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: 41
19
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pisssss

Originally posted by nenothtu
Who am I obstructing, and from what?


I am talking rhetorically, not literally. But if your political will is amplified by
a million other people who hold the same position then your will and philosophy
might serve as a part of the political machine that actively obstructs gay marriage.


My political will is amplified by nothing. If it were, gays would be engaging in their government contracted marriages in every state in the Union by now, or no one would be.



I find this part of your response to be disingenuous when I weigh against your sentiment
in other posts. Government takes away marriage at the behest of the parties or party
engaged in the marriage. It is disappointing that you had to dumb down the a perfectly
intelligent conversation to such a degree. You seems to express that you were against
granting things/rights that the government could strip away, but I do not understand how
devolving a marriage can genuinely can be a good example of why you have the position
you do.

People initiate the divorce, not the government, the government officiates only after there
is a request. Where is the tyranny in that?


Marriages are not always dissolved by amicable mutual consents. They ARE, however, always dissolved by government decree, and it's become the usual practice that one or the other partners gets fleeced in the deal, also by government edict. With that said, you're right, it wasn't the best example. Government is in the practice of granting and taking away things all the time. Just because marriage in general has not been one of those things so far is no guarantee that it never will be. In fact, the government CAN'T take away marriage per se, but they can, and in my opinion should, take away all government consent to it. That's for everyone, across the board. It's not government business, and neither gays nor straights should have to seek governmental permission to marry. Since Straights ARE availing themselves of that option, gays should be allowed to as well. That's all part and parcel of that equality under the law that I keep harping on about.






So you are of the opinion that all of your rights are issued by a government, and they cannot take away what they give?

did I say that?


Yes, by contending that a civil marriage is some kind of "right", and that the case I make for government ability to take away what it gives is "a reason that is based upon imagination, not history or substance."



Are you really gonna hold that divorce is something government "takes away"?


No. Divorce is something that government gives, marriage is what that takes away, right along with a sizable chunk of the property you worked for during that period, in most cases.



The individuals involved in the marriage decide, it is not coercive or done in
a unitary fashion by the government.

Tell me, has a the government ever taken away a marriage without the consent of the
parties involved?


Yes. My first marriage was dissolved by the government at my insistence, and against the will of my wife. It most definitely was coercive on the part of the government. To this day, I don't know exactly what her gripe with it was - I voluntarily gave her the house and everything in it, a brand new car I'd bought her, and everything else other than an old beater car I picked up for 500 bucks in which I hauled away a few of my portable personal possessions. All I wanted was out, and she could have the rest as far as I was concerned. She kicked up a terrible fuss fighting it and trying to get me to come back, but in the end the government prevailed and cancelled the ticket, because government issued it, and they could. Now, I'm not the least upset about that, but that's the way it went, and she wasn't very satisfied with the outcome.

My second marriage ended in death, and again the government stepped in to divvy the spoils, because they had been given that ability by virtue of issuing the certificate. I wound up with nothing again, but again I wasn't upset at that - I couldn't think of anything I wanted after she died anyhow, and I didn't marry her for "stuff" in the first place. I understand there are those who DO want to retain some things, and they would have been sorely disappointed.







I've already said, repeatedly, that gay marriage ought to be sanctioned by government to the same extent as heterosexual marriage. There is no reason that anyone other than government must be force to compromise themselves and embrace it socially or spiritually.


You start off fine but insert a giant "but" that effectively recants your first sentence.


No, there is no recanting. There is a difference between civil, government issued contracts, and social, community driven sentiment. Making a distinction between the two is in no way recanting either of them.



I think it is obvious that the individuals who desire the marriage embrace it spiritually
and socially.


What they do socially is no more my problem than my social reaction to it is theirs.



Again, it is their choice, it is not your business, grant them the means to
pursue their happiness even if it is just symbolic.


Exactly. I keep yelling that, but am getting the distinct impression that no one is listening, because they keep ignoring it.



Let me ask you another way

Why do you feel the need to rationalize ways to obstruct the logic in allowing gays to get
married? Can't they be free enough and adult enough to decide if they want to engage in
a contract or engage in something the government has a hand in?


I don't. Saying that I support their efforts to enter a legal contract is not abrogated by my reluctance to embrace it socially. They still get what they claim to desire - a legally contracted marriage. The rest is moot as far as they are concerned. It's not like I'm going to throw rocks at married gay couples or throw them out of my house when they visit - but I'm not going to dance at their wedding, either. Ask any of the gays in this thread if me not dancing at their wedding is going to hurt their feelings - my bet is that they would heave a sigh of relief instead.




NO reason. Forcing them to compromise their own standards in any manner other than recognition of the legal or financial implications of the law is antithetical to freedom, and no less oppressive to them than refusal of a license is to gays.


Is that right?

You mean all these gay people wishing they could get married are actually being granted a favor?


A favor? How do you get that from what I wrote? what part of "oppressive... refusal of a license to gays" would constitute a favor? I can't think of many favors that are oppressive at all. Trying to force acceptance of anything at all by legal means is no less oppressive, however, than withholding acceptance by legal means. Be happy with the legal acceptance that they claim to desire when it comes, but social acceptance will never be forced - it has to be freely given. Morality cannot be legislated, it has to develop of it's own accord.



But you are not advocating for the elimination of straight marriage because you are so pro gay
huh?


Actually, I do advocate that elimination in legal terms. I don't think the government has any business in matrimonial affairs at all, straight or gay. It's none of the government's business in either case. I'm not "pro-gay", I'm just not anti-gay. I don't think there should be any distinction between them under the law, and who pokes who with what is none of the government's business when it comes to issuing privileges. Those privileges should be issued to people, not this or that "kind" of people if they are going to issue them to anyone at all.



Gay people across this globe are all trying to institute gay marriage, but by this measure
they are all too stupid to realize that the marriage they desire is actually oppressive?


You said that, not me, but it may actually be the case, now that you bring it up. Feeling a need to seek public permission for private affairs does seem a bit oppressive to me, but do as you will - there's no particular reason I have to seek that permission for myself, and in fact have no intention of doing so ever again. What you do is up to you, just as what I do is up to me.



If their "love and commitment" hinges upon a law or financial considerations, I submit that perhaps they should re-evaluate just how committed they actually are, and what it is they are really committed to. That applies whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.


I submit, you and other part time libertarians let gay people decide and consider
marriage based upon what ever criteria they see fit. If their motive do not fit your construct
of the world, how in the hell is it your concern or anyone else's?


It's not - not until they seek my approval by presenting a rationale that conflicts with the reasons they give. On the one hand, they present a rationale of "love and commitment", and on the other they present reasons of financial considerations under the law. My own love and commitment doesn't hinge on financial considerations or even legal ones, and I won't be convinced to offer any more support for the cause by being presented with those sorts of conflicts. The simplest solution is to do as you will, and don't ask me for approval or support - it's not needed.



Are you sure you are not hiding a different motive? It is nearly tantamount to protesting cars because people might die in auto wrecks, unless I am missing something substantial that I have failed to read.

No, I protest cars because of the licensing and insurance requirements. Those are why I don't drive any more on public roads. I can still smoke a private road or track, though, just like I can a private "marriage".



edit on 2012/7/29 by nenothtu because: Spelling and other irritating punctuation errors




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by pisssss

Well you could always help pave the way for those heavenly conversations,


OR... I could just let folks carry their own water.



I'm sorry but I don't see any skin being shed from your back to justify any objection to the
substantive part of this, the implementation.


And you won't. Why should I justify objections I don't have? Let people get their blasted government licenses if that's what they want! How many times do I have to yell that? Am I just not yelling louldy enough, or what?

The poster said "let God sort 'em out at the gates of Heaven", and I agreed. If God objects, let HIM sort it out - that's not my job. I'm not a god. Until then, let them have their licenses if that's what they want. How would that be a problem for me? It's not like I'm going to fight them to get the last certificate in the office or anything. I don't need it and don't want it - why would I object to someone else taking it? If God objects, let him sort it out, and until them let 'em have their licenses in peace. If a God DOES object, it may be the only peace they have in the long run, and who am I to deny them that? that would be between them and their own god(s) wouldn't it?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




excuse me, but stop being so angry about it... that house you worked for, well, you said it was because you loved me at the time... ohh... and the stocks and bonds? also, you said it was for love! Therefore, mine.

you can get over your bad self now! The state gaveth the marriage, and the state gave me your stuff!


edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I wasn't addressing you in that post, and I'd appreciate if you never addressed me again, and I will return the favor. Thank you.


I think that makes at least 3 now.

Some people just don't make sense.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 




excuse me, but stop being so angry about it... that house you worked for, well, you said it was because you loved me at the time... ohh... and the stocks and bonds? also, you said it was for love! Therefore, mine.

you can get over your bad self now!



Nah. I ain't angry. I didn't want anything but out. Everyone who knows me knows that if I'd been angry, I'd have caught her at work and burned the house to the ground while she was gone.


I'd rather live and let live, because living well is the best revenge!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Acceptance is not the same as tolerance.



I accept that every person deserves Equality.

I tolerate that every person deserves Equality.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


lol... remind me never to make you angry in the future! Not even I considered buring the house down!
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I love being hated - at least it means you're getting noticed!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by OopzyDayzy
 


Very nice post btw!


I starred that post because of your comment.

It was a good comment - - - I just don't always remember to star good comments. But you made it valid.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


lol... remind me never to make you angry in the future! Not even I considered buring the house down!
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


My house - I could've burned it down f i wanted to, so long as I didn't try to collect on the insurance. As it was, I figured I ought to leave her something, so I gave her everything and hauled only my silly self away. It seemed a fair trade to me.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You and me both! I walked away with the clothes on our backs and was soooo happy doing so, so long as I was walking away!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


That's the thing - living well with a better life is the best revenge, and we ought not to disallow our gay friends discovery of those joys of legally-bound marriage!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Yep! Cause once a man (or shall I say some men) has papers on you they believe they own you! I am certain gay people will find this out shortly!
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


You and me both! I walked away with the clothes on our backs and was soooo happy doing so, so long as I was walking away!


BTW - - so did I.

But what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


lol... it doesnt... figure I will probably edit them when I get back from the store with coffee!

But we must occassionally interject a bit of humor into a subject to ease any tension!

People have been too angry.
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Yep! Cause once a man (or shall I say some men) has papers on you they believe they own you! I am certain gay people will find this out shortly!
edit on 29-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



You mean we don't? What the heck good is holding the title, then?


Women don't think they own YOU when they get the paper on you - they think they own all of your stuff, and a good chunk of it that you can get for several years into the future beyond the marriage. Therefore, it's not just the gay men who will discover the joys of legal bonds - the gay women will, too!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Annee
 


lol... it doesnt... figure I will probably edit them when I get back from the store with coffee!

But we must occassionally interject a bit of humor into a subject to ease any tension!

People have been too angry.


My children did not find the situation humorous.

But I did teach them to accept people for who they are in their Heart. Not who they had sex with etc.

I grew up with people who had disabilities. My mom was a polio victim. She belonged to a club of disabled people.

This was prior to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. You have no idea how cruel some people can be to those that are different. Those with differences are persecuted and not understood because of ignorance.

Not humorous.


edit on 29-7-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


But dear, when you discuss with emotion, you will loose, due to that emotion. No matter how emotionally charged a topic, and trust me for me there are topics I know I cannot discuss because I am too emotionally involved to discuss them, but no matter how emotionally charged is the topic, the second you start having a discussion with that emotion on your sleeve, you loose.

And would you not think there is more at stake here than winning a debate? Therefore, interjecting humour to ease tension here and there is positive for everyone, that way actual learning gets done.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Annee
 


But dear, when you discuss with emotion, you will loose, due to that emotion.


I have been doing this for 20+ years. Starting with ICQ.

I do not discuss with emotion. I discuss with fact and reality.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Do you know why I have not spoken to you in this discussion? Quite frankly because you do not discuss.... you are too angry to discuss.... so no, I do not think you are an old pro who is great at discussing this topic, due to your spitful comments etc I would never listen to what you have to say, while others in this thread I have.




top topics



 
19
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join