriage is natural occurrence before religion ever created. Gay marriage created later (also before religion). However, its against God/nature will, gay marriage cannot procreate, thus a bit useless, incest also introduce lower quality gene (thus useless too), the same with intra species.

Religion have reason to reject gay marriage on that basis. Its against god/nature will, it cant procreate, its dead end. Why would anything go that way ?

Yes, you are right about "straight marriage = civil partnership agreement." However, it is also not against god/nature will, thus religion do not oppose it, the same cannot be said with gay, incest and bestiality.

Straight marriage = civil partnership agreement with religion in acknowledge/agreement
Gay marriage = civil partnership agreement



Originally posted by Spotless
reply to post by NullVoid
 

Tell me, can there be a gay christian ?

Keep in mind that first amendment mumbo jumbo, freedom of religion and stuff.
edit on 27/7/2012 by Spotless because: (no reason given)


The answer is obvious.
Gay Christian/whatever religion logically should not exist at all. (I'm not sure about satanic religion)


Its like - Tell me, can there be a person who breathe underwater ?
We, as a species are not supposed to do that....and homose.....

Its all wrong on all sides, but your rights is yours, so be it, hope you are happy with your choice.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
I'm going to probably take a beating for stating my "honest" opinion on the subject of why I believe many people are hesitate or uncomfortable using the term "marriage" for gay couples in a civil union.

Gay marriage is not "exactly" the same thing as a marriage between a man and women...and infact while I personally could care less who anyone else loves, and what they call thier union.....I think to insist that wanting to marry someone of the same sex should be seen as being as "normal" as a marriage between a man and women...is to deny the obvious facts of nature....we could discuss all day why people are gay, but it certainly is a completely different thing then being black, white, etc., and I don't see it as discrimination to say that being gay is an anomoly of nature, and I would venture to say that many kids that grew up gay know this first hand, they were different from other kids, and I don't condone being being mean or cruel to anyone for being different, but it's a lie to say they aren't different, they are.

I could jump up and down because I can't join a black gentleman's club, still won't change the fact I'm a white female, and it's "thier" club, but I can certainly start my own club, and call it whatever I want....but it's never going to be a black gentleman's club, and why would I even want it to be one?

If gay people want a special word for thier unions, make one up.......but "marriage" is already taken by men and women......and anyone that has ever been married knows we earned it !


I just don't get this "exclusive club" bit. It's like, "It's our club and you can't join - hmmmph!"
It's really so childish. Marriage is not a club. It's not like all married people in the country get together once a month for tea and cookies. My marriage has nothing to do with your marriage, which has nothing to do with the couple down the street, and so on. How in the world does it negatively impact your marriage if two gay guys get married? How does it negatively impact your marriage if a woman down the street from you marries a guy just for his money? How does it negatively impact your marriage right now, knowing that gays in Massachusetts can legally get married? Has it ruined things for you so far? I didn't think so.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Spotless

Just because a human is different than you it doesn't make him anomaly of nature. You can fool yourself by saying its not discrimination, but it is. You really need a nice warm cup of COMMON SENSE.


Simply being "different" doesn't make one an anomaly of nature, but going expressly against the way nature has set things up DOES make one an anomaly of nature. Luckily, there is nothing natural about government, there is no "nature" in it, so government can do as it pleases in the matter of gay marriage.



"If gay people want a special word for thier unions"
They don't want a special word, they want the usual word.


I have an idea that works for me. Gays can have the "marriage" franchise altogether. I want nothing more to do with it, or the government sanctioned licensing scheme. I'll call mine a "Spiritual Union", and leave it at that. So there you go. have at it, and marry away. I'm backing out of the club, so do with it what you want. "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" - I'm not allowing them to license me in order to give them a say in what they sunder. gays can have the paper, right along with their newly-minted ability to "marry". I don't need it.

When gays decide they want my "Spiritual Unions", too, I reckon we'll have another problem. I may back out again, or I may not.

There is only so much backing up one can do.



I like it!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


LOL....yeah...since my marriage didn't work out.....perhaps I should just wash my hands of the whole concept of "marriage"........maybe it's a case of "be careful what you wish for" to our gay friends.....It's kinda silly to believe that anything the government has thier greedy paws in can be considered "sacred" anymore.....

They can have marriage, and the messy, expensive divorces that go with them 50% of the time......



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel

If gay people want a special word for thier unions, make one up.......but "marriage" is already taken by men and women......and anyone that has ever been married knows we earned it !


What are you, 6 years old?

You didn't earn squat. There are millions upon millions of married people. Accept your not special.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




When gays decide they want my "Spiritual Unions", too, I reckon we'll have another problem. I may back out again, or I may not.


It seems to me that you're rooted in a belief that same sex relationships cannot have a spiritual component. As if, some sort of essence of humanity is violated by homosexuality.

That's your perspective and I respect your right to it. But for those who are reading this and think that it is a value that is rooted in Biblical, thus Christians, Jewish or Muslim doctrine, this is not the case.



1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David.


Then there is the love expressed by Ruth for Naomi,


Ruth 1:16

But Ruth said:
“Entreat me not to leave you,
Or to turn back from following after you;
For wherever you go, I will go;
And wherever you lodge, I will lodge;
Your people shall be my people,
And your God, my God.
17 Where you die, I will die,
And there will I be buried.
The Lord do so to me, and more also,
If anything but death parts you and me.”


These are not examples of spiritually vacant lust, but true love. The Bible doesn't deny the existence of true love in same sex couples.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Sorry but quoting the bible does not one thing to prove anything to any Muslim in the world.

thought you might like to know that.
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 

Just because the majority believes in something stupid, doesn't make it not stupid.

I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

@OpinionatedB: We're leaving out muslims for now. These hardcore christian interpret the bible in a literal sense.
As in "THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE GOD". You can only battle bible with bible.

Just as you can only battle quran with quran.
I'm just sad that there needs to be any battling in our times.
edit on 27/7/2012 by Spotless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm sorry if I was mistaken, therefore offended you. I thought that the Muslim world also shared the same history of the Old Testament, as descendents of Abraham through Ismael. Am I wrong?

Do you deny that the events of the Old Testament were true, or do you just break doctrine at that point?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
As far as I know they aren't interested in marrying under God. Some do and find religious ministers who will marry them.

It's up to them. I don't care.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by violet
 

YES! First sane post in this whole thread.
Barely anyone does it as a "union under god" nowadays anyway.
Might as well let gays do it. World will not break down peeps.

*handshake*



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
spotless has a point... we are just going to leave Muslims out of this one.
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Well, one great thing about 6 yr olds, they point out the obvious....so I will take that as a compliment.

As far as being special, perhaps no more special then anyone else, but special in my own ways, as we all are...truthfully I once really believed in marriage, and the sacred union it represented....but sadly my ex husband was a closeted gay guy, so yeah perhaps my views are "jaded"...your right, I didn't earn anything but a broken heart and a life as a single mom....I was making a joke actually........and I guess on some level "grasping" to presserve my romantic vision of what marriage should and could be.......



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB

If you take away all the legal and tax benefits that come with marriage, then you can keep it in the church.




top topics



 
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join