Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Well.. you are wrong there. It isn't just a religious institution anymore.

So all of your confusion should be allayed.

Let me break it down for you so you can understand. In this country we have freedom of religion. So two people of opposite sex of ANY religions can get married in that religion and get ALL the benefits that come with being married in America. So if there is a religion that allows ANYONE to marry anyone else no matter the sex, despite the fact that the religion allows men to marry men and women to marry women, two people of the same sex couldn't have a marriage recognized BY LAW even if their religion allowed it. You see? Christians are trying to lord over "marriage" which is not simply a christian institution. Two people of the same sex can't get married BY LAW.

It's absurd.

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

Not true. You cannot get married in any religion and be considered married by the State, with all the "rights" and responsibilities that entails, unless you ALSO get married by the State. The State is not recognizing religious marriages, it is recognizing State marriages. This is why you have to be licensed and approved by the State for that recognition. The fact that both ceremonies are held simultaneously doesn't matter - it is still two separate ceremonies. If you don't believe me, try getting married without a license, in any house of worship you choose, and then demanding your marital rights from the State without the State licensing, using only the religious ceremony.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by Tramadolnights

 

Why can't you 'star' this post?
One thing I like about ATS is the freedom of speech; what's up?

He's been banned (and rightly so). Broke the T&C rules too many times.

I'm pleased to hear that too, if that guy was any more closeted he'd be in Narnia!

Ok, so back to the original question. Gay couples that want to marry, just want to be recognized the same as heterosexual couples that want to marry - not rocket science. Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.

Nature makes gay people.. through straight people procreating. It doesn't matter if gays can reproduce or not, they will still be here, which is why they are here at the moment.

That does seem to be the current theory of things, appearing to be tailor-made to support the gay agenda. I don't happen to subscribe to it, but you are welcome to.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.

Nature makes gay people.. through straight people procreating. It doesn't matter if gays can reproduce or not, they will still be here, which is why they are here at the moment.

That does seem to be the current theory of things, appearing to be tailor-made to support the gay agenda. I don't happen to subscribe to it, but you are welcome to.

It's hardly a theory. It's a fact. There's no 'subscribing' to it or not. Gay sex in the animal world (yeah, like they really had some sort of different psychological upbringing than the other animals), gay humans = was here, is here, will be here.

reply to post by nenothtu


As a representative of the heterosexual agenda - WHAT????? Seriously, are you joking or is this a serious thread.

reply to post by kaylaluv


would tax breaks for more people not create a deficit of money for the government?
a deficit that the rest will have to fill by other means
so economic wise it does affect the average american citizen

I don't think gay marriage is as isolated as people crack it up to be
when you argue against gay marriage pro gays constantly say "how is it going to affect you?"
but I think there will be an effect, maybe not in the short run but definitely in the long run
there will be an economic effect and a social effect
I can't predict if they will be positive or negative effects but an effect nonetheless
and we should treat them with careful consideration

shame most people will argue that legalized gay marriage wont affect anyone else but gays
IMO it will bring as much change as when women suffrage was legalized
I'm just not sure if it will be a positive or a negative one

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
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)

No one is going to dictate to you what you believe - except a book written by men 2000 years ago, that you believe every word of because you're told to by someone who dictates it.

Originally posted by Biliverdin
Given that the institution of marriage as we currently know it, was shaped according to the patriachal, Abrahamic religious movements, was designed for the purpose of establishing paternity, defining exclusive sexual access to a woman, and legitimising off-spring for the purposes of inheritance, it would seem appropriate to allow homosexuals who intend to raise children together access to marriage so that their children can have the same equality of legitimacy.

Prior to the spread of Abrahamic laws, in most cultures, globally, homosexuality was socially accepted as a natural minority, and it is only those laws that made homosexuality illegal and 'taboo'. It is probably about time that the balance was redressed and that those faiths born of that tradition accepted that a wrong has been committed.

Certainly many Christian sects are learning to accept homosexuality, particularly in the UK, and there are a small, but growing, number of clergy that are openly gay. Some are celibate admittedly, but that does in no way detract from the acceptance of their sexual preference, both by themselves and their communities.

Marriage has evolved over the years, most women, for example, are not expected these day to 'obey', it seems a little change to allow everyone, gay and straight, access to the same privileges, if they so want them.

So much sense this makes. What people pay attention to in the Bible has evolved SO much over time, and yet in a thread like this no one wants to admit it.

And what about all the quotes in the bible about planting more than one crop = not allowed. Cutting your hair = not allowed, but somehow most Christians have this short hair thing going on, wearing garments made of more than one fabric = not allowed. No one even thinks about that. It's IN the bloody bible. And not ONCE have in the numerous times I've mentioned this, does any Christian even reply to this query. Why? Because it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE that if they are going to quote one part of the bible as something to obey, that they would completely disregard other parts of the bible. What bunch of BALONEY!

Originally posted by quietlearner



shame most people will argue that legalized gay marriage wont affect anyone else but gays
IMO it will bring as much change as when women suffrage was legalized
I'm just not sure if it will be a positive or a negative one

Well, I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Seriously, they said the exact same thing about interracial marriage (race mixing). They said mixing the races was going to have horrible effects. That was 50 years ago, and how has that negatively impacted your life?

reply to post by nenothtu



The Amish do not recognise state in anything do they?

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by nenothtu

 

OOOH, so you live in a utopia. Please tell me where this is. Humans have been searching for it since they could imagine it.

How perfectly foolish!

Point out where I said I live in "utopia". I said that you don't have to look at garbage and evil every day, that you can get away from it.

Right now, I live in Hell, but I know what else is out there, because Ive been places that aren't where I am now. No, I'm not going to tell you where Utopia is. You might decide to visit, bring your silly-assed contention and version of "civilization", and then it wouldn't be Utopia any more!

maybe you should get out more, and see if you can find it on your own.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by quietlearner



shame most people will argue that legalized gay marriage wont affect anyone else but gays
IMO it will bring as much change as when women suffrage was legalized
I'm just not sure if it will be a positive or a negative one

Well, I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Seriously, they said the exact same thing about interracial marriage (race mixing). They said mixing the races was going to have horrible effects. That was 50 years ago, and how has that negatively impacted your life?

maybe not negatively but it has definitely impacted how I live and how society moves around me.
one thing I can say is that if it wasn't for legalizing interracial marriage we would not be having a gay marriage discussion right now, and I would not be sitting here typing this

in a similar fashion, what will legalizing gay marriage bring to the future
it's very hard to tell
I personally feel like legalizing gay marriage is a step on the wrong direction because of what lies after it

edit: maybe nothing lies after gay marriage

Originally posted by Beers
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Really, evil left behind. Can you say Colorado? That's just 1. Want more examples?

Are you saying you Do like Colorado, or you DON'T like Colorado? I've heard it's a lovely place, but to each his own.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Yeah, nature doesn't like women past the age of menopause, or men past the age of virility either. But, we've found a way to cheat nature, and live beyond that.

Why would nature not like them? Is their history and contribution to the gene pool suddenly non-existent?

Well, duh - they can't procreate any more. They're useless to nature now. It's all about procreating, right - that's the only reason we're all here. Once you've done your duty, you can go now.

So their contributions to the gene poll just vanishes, because you think that nature doesn't like them any more?

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
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)

Ah yes, evil everywhere, but someday "it will all change" just magically, without you having to do anything, without you having to examine yourself at all. Ignorance really IS bliss.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

well... since we are talking natural and you are the one who made it to where I feel like vomiting for the past 30 to 45 minutes or so.... lets discuss natural

How can a child be legitamite in your eyes since a child born within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman is the declaration of legitimacy....

so how can a man and a man,..... or a woman and a woman... who are married.... have a legitimate child?

My mind cannot do those mental gymnastics

The child is legitimie, no matter who the parents are if they love and nurture the child like any other good parent then the child is legitimite, never heard of tarzan? he didnt have his original parents, but he was the legitimite child of an ape, because he acted like an ape.

and again, everything your saying is pure textbook, "declaration of legitimacy"? what declaration? and for who?

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by quietlearner



shame most people will argue that legalized gay marriage wont affect anyone else but gays
IMO it will bring as much change as when women suffrage was legalized
I'm just not sure if it will be a positive or a negative one

Well, I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Seriously, they said the exact same thing about interracial marriage (race mixing). They said mixing the races was going to have horrible effects. That was 50 years ago, and how has that negatively impacted your life?

maybe not negatively but it has definitely impacted how I live and how society moves around me.
one thing I can say is that if it wasn't for legalizing interracial marriage we would not be having a gay marriage discussion right now, and I would not be sitting here typing this

in a similar fashion, what will legalizing gay marriage bring to the future
it's very hard to tell
I personally feel like legalizing gay marriage is a step on the wrong direction because of what lies after it

edit: maybe nothing lies after gay marriage

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

Therein lies the crux for a lot of people. At least you're being honest in your words.

I think society is STUCK in a frigging box, hilariously so - for the longest time. So you're afraid of the current way of life breaking down? I am not. I can't wait. And especially around the idea of love, sex, family - it's all hilariously been toeing the line for centuries in the most ridiculous way. And the sad part is that everyone thinks it's always been this way, which it hasn't.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by OpinionatedB

 

Well.. you are wrong there. It isn't just a religious institution anymore.

So all of your confusion should be allayed.

Let me break it down for you so you can understand. In this country we have freedom of religion. So two people of opposite sex of ANY religions can get married in that religion and get ALL the benefits that come with being married in America. So if there is a religion that allows ANYONE to marry anyone else no matter the sex, despite the fact that the religion allows men to marry men and women to marry women, two people of the same sex couldn't have a marriage recognized BY LAW even if their religion allowed it. You see? Christians are trying to lord over "marriage" which is not simply a christian institution. Two people of the same sex can't get married BY LAW.

It's absurd.

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

Not true. You cannot get married in any religion and be considered married by the State, with all the "rights" and responsibilities that entails, unless you ALSO get married by the State. The State is not recognizing religious marriages, it is recognizing State marriages. This is why you have to be licensed and approved by the State for that recognition. The fact that both ceremonies are held simultaneously doesn't matter - it is still two separate ceremonies. If you don't believe me, try getting married without a license, in any house of worship you choose, and then demanding your marital rights from the State without the State licensing, using only the religious ceremony.

So very true. I am an ordained minister. (Imagine that!) I have not registered with my state of residence. If I do, and pay the $12.95 FEE TO GET REGISTERED, I would be able to legally conduct marriage rituals and funerary ceremonies. I have been asked several times to marry couples, but I have to explain the fee which I have not yet paid to the state I live in. I was staying away from this thread due to the religious aspects of it, but now that it's back in Social Issues, and reading the thread through, I feel the need to comment.

I have to photocopy my ordination certificate, and send a check in for the above mentioned amount, and my state will LEGALLY recognize me as a person capable of performing marriage ceremonies. It matters not the religion, it matters that the person performing the ceremony is LEGALLY capable.

So......

In my state it is illegal to marry people of the same gender. If I perform such a ceremony, is it invalid because I committed an illegal act, and thus nullify my credentials, or invalid because the state overrides personal ceremonies of marriage?

The state wins, in a lawsuit, because honestly, my state has defined a marriage as between two people of the opposite gender.

There's flexibility here.

People can lobby. If there's a vast percentage of the population that is homosexual, they CAN change the laws.

Federally, the government takes precedence. Congress, specifically, the deciding body against the states. It's a nice ideal balance, which the framers intended, but homosexuality was NOT an issue when our constitution was framed. Accordingly, the Constitution is the framework by which all of Congress (and the Supreme Court) hinges their decisions.

An ancient document precedes common sense. Think about THIS:

The political theory that underlies the Constitution’s overall allocation of power between Congress and the states does not require the distinction between restricting and requiring activity either. The Constitution’s architects were guided by a principle that makes that distinction irrelevant: the principle that Congress should be assigned only those powers that could not effectively be reserved to the states. They believed that if the effects of a particular political decision would be felt only or mainly within a particular state, that decision should be left to that state because decisions by state officials would be more sensitive to local needs and local opinion. But if some issue could only sensibly be settled at the national level, like decisions about foreign trade or the terms of trade among citizens of different states, then the principle requires that Congress have the power to decide it.

Congressmen vote their geographic preference. Gay marriage is allowed in some states.

Congress doesn't have a decision yet, but the states are producing their own laws. Read above. If the states can handle the "problem", they are to be the ruling authority.

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Their children would not be legitimate though.

One comment made earlier was marriage to make their children legitimate. Well their children are unable to be legitimate. Legitimacy is conception and birth within the confines of a marriage between a man and his wife. That is what decides legitimacy.

For YOU maybe. But if a man and a woman decide to have a child, and they're not married OR religious, and love their child and are happy, I'd say that is pretty legitimate.

Legitimacy is defined through legal parameters - its a legal status, not a "feeling".

Those legal parameters involve being born in wedlock, which is something that will never happen for a same-sex couple. They are not equipped for it - their plumbing is all wrong. in order to get the right plumbing combination, they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex, not the same sex.