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.

 

Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee and kaylaluv
 

Dear Annee and kaylaluv,

Thank you both for your responses. I know you're passionate on the issue and you know how to think, so I especially value your thoughts.

Concerning the word "marriage." There are at least two resons why this is important. One, most people already have a definition of marriage in their minds, and it's not the same as what gays use. There is confusion, then, when the subject is discussed. Two, if someone says that a marriage is the union of any two adults, they are saying "I want to use the definition that guarantees I get what I want, with no further discussion." Of course, now we have the same fight, but the question becomes "How should marriage be defined?"

Concerning the idea of proving the benefit of their relationship, that was part of a longer thought that ran, briefly, like this. All of the benefits that gay couples are not enjoying, were granted to straights because the state wanted to encourage marriage. The state granted priveleges, not rights, because they thought it would benefit society. My suggestion was that gays demonstrate that their relationships also benefit society, therefore meriting the same considerations.

Again, thank you very much for your thoughts, you're invaluable. I think ATS should give you both a raise in what they now give you per post.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh


1) My being religious or not isn't germane to my points or this discussion. Marriage should not be within the realm of government to dictate to a person or not- be you straight, gay, white, black, whatever. I will consider myself married regardless of whether or not any government on this planet recognizes it. The fact that my marriage happens to be a religious one is actually an irrelevant point.

2) The privileges that go with government recognized marriages should be extended to even non-married people. Sexual orientation shouldn't even be an issue with this. Everyone is everyone.

3) This can and should be just as much of a RIGHT NOW issue as gay marriage. It should be bigger as it deals with equality for EVERYONE.


"shoulda" "coulda" "woulda" "should be" are NOT relevant to Right Now.

Marriage - family - - - helps stabilize society. Which is why they get the tax breaks.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
What a childish view, OP.

If gay people want to argue for their marital rights to be recognized by the state, how exactly does removing everyones marital rights help the situation? It does absolutely nothing but create more dissent. Frankly, this is the biggest problem of the gay community. For a group who isn't afforded the same rights as their hetero counterparts, you seem to do an awful lot of beligerant and childish things.

From turning Ernie gay to making Jesus gay in artwork, to arguing for no one to have marital benefits, you're doing nothing constructive or adultlike and subsequently you make those already against you, dislike you even moreso. Additionally, you're adding opponents and losing sympathy that your good leaders have built for you.

I have changed over the last few years when thinking about this subject. I used to think marriage should solely be between man and woman. Now I realize that a gay dude not being able to see his partner in ER or a myriad of other things is completely ass backward. I am for gay people doing whatever is they choose. They should be afforded all the same things which straight people do.

Your proposal is completely ludicrous though. It's what a scorned lover thinks when they kill their cheating spouse. "If I can't have you then no one will!" BANG! gunshot to the balls.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
. . . most people already have a definition of marriage in their minds, and it's not the same as what gays use.


Why not? That's judgmental and prejudice.

Gays are individuals just like everyone else. Gay is NOT a Group Think.

Like Atheists who have only one thing in common (and can get legally married) - - - Gays have only one thing in common - - attraction to same gender.

There are some very religious gays who want very much to get Legally married in their church. Who want to raise a family etc.

There is no difference.

Even Satanists can Legally marry - - - so why should Gay Christians be denied?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Who is you? I'm a hetero female. I'm not suggesting in the least that marriage become outlawed I am suggesting that marriage not be afforded special privilege... privilege that not everyone has access to. My OP is pretty clear I'm not sure why people are confusing not granting privilege to some with me suggesting marriage be banned all together.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
LOL this is the funniest stuff i have read in a while. So why should gay people have the right to eat food? Don't kids in Africa die from hunger? How dare you eat food, do you want equality for all ? then we should ban food untill the problem is solved ?

Sounds retarded don'T it ?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


Oh geez, it's the troll again.

You speak English. You no longer deserve to eat. That sounds fair to you?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


Oh geez, it's the troll again.

You speak English. You no longer deserve to eat. That sounds fair to you?


LOL


Were you reading my mind?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I like that idea. Let's ban marriage! After all, it's nothing but a ritual granting you status within the cult. And really, that status is only recognized by everyone who follows the cult. Half of America, in other words.

If we can't have officially recognized druids, then we shouldn't have marriages. Let's make it completely constitutional and call it a "civil union". Take religion out of it completely.

The church wants to cry about it? We'll take away their monopoly.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Some of you are in need of a sarcasm detector, i was only pointing out to the stupidity of her argument by using an analogy of equality between humans. Why punish the heterosexual because the homosexual do not have the same rights.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


Because we are all human, and rights apply to all humans unless they have been proven an obvious and imminent danger to society. Even then, not all rights are lost.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


Because we are all human, and rights apply to all humans unless they have been proven an obvious and imminent danger to society. Even then, not all rights are lost.



So when some humans are deprived of a right, the good thing to do is to take that right away from everyone else to maintain equality? Completely stupid.
edit on 8-9-2012 by ExNihilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


Why not? If it's okay for some, it must be okay for the rest. Can you explain to me why it's okay to deny rights to homosexuals and not heterosexuals?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExNihilo

So when some humans are deprived of a right, the good thing to do is to take that right away from everyone else to maintain equality? Completely stupid.


I'm gonna have to go back and read your posts.

Seems something got lost in translation. I think.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ExNihilo
 


Why not? If it's okay for some, it must be okay for the rest. Can you explain to me why it's okay to deny rights to homosexuals and not heterosexuals?



I see that sophism is your way of argumentation but i do not play that little rhetoric game. If someone is being denied of a right the good thing to do is to help them get that right, not deny the rest of humanity the right to marry or eat because some gays can't marry or some kids in Africa can't eat.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

I admire your patience, thanks.

. . . most people already have a definition of marriage in their minds, and it's not the same as what gays use.

Why not? That's judgmental and prejudice.
It may be judgmental and prejudiced, but that's the situation we face. It's the situation that has brought every state that has voted on the issue to declare marriage as one man and one woman That's how laws are made. Laws may not be what we want, but they're what's there.


Gays are individuals just like everyone else. Gay is NOT a Group Think.
I certainly agree, and I think people need to be reminded of that, so thanks. But I have not seen a meeting announcement for "Gays Against Gay Marriage," and don't expect to.


Even Satanists can Legally marry - - - so why should Gay Christians be denied?
The law, as far as I know, thinks religion is irrelevant to a legal or state marriage. It doesn't think that sexual orientation is irrelevant. That's what the discussion is about, is orientation irrelevant, and do the citizens of the country have the power to make laws on the subject.


There are some very religious gays who want very much to get Legally married in their church. Who want to raise a family etc.
Again, religion isn't a factor in legal or state marriages. If any couple wants to get married in a church, they have to follow the rules of that church, which seems fair to me.


There is no difference.
You may have put your finger on the heart of the discussion.
It seems that one side says there is no actual difference, it should be the same, there is no reason for different treatment. The other side seems to be saying a distinction has always been made, the body responsible for these decisions has made them, there is no reason to believe that what has been called different, with reason, should now be called the same.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
It may be judgmental and prejudiced, but that's the situation we face. It's the situation that has brought every state that has voted on the issue to declare marriage as one man and one woman That's how laws are made. Laws may not be what we want, but they're what's there.


A lot of young people don't vote - - even gays. They just aren't political. They're just out having fun living their life and don't care about legal stuff. The voting demographic will change.


But I have not seen a meeting announcement for "Gays Against Gay Marriage," and don't expect to.


Oh - but there are gays who don't support "gay" marriage for various reason. There are Christian gays who don't support gay marriage because they think its a sin (that ones kind of pathetic IMO).


Again, religion isn't a factor in legal or state marriages. If any couple wants to get married in a church, they have to follow the rules of that church, which seems fair to me.


Well yeah! You don't think they're having these ceremonies in churches that hate them.

Too tired to think more.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Who is you? I'm a hetero female. I'm not suggesting in the least that marriage become outlawed I am suggesting that marriage not be afforded special privilege... privilege that not everyone has access to. My OP is pretty clear I'm not sure why people are confusing not granting privilege to some with me suggesting marriage be banned all together.


So what you are saying is that if gays can't be married than the State should take away all tax benefits of married heteros. I see now. And then you don't really care if they are married or not because the heteros won't get bennies. The reason for the bennies is the protection of the family unit, which now it is clear that the radical left wants to diminish or abolish entirely. And of course you are in good company as that is what Karl Marx expressly wanted done.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The family unit has been extended beyond husband, wife and 2.5 kids. Gay people today can live together and adopt children or use surrogates/sperm donors so again we are back to discrimination. Married people can enjoy tax breaks as long as they are straight, families can enjoy tax breaks as long as they're traditional families. It makes me a radical left marxist to find something wrong and hypocritical with this?

If the words marriage and family are going to be held as sole property of the Abrahamic religions than the Federal Government violates the Constitution by making laws respecting things that belong to the 'church'.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I never agreed with gays, or gay marriage. Never will.

Do I hate gay people? Of course not, I have gay friends, I'd never preform a hate crime. Do I agree with the act in itself? HELL no. I am usually a very open person to new ideas, and there aren't TOO many things that provoke me... but gay controversy is one of those things. I don't know why, but it's a hot button for me, and I feel pretty strongly about it.

Still, it is pretty ignorant to get rid of heterosexual freedoms, because they aren't equal to homosexual freedoms, and destroy EVERYONE'S freedoms... for the sake of freedom.

Do I think it matters that gays have the same rights as straights? Sure, from a broad, general perspective. You could argue that society is demoralizing and becoming more and more spineless, disgusting, and all around sin-obsessed because of our society openly embracing gays. Same as accepting girls who are barely ten years old walking around with their undergrown breasts hanging out and their shorts cutting them off at the top of the thighs. Yes, I am coming from a more biblical perspective, and I know it will offend some people that I referred to gayness as immoral, but that is my belief.

Does it REALLY matter if gays get equal rights? Maybe not. The world is going to implode on itself, one way or another, no matter which set of morals is "correct." I don't like gay marriage, but there are a LOT worse things to worry about in the world right now.

Besides that, it's not my place to judge gays and demonize or hate them. That's why I step back and I don't get involved much with my southern friends who hate gays and colored people. I am not the same as them. I will love them like I love anyone else on the planet, because they're my fellow human, and God will judge them. Not me.

Do I think gays should have equal marriage rights as straights? Not crazy about the idea, but I don't really care. Give em equal rights, I'm indifferent.

Do I think EVERYONE should be penalized for, what I believe, is the proper way to marry and raise a family?

Hell no.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join