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: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I've never done this before, but it's important to me. I learn by puting out an idea and by having others add to it, correct it, or just destroy it. I'm asking a big favor here. Would you be kind enough to go back to my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and let me know where I'm going wrong?

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee



LeSigh: Married, non-married, gay, straight- none of these things should be tied to marital status. Give everyone these rights and I wonder how many people would care about the marriage/civil union issue at all?



Annee: Opinion does not change the fact these things are privileges afforded only through LEGAL marriage. And denied to LGBT - - - even those legally married in their state.
Which is why these things shouldn't be tied to marriage, full stop. Your legal marriage/government contract should not have these things attached to it. Everyone should have those privileges regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. That's true equality. Do you get it now?


LeSigh: Personally, I know I wouldn't care if the government decided not to recognize my marriage.



Annee: People keep saying this - - and I'd bet 99% of them are Legally married and taking advantage of the privileges it affords them.
And? I sure do take advantage- but I don't recognize the government as having the power to tell me if I'm really married or not in the first place. If they revoke my associated privileges I'd be upset- but ultimately- I'd get over it and be more about making sure these privileges were afforded to everyone REGARDLESS of marital status- like it should be.


LeSigh: It's the religious aspect that matters to me.



Annee: But I don't care. It's your religion - - not mine.

I am as much a part of this country as any religious person. Legal marriage is a government contract - - and has nothing to do with religion.


I don't care that you don't care. If the government revokes marriage for everyone today- I'm still married according to my religion. You could claim the same and be unreligious for all I care. The government recognizing it or not legally should be irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
The original point of the marriage license was to prohibit interracial marriage. Right now, the legal benefits of marriage may be to give an incentive to raise families, not necessarily to procreate. Gay people can procreate, using invitro fertilization and surrogates. They can adopt too. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from raising a family. Many gay couples are already raising families, right now, as we speak. And, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have decided not to raise a family at all. No one is prohibiting them from getting a marriage license.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


no, current laws are for promoting procreation, not families. if the government actually cared about creating families it would be more heavily regulated or at least education on how a good family should operate. all they care about are more taxpayers, worker drones, and soldier drones. as long as its behind closed doors they couldn't care less that daddy is "playing" with little sister every night he gets drunk or that mommy isent really hurting johnny with that leather belt. th government needs bodies, not happy families. its like the paint job on your car. weather its blue or brown, it really makes no difference. weather a happy family is made or not is irrelevant.

as for gays being able to raise children i am not sure why you brought that up. any idiot knows that proper way for a child to be raised is by a mother and father. but it is also obviously clear its better to have a loving gay couple raising a child than an abusive straight couple. context context context.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I've never done this before, but it's important to me. I learn by puting out an idea and by having others add to it, correct it, or just destroy it. I'm asking a big favor here. Would you be kind enough to go back to my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and let me know where I'm going wrong?

With respect,
Charles1952


Hi Charles. I hope everyone is respectful to you because I know what a nice man you are - - even though we see things differently.

Marriage is marriage. (legal marriage) Not "gay marriage" or "atheist marriage" or "religious marriage" or "convenience marriage" or "shot gun marriage" or any other adjective.

Its just Marriage. Legal via secular government contract.

Marriage not union. EQUAL can not be compromised.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I fully agree.

Currently one side of the debate is getting shafted, the other side is not.

Either both sides should lose all marriage rights, or both sides should have access to marriage rights.

Anything else is discriminatory, and everybody knows discrimination is wrong.

DC



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Kali74
 


The whole idea of needing the governments stamp of approval and then you PAYING for a license to do what you feel is natural is ridiculous in itself!

Why does anyone need the approval of the government to live with whom they love for the rest of their life?

It's all about control and MONEY!!!!


Yes it is, you've hit the NAIL on the HEAD ! It's all about CONTROL and MONEY. People are CHATTEL to the Government. As long as you have an SSN number, they can CONTROL many aspects of your life.

However, if G/L couples want the same emoluments and privileges conferred to heterosexual couples upon marriage, then they are going to have to lobby the US Congress for them. Not the President of the US, because the President can only ENFORCE the LAW, not make it. That unfortunately, falls into the hands of the US Congress.

Good Luck with that !



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I've never done this before, but it's important to me. I learn by puting out an idea and by having others add to it, correct it, or just destroy it. I'm asking a big favor here. Would you be kind enough to go back to my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and let me know where I'm going wrong?

With respect,
Charles1952


Hi Charles. If you are saying that gays have to prove that their union is beneficial to the government/state/community -- why? Heterosexuals don't have to prove that their unions are beneficial. There are many different kind of heterosexual marriages out there. Many heterosexuals marry for nefarious reasons that are NOT beneficial to anyone except for themselves. And yet, they can still get a marriage license. There is no test (other than a blood test maybe) that a heterosexual has to pass before they are allowed a marriage license. They could be a couple of drunks in Vegas, and they can still get a marriage license.

Many gay couples adopt children from the foster care system that no one else wants (which I would think benefits our community greatly), and yet these same gays can't get a marriage license with the benefits associated.

If this wasn't the point of your post, I apologize.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh
Which is why these things shouldn't be tied to marriage, full stop. Your legal marriage/government contract should not have these things attached to it. Everyone should have those privileges regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. That's true equality. Do you get it now?


"shouldn't" "couldn't" "wouldn't" - - - not relevant.

Legal marriage is what it is RIGHT NOW. Equal applies to what it is RIGHT NOW.

You not liking it does not have any bearing on it - - - as it stands.


If the government revokes marriage for everyone today- I'm still married according to my religion.


Good for you.

Point is: YOU have a choice.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by david99118

Originally posted by kaylaluv
The original point of the marriage license was to prohibit interracial marriage. Right now, the legal benefits of marriage may be to give an incentive to raise families, not necessarily to procreate. Gay people can procreate, using invitro fertilization and surrogates. They can adopt too. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from raising a family. Many gay couples are already raising families, right now, as we speak. And, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have decided not to raise a family at all. No one is prohibiting them from getting a marriage license.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


no, current laws are for promoting procreation, not families. if the government actually cared about creating families it would be more heavily regulated or at least education on how a good family should operate. all they care about are more taxpayers, worker drones, and soldier drones. as long as its behind closed doors they couldn't care less that daddy is "playing" with little sister every night he gets drunk or that mommy isent really hurting johnny with that leather belt. th government needs bodies, not happy families. its like the paint job on your car. weather its blue or brown, it really makes no difference. weather a happy family is made or not is irrelevant.

as for gays being able to raise children i am not sure why you brought that up. any idiot knows that proper way for a child to be raised is by a mother and father. but it is also obviously clear its better to have a loving gay couple raising a child than an abusive straight couple. context context context.


Using your (rather silly) argument, the government doesn't care how you procreate, as long as you procreate. Gays can procreate using IVF and surrogates, so they're covered.

The rest of your post is idiotic - and that's me being nice.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

edit on 7-9-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, my view has just as much bearing as yours as to relevance. Perhaps more, because mine is for equality for even non-married people. How is my opinion that EVERYONE should have these privileges REGARDLESS of marital status or sexual orientation an issue? Are you saying that non-married people shouldn't have a choice of being able to say who gets to visit them in the hospital?



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by david99118
if the government actually cared about creating families it would be more heavily regulated or at least education on how a good family should operate.


I'll buy that. Regulated parental units.

Hmmm - - - let's see. Gays have had to fight for this right. It is something that means more to them then those that can just pop out a kid any time.

I vote for more Gay parents.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Kali74
 


The whole idea of needing the governments stamp of approval and then you PAYING for a license to do what you feel is natural is ridiculous in itself!

Why does anyone need the approval of the government to live with whom they love for the rest of their life?

It's all about control and MONEY!!!!


Yes it is, you've hit the NAIL on the HEAD ! It's all about CONTROL and MONEY. People are CHATTEL to the Government. As long as you have an SSN number, they can CONTROL many aspects of your life.

However, if G/L couples want the same emoluments and privileges conferred to heterosexual couples upon marriage, then they are going to have to lobby the US Congress for them. Not the President of the US, because the President can only ENFORCE the LAW, not make it. That unfortunately, falls into the hands of the US Congress.

Good Luck with that !


Changes like this have to go through the Supreme Court first. Then it will go through Congress. That's how it happened with interracial marriage, and it WILL happen with gay marriage. Only a matter of time.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, my view has just as much bearing as yours as to relevance.


If its religious based and does not involve EQUAL marriage - - - no it doesn't.

What part of RIGHT NOW do you not comprehend?

We are dealing with what exists RIGHT NOW. Not - - opinion on how it should be changed for the future.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by david99118

Originally posted by kaylaluv
The original point of the marriage license was to prohibit interracial marriage. Right now, the legal benefits of marriage may be to give an incentive to raise families, not necessarily to procreate. Gay people can procreate, using invitro fertilization and surrogates. They can adopt too. There's nothing stopping a gay couple from raising a family. Many gay couples are already raising families, right now, as we speak. And, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who have decided not to raise a family at all. No one is prohibiting them from getting a marriage license.
edit on 7-9-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


no, current laws are for promoting procreation, not families. if the government actually cared about creating families it would be more heavily regulated or at least education on how a good family should operate. all they care about are more taxpayers, worker drones, and soldier drones. as long as its behind closed doors they couldn't care less that daddy is "playing" with little sister every night he gets drunk or that mommy isent really hurting johnny with that leather belt. th government needs bodies, not happy families. its like the paint job on your car. weather its blue or brown, it really makes no difference. weather a happy family is made or not is irrelevant.

as for gays being able to raise children i am not sure why you brought that up. any idiot knows that proper way for a child to be raised is by a mother and father. but it is also obviously clear its better to have a loving gay couple raising a child than an abusive straight couple. context context context.


Using your (rather silly) argument, the government doesn't care how you procreate, as long as you procreate. Gays can procreate using IVF and surrogates, so they're covered.

The rest of your post is idiotic - and that's me being nice.


well you're certainly free to believe whatever incompetent BS you like. and as always, i was never making an argument. it was a statement. i know iam right and you're wrong. no discussion, debate or argument. just sating facts.

i get so tired of being surrounded by idiots no matter where i go.



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by Annee
 


Actually, my view has just as much bearing as yours as to relevance.


If its religious based and does not involve EQUAL marriage - - - no it doesn't.

What part of RIGHT NOW do you not comprehend?

We are dealing with what exists RIGHT NOW. Not - - opinion on how it should be changed for the future.


A few points:

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.
edit on 7-9-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Oh, this old "Chestnut"...

After seven pages of intelligent arguing.

We are no further along.


This is planting season, and the seeds have been sown.

Soon will come the harvest, and we will reap our rewards as a result of our efforts.

It takes time for these little seeds of truth to sprout into trees of liberty.
Patience is a virtue, after all.

We must resist the urge to give into our impetuous nature.


I just don't have any more energy left for this issue.

I guess I have just thrown in the towel on humanity in general.

However, I really appreciate your positive outlook.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by david99118
if the government actually cared about creating families it would be more heavily regulated or at least education on how a good family should operate.


I'll buy that. Regulated parental units.

Hmmm - - - let's see. Gays have had to fight for this right. It is something that means more to them then those that can just pop out a kid any time.

I vote for more Gay parents.


i think that would only be worth voting for IF the gays were actually wanting the family aspect. but from those i know, most just want to do it as some act of love. love does not necessarily equal family desire. so it would depend on the couple involved.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by david99118


well you're certainly free to believe whatever incompetent BS you like. and as always, i was never making an argument. it was a statement. i know iam right and you're wrong. no discussion, debate or argument. just sating facts.

i get so tired of being surrounded by idiots no matter where i go.


Riiiiiight. Just keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, there are states that allow gay marriage, there are countries that allow gay marriage, and our children's children won't even know that it was ever a hotly debated topic, because gay marriage will just be like any other marriage.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by david99118
 


You say that as though "family aspect" and "act of love" are not similar in any way...




top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join