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: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBlood
 



I have an idea, stop dropping to your knees and asking permission to do everything. You want to live with someone? Just do it. Who cares if it's "official"? Anything that requires you to bow down and beg is nothing but lapdog training. You are a human with rights. You are not a dog with a master. You do not need Government to tell you when, where or how to live your life.


I don't think it is so much about getting state sanction for ones relationship, but to get legal recognition of that relationship so that they can enjoy the benefits of such a legal recognition (i.e., joint tax returns, survivors benefits, spousal rights, family insurance plan, etc.)

These are truly the only benefits to being married as opposed to merely cohabitating. The only other benefits would be religious/spiritual in nature and therefore the State has no place in interfering in that instance.

I still say that we should make all "marriages" into civil unions and reserve the word "Marriage" for only the religious ceremony. By doing this we could remove 90% of the argument against "same sex marriage".
edit on 9-9-2012 by BomSquad because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The most obvious difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, is that heterosexuality is an instinctive behavior, and homosexuality is an optional behavior. There are people every day who go against their instinctive behavior and become homosexual, just like how, frequently, homosexual people choose to become heterosexual again via religion or otherwise(though, these people are less frequent, and never reported). We don't make new laws allowing the furtherance, or hinderance of free behaviors. Besides, marriage has been adopted by religion, it's their deal now. Civil union is the entire civil half of marriage, deal with that, or move somewhere where gay marriage is allowed. If there aren't any, try a different sexual preference.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BomSquad
 


Its not about equal rights civil unions were created in order to give the same rights as marriage.However that call to arms was abandoned by the gay community.Now they want to be married and the only reason is they want society to approve. Funny part is if they asked for civil unions they would find most people not against it.And in the case of Denmark that eventually changed in to accepting marriage in 2012. Classic case of over reach take what you can gget and advance your cause later.Though granted in the US that fight might take several decades because elderly and african americans make up a large enough voting block to continue to ban gay marriage.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

You are quite wrong just like many other people.


LEGAL marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Here is the REAL history of marriage.

(This particular site is the best compilation of all that I've read on the history of marriage.)

onespiritproject.com...


edit on 8-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)


You can also look it upon Wikipedia, not that I like Wikipedia, but the compilation of information is more correct there from various sources. And if it were not for Marriage in the bible, there would be no legal marriage in the system. This is the same legal system that makes you SWEAR on BIBLE to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD?"



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
As a conservative, I totally agree. Government should have exactly NO involvement in personal relationships. There should be no financial penalty or gain for being married or unmarried.... there should be no "licensing."

The whole system is archaic and invasive. Who the hell is the govt to tell me when I can or can't and whom I can or can't marry?

Some of us view it as a sacred bond between two people, blessed by a religious body, and that's fine. As far as the government is concerned: stay the hell out of my life.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It all comes down to money. If you really think the politicians care whether or not people are married is a moral issue then you are deluded. These same politicians do and support many unfair immoral things like insider trading for them, special welfare I mean corporate welfare benefits for their buddies, and earmarks etc as long as they get donations and quid pro quo via unions etc..

It's not just government funded or loss of funds. Corporations don't want to pay the extra money afforded via marriage. When two gays or lesbians apply for a new car loan, they don't put the one with better credit in the first slot for primary credit thus getting the better rate. No, they use the one with the lower credit whereas for married couples they put the one with the better credit.

If you fall in love with someone from another country and you are heterosexual, you can marry them and they can move to America and start a life, get a green card, and not worry about being able to be here number 1 and staying here number 2. If you are gay or lesbian, you have to find a way for them to legally get here on an HB1 visa. It cost a friend of mine over $100,000.00 to come here to be with their partner. Yes, you read that right. They had to create a business which only she met the requirements to be here, pay an immigration attorney $10,000.00 per HB1 application which they can approve anywhere from 6 months to 3 years. Guess how long they approved her for? Yep, you got it, 6 months, so six months and $10,000.00 later again to the attorney got another HB1 visa for 6 months. They had to return to Australia 3 times to go through the process with all the expenses of flying and staying in country for two weeks to deal with issues.

They went through this for 5 years. Yet, if one had been a male they could have married, not spent any of that money, contributed it to the economy, built a life together. Finally, it was just too much to continue it on and they were out of money. I can go on an on with the discrimination and what it does to relationships, but since some of you are so fixated on how you feel morally, it's ok to screw over your fellow Americans. Where is the love of your neighbor? Let God deal with individuals hearts. I don't see anywhere that Christians are supposed to control others behavior. They are not breaking any laws, they are not affecting you personally. They are simply wanting to not be shafted. If that's so hard to understand, I want you to imagine the worst and that we openly just deny God, and switch to a society where you wake up tomorrow and all the gays have your benefits, and you are the one shafted. Your son falls in love with a great girl from Australia and can't be together unless they happen to have $100,000.00 laying around which they don't mind paying some government INS and attorneys to get her here.

Imagine it, and then look gays in the face and try to not be ashamed.
edit on 9-9-2012 by UnifiedSerenity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Sounds good to me, I can still get married in a church and that's the only place it matters. "Government" marriage is just another way to collect fees and taxes.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
You can't GOD has blessed that union and he is higher than the Supreme Court. It is what it is, just accept it, people are just creeped out by the idea of a man putting something in the "in door" that should only have something coming out. This type of union is based on nothing more than lust....not procreation and there is absolutely no natural reason for it. A man and a woman = populating the earth. A reason. A man and a man or a woman and a woman...absolutely no natural outcome...simply just getting your jollies off. Deal with it. Now if you're a lipstick lesbian and you make movies for men to watch...you have a purpose in my book...but for all the bull dog dyke types....I say " good day, sir! "



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Gay couple should have all the same rite as striaght couple and if they split all the same legal headaches. Just call it something other then marriage. A lot of people will think that is wrong but I don't care. I am very traditions and same sex couple will never be a marriage in my eyes buy like i said gay couple should be able to have all the same rites and headaches



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
POST REMOVED BY STAFF


Wow...I'm stupefied.


You are joking right?

You want to lock up "Gay Men" because the will rape new soldiers?

Please tell me you are joking...
edit on Sun Sep 9 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GreatOwl
Without heterosexuals to lead the way, homosexuals would never have formulated an idea like "marriage".



Shakes head.

It scares me sometimes - - how absurdly creative some can be in their homophobia.


I thought that was scientific logic, not fear. Why do homosexuals feel that anyone who uses reason and logic is a homophobe?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slante
There are people every day who go against their instinctive behavior and become homosexual, just like how, frequently, homosexual people choose to become heterosexual again via religion or otherwise(though, these people are less frequent, and never reported).


Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It is not a behavior.

No one changes their sexual orientation.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Since marriage is a religious ritual I dont see why gays would want to be married. Tax benefits I guess. I mean do you really have to be married to show each other how in love you are?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythots
Just call it something other then marriage.


There is no compromise in EQUAL.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Your premise is flawed. Nature wouldn't create a creature that could not reproduce. To ensure survival of species is paramount in nature. Homosexuality is a choice.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ganush
reply to post by Annee
 


Your premise is flawed. Nature wouldn't create a creature that could not reproduce. To ensure survival of species is paramount in nature. Homosexuality is a choice.


You are wrong.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Slante
There are people every day who go against their instinctive behavior and become homosexual, just like how, frequently, homosexual people choose to become heterosexual again via religion or otherwise(though, these people are less frequent, and never reported).


Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. It is not a behavior.

No one changes their sexual orientation.


How do you know this?

Are you aware that there are creatures on this earth that "can" change their sex from male to female?

Why would this change of sexual orientation be impossible for humans?



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
In the interest of equality and respect to religious beliefs, I think we should level the playing field. If in 'the Land of the Free' we cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions then we should strike the balance with NO federally recognized marriages or unions. That is fair, right?


I agree, I think the system is antiquated and the purpose of promoting a family with many children (that was once highly desirable and needed) with federal benefits has long lost its usefulness as society shifts to different models.

One question....

Should polygamy and lowering consent age become social norms too?




top topics



 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join