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.

 

Voluntary Forms Of Association -- An Argument For Marriage Equality

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
I'm going to quote a post I made from another thread.

3.4% of Americans LGBT - Gallup Poll


Urgh.

Who cares?

Sexual Orientation is not a status. It should not be treated as a status, nor should it be involved in a conversation regarding rights.

The problem is simple. A group of people, are ineligible to participate in a government program.

A program which enables them to take advantage of certain services and financial savings, for attempting to work as a team.

The 'Family Unit" so to speak. The family unit is no longer traditional and we must stop attempting to return to this 1950's nuclear mentality. What we must focus on are healthy families, not traditional ones, or culturally accepted ones.

The only logical and moral action, is to afford the right to any legal, consenting "Team" to participate in this program for the betterment of their family unit.

The law actually requires this as one of it's basic tenants.

~Tenth


I've been thinking about this since I posted it and I realized that when we discuss marriage equality, then we must not discuss it from the point of gay or straight. We must discuss it from the point of legal, or not legal.

There are certain things we must all agree to, because they are facts.

1. The Government as stated above, created a legal institution.
2. The Government has no right denying consenting, legal adults access to said institution.
3. The Law requires that we all have the same rights. Period.

If you agree with these 3 statements, than you cannot be against two adults joining in as a "Team" financially, in order to move themselves forward.

Everyone who disagrees with 'gay marriage', I want you to forget the sexual orientation part and I want you to focus on what's written above, and ask yourself the following:

Does it make sense, to deny legal and consenting adults access to a government program?

You have no information about who these people are, other than the fact that they are of the legal age to make the decision required, have consented to this contract and are good, tax paying members of society.

The answer to the entire marriage equality debate is really just that simple.

ETA: I also support polygamy as a means of marriage equality as well. There's no reason 3 people who live together as one financial unit cannot get access to the same benefits as two.

~Tenth
edit on 10/20/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
My thoughts is that your first item should never have been.
The government should not be legislating marriage.

All that is needed is some sort of Partnership Document. Protecting the rights, property and children of these partnerships.
They should be simple to procure and easily affordable.
They should be available for various cohabiting situations....and sexual orientation should NOT be one of the questions.

Marriage as an institution should be the domain of religion and not necessary for legal purposes and protections.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


WHere's my clappy meme when I need it?!



I agree, it should have always been civil union. I think if people are presented the argument in the way I have above, which removes the emotional and moral arguments, maybe it will resonate a bit better.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Marriage as an institution should be the domain of religion...


Why? And who's religion?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

It should be as it is now. Lots of folks "get married" in churches or whatever their faith calls the building.

Whichever religion you choose...as it is now, your church can bless your Partnership...they can call it Marriage FWIW, but marriage is not a government function.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I think Intrepid, that the argument for keeping 'Marriage' under religion is just to appease the religious folks who fear their religious freedoms being taken away.

Any sane person would not advocate against having civil unions for the government benefits and 'marriages' for churches who wish to bless their own unions.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Fantastic post, and I agree whole heartedly with you. S&F


Hopefully we can make this happen soon.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Whichever religion you choose...as it is now, your church can bless your Partnership...they can call it Marriage FWIW, but marriage is not a government function.


So if there was a registered religion by gays, let's say, The Latter Day Interior Decorators(just using a stereotype here, I'm straight and a helluvan interior decorator) and were married there, then it could also be considered a "marriage"?



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I'm going to quote a post I made from another thread.

3.4% of Americans LGBT - Gallup Poll


Urgh.

Who cares?

Sexual Orientation is not a status. It should not be treated as a status, nor should it be involved in a conversation regarding rights.

The problem is simple. A group of people, are ineligible to participate in a government program.

A program which enables them to take advantage of certain services and financial savings, for attempting to work as a team.

The 'Family Unit" so to speak. The family unit is no longer traditional and we must stop attempting to return to this 1950's nuclear mentality. What we must focus on are healthy families, not traditional ones, or culturally accepted ones.

The only logical and moral action, is to afford the right to any legal, consenting "Team" to participate in this program for the betterment of their family unit.

The law actually requires this as one of it's basic tenants.

~Tenth


I've been thinking about this since I posted it and I realized that when we discuss marriage equality, then we must not discuss it from the point of gay or straight. We must discuss it from the point of legal, or not legal.

There are certain things we must all agree to, because they are facts.

1. The Government as stated above, created a legal institution.
2. The Government has no right denying consenting, legal adults access to said institution.
3. The Law requires that we all have the same rights. Period.

If you agree with these 3 statements, than you cannot be against two adults joining in as a "Team" financially, in order to move themselves forward.

Everyone who disagrees with 'gay marriage', I want you to forget the sexual orientation part and I want you to focus on what's written above, and ask yourself the following:

Does it make sense, to deny legal and consenting adults access to a government program?

You have no information about who these people are, other than the fact that they are of the legal age to make the decision required, have consented to this contract and are good, tax paying members of society.

The answer to the entire marriage equality debate is really just that simple.

ETA: I also support polygamy as a means of marriage equality as well. There's no reason 3 people who live together as one financial unit cannot get access to the same benefits as two.

~Tenth
edit on 10/20/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



Well you are kind of correct, but way off. The government copyrighted the corporation known as "marriage." The "license" or, fair use based on providing a fee to the State, allows a couple to "use" the term in your business as long as they abide by the rules of the business.

A marriage contract is a contract between two corporations that allows the two companies to form another company, that company agrees to pledge the assets brought to the company - real property and cash, and those created by the company - children, to the State. The state in turn charges a fee for use of the term AND the continuing regulation of the company.

The State has NO right, or interest, in relationships NOT defined as a marriage corporation and demonstrates none. Has the State ever told two high school sweethearts they can't break up? No, but the State has, and does, determine what a "marriage" can and cannot do, and more importantly the State controls the distribution, or redistribution of ALL the marriage/companies assets.

So, why do people want the State involved in their relationship at all?

More importantly, Why do people feel the State, the soulless institution of governance as THE, they validation for "love?"

What kind of person decides that the relationship isn't a relationship unless the State takes control of it via the incorporation process?

What type of person feels the not only have no right to govern their own relationship, but DEMANDS the State do it for them?

Before folks argue the talking points, "it isn't fair, gays should be allowed to marry etc." consider what I said. The marriage formula is an official, State own corporate institution, it is NOT about love, as the contract says nothing, not one word, not one hint, about love. I say this again, two people who HATE each other can get married and the State will happily validate the company created, but two people can love each other more then humanly possible and as long as the State does not turn that relationship into a company, they are free to be. As for legalities, every single marriage benefit can be sorted out in a myriad of other "legal" ways without issue.

What to get hitched, go ahead, just leave the State out of it.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Oh that's my argument for everything regarding marriage.

I was simple writting a solution from within the actual system. But you're right, the state has no business validating relationships.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Oh that's my argument for everything regarding marriage.

I was simple writting a solution from within the actual system. But you're right, the state has no business validating relationships.

~Tenth



It is so important not to let the talking points dictate the solution. Example. In the 60's it was all about "civil" rights. Huh? Civil as in "contract" rights? Where was the discourse for Natural Rights, or even the lessor Constitutional Rights? Why were people arguing the third, and least, useful solution to the problem? This whole "marriage" thing is a sham, it is, by design, framed in such a way to make people walk right into more "civil" rights and run further away from their Natural Rights, the Rights they carry with them regardless of who pretends to be in charge.

In the Marriage case, the problem is Marriage, so the solution is to abolish Marriage, not amend the limitation that exists solely to get people to flee their Natural Human Rights.

This thread, a great idea, will go no where, because there is not argument to be had once you state, "screw the state altogether." Folks have no desire for true Natural Rights and the freedom they are entitled to, in fact, the not only run from it, they fear it like the devil himself. But they love more and more restriction, so by saying "gays can marry" they are saying, "now even the gays fall under the State ownership system," and all the fighting in between just gets them more and more excited about and more restriction. It would be said, painful even, if they weren't so comically adamant about their requests to have the State straightjacket them even more then they are now.



posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 

NO, what I would like to see is a civil partnership agreement....much like an LLC or any other legal entity.....in place of the current government marriage contract.

It would protect the parties and their children much like legal civil marriages do now...it would cover people like me who do not live in common law states and gays and whoever else.
No ceremony.
Just a contract....more like a will.....and easily affordable.

If someone wants a church marriage...that's fine...but it would be more a ceremony than a legally binding contract.
After all, the religious ceremony doesn't make you married until you sign the civil paperwork



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Marriage itself is just a ritual that was adopted by various religions and made symbolic - They're all guilty of putting their own little twists on it, citing various T&C.

This being the case, any government is well within its right to take such a ritual and dispense it to the population all the while legally recognising it is a symbolic union between two people (of different or the same genders)

Religious folk don't own marriage and i would suggest they stop acting like they do.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Better idea, make America a Christian Republic and give every atheist, LGBT and anyone else who objects a one way ticket to Europe.

Why the radical views? Because homosexuals are truly pathetic. Instead of making something new for themselves, plot their own course, they demand to take something that isn't theirs. Besides, homosexual rights activists do not equality, they want subjugation. The gay rights activists tipped their hand before California's vote on Gay marriage on how they wanted to use legalization to force the Church to change it's doctrines on Homosexuality(the same way Mormonism was forced to change their Doctrines in regards to race). So it becomes a very different matter. It isn't merely about humanism or self determination, but the very existence of Christianity and Judaism. Plus gay rights activists aligning with the feminist hate movement for the last half century, well you know the old saying "an ally of my enemy is also my enemy".

It is good to see where the dice fall though.
edit on 24-10-2012 by korathin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Better idea, make America a Christian Republic and give every atheist, LGBT and anyone else who objects a one way ticket to Europe.



Got an even better idea, why not take all those in favour of a "chirstian republic" and ship them off to greenland or something, you wont feel the cold because you obviously dont have a heart to pump blood around your body, plus, you'll be out of the way of all us non-radical people and we'll be free to persue equality without obnoxious petty religious nutters who still think its 1951. You're free to leave america anytime, mate. But dont come to England.


Why the radical views? Because homosexuals are truly pathetic.


And calling for a christian republic isnt pathetic?


Instead of making something new for themselves, plot their own course, they demand to take something that isn't theirs.


Marriage isnt yours either! You didnt invent it!



Besides, homosexual rights activists do not equality, they want subjugation.


No, they want their love and relationships be recognised by the law and they want it to be equal to that of heterosexual couples.


The gay rights activists tipped their hand before California's vote on Gay marriage on how they wanted to use legalization to force the Church to change it's doctrines on Homosexuality(the same way Mormonism was forced to change their Doctrines in regards to race).


Anything to piss you off.



So it becomes a very different matter. It isn't merely about humanism or self determination, but the very existence of Christianity and Judaism.


Without either, think of how much further humanity would have progressed as a race? How many wars would have been avoided, how many lives saved. Humanity would be better without both of these religions.


Plus gay rights activists aligning with the feminist hate movement for the last half century, well you know the old saying "an ally of my enemy is also my enemy".


Yes, we are creating a legion of doom to remove your religions off the face of the earth.


It is good to see where the dice fall though.


Yeah you've obviously got a good handle on the situation!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
but, many of the native american tribes accepted gay marriage,
so well, if a gay couple were to have a true native american ceremony, then it would have to be considered a marriage....

unless of course, you wish to have only your religion defining what marriage is!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I don't think it's about the word 'marriage' or anything else like that. That's all straw and fluffy things.

It's about the government 'legitimizing' homosexuals as a form of relationship or 'life style' thus encouraging children and destroying the family unit. Acknowledging homosexuality in a family unit calling it whatever still won't be acceptable.

The governments won't take its hands off marriage simply because they need the term to control families and encourage/discourage behaviors.


Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 

Better idea, make America a Christian Republic and give every atheist, LGBT and anyone else who objects a one way ticket to Europe.


Given how many top American scientists are Atheist, and their work has the potential to create entire industries ... any sensible Christian would immediately begin worshiping the spaghetti monster and head to Europe.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
I don't think it's about the word 'marriage' or anything else like that. That's all straw and fluffy things.

It's about the government 'legitimizing' homosexuals as a form of relationship or 'life style'


The fact that homosexual behaviour happens naturally between two consenting adults means it doesn't need to be "legitimized" Rather, just acknowledged by society.


thus encouraging children and destroying the family unit. Acknowledging homosexuality in a family unit calling it whatever still won't be acceptable.


You cant encourage someone to be gay, either you're into it or your not, no big deal. But PLEASE do explain to me how being homosexual destroys the family unit? Especially when, as a homosexual, you dont have a family to destroy? Seriously, cure my ignorance here.


The governments won't take its hands off marriage simply because they need the term to control families and encourage/discourage behaviors.



You dont own marriage. What you own is a ritual called "marriage" Alot of cultures have different versions of it, yours is not the original and neither is it the most "legitimate"



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
My thoughts is that your first item should never have been.
The government should not be legislating marriage.


That is an entirely different discussion.

The Equal Civil Rights of Marriage Equality - - - is about what we have TODAY - - RIGHT NOW!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by crankyoldman
The marriage formula is an official, State own corporate institution, it is NOT about love, as the contract says nothing, not one word, not one hint, about love.


As far as I know - - - primarily LEGAL MARRIAGE in America is based in discrimination.

States enacted laws to make it illegal - - actually a felony - - for whites and blacks to marry.

States make it legal to discriminate - - and keep whoever they decided was an "undesirable" from getting married and be a part of the community.

Is this the state corporation you are speaking of?



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join