Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Minnesota Becomes the Twelfth State to Sanction Same-Sex Marriage

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Little by little we change the world into a better place.

Well done Minnesota, the 12 states who are rights pioneers will come to show the others that are dubious that gay marriage is not scary at all. In fact, unless you are in the wedding business or are invited to a gay wedding, most of you will not even notice the change at all.

But as gay people we are forever grateful for the equality you give us
edit on 19-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by billdadobbie
normally countrys cannot agree on the simplist things and take years to agree on anything but this seems to be a world wide thing what next sex with children
sickos


LOGIC DISCONNECT



So you are equating the legalization of marriage between two same sex consenting adults to somehow being a gateway to pedophilia? Please indulge me and connect the dots from one to the other.


Typical ignorant garbage from another homophobe.


Or is it NOT typical garbage from another homophobe? Maybe if we all take a look back to see how society has changed since ww1 and on, you would have a different perspective? Do you not see how media has influenced people's thoughts and personalities? Have you not seen how media promotes being queer? Next thing you know, people will want to be able to defecate in public too! You already have lesbians in New York going around topless without no bra or shirt because, " Men don't have to wear no shirt!". Sorry, but there have been plenty of other incidences other than this that proves, this is all about ENTITLEMENTS. People feel they are entitled to something, especially the LBGT community. And yes! Same sex marriage can be equivalent to that because marriage always had to with religion and G-d, nothing else.

Why do you think so many queers want rights to it? This is why, marriage is the ultimate commitment and profession of love, not just to G-d, but in all eternity. This is when nothing separates you from your spouse, not even death. Here is an example, of how marriage has ALL to do with G-d and religion and with nothing else.


Couples wedding in the Roman Catholic Church essentially make the same pledge to one another. According to the Rite of Marriage (#25) the customary text in English is:
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
In the United States, Catholic wedding vows may also take the following form:
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
The priest will then say aloud "You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide. Amen."


This is just the Catholic church. I could show you all the other churches too! In all the different sects of Christianity, they all say words at the end which connect the marriage with G-d. Why? Marriage was first known by those who believed in G-d and the religious community. Why? When you believed in G-d and followed his commandments you were making a marriage with God. Hence, the reason why you are baptized. It is a marriage between that person and G-d!

Why do you think Jews where Kippahs on their heads? It shows their marriage with G-d and reminds them that there is a G-d above.

This is really hard to understand, isn't it?

Here is another reason queers weren't meant to marry, they naturally never were meant to. Why? Well, is there any way a queer couple can be physically bonded? No! They can't have kids together! Can you stick two pipes together in which both have female ends? No! There is no way to connect them naturally!
Ah, what do I know? I am just an old grump.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by markosity1973
Little by little we change the world into a better place.


If that were true states would be pulling out of the marriage game altogether.

What's really going on is governments are "renewing their vows" if you will on the control they have over the people.

It isnt governments place to approve of or to disapprove of interpersonal relationships.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by retiredTxn
Just my opinion, I agree with the earlier poster who said leave it to the states to decide. As long as folks don't push their beliefs on me, I will reciprocate. Gubmint needs to leave things alone, and allow the will of the people to rule. Simple, just get out of our bedrooms and perform the duties they were elected to do. Too much time has been wasted on this issue, as well as abortion. It's a personal decision, and none of my or anyone else's business.

It's time to move on and focus on much more important things.


Whereas i see the logic of what you are suggesting, i have to disagree on this occasion.

Should some states continue to deny equal rights of marriage, gay people will still be left unequal in these terms. Through no fault of their own they were probably born in one of these states that doesn't recognise the union between people of the same sex, why should they have to leave their state in order to get married and have it recognised under the law? Because some people aren't comfortable with the IDEA that homosexuals can be joined in lawful union?

What would have happened if the states were allowed to decide if they wanted to desegregate society?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by markosity1973
Little by little we change the world into a better place.


If that were true states would be pulling out of the marriage game altogether.

What's really going on is governments are "renewing their vows" if you will on the control they have over the people.

It isnt governments place to approve of or to disapprove of interpersonal relationships.


What if i made my own religion that allowed same sex marriage? Is that not a viable alternative? What does a religion have to be based on? Because anyone can make their own version of god.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mindlessbrainpower89
 





This is just the Catholic church. I could show you all the other churches too! In all the different sects of Christianity, they all say words at the end which connect the marriage with G-d. Why? Marriage was first known by those who believed in G-d and the religious community. Why? When you believed in G-d and followed his commandments you were making a marriage with God. Hence, the reason why you are baptized. It is a marriage between that person and G-d! Why do you think Jews where Kippahs on their heads? It shows their marriage with G-d and reminds them that there is a G-d above.

This is really hard to understand, isn't it?


Actually it is.
Marriage isn't about god these days. Non religious people get married too



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Then the sate couldnt/shouldnt/wouldnt have anything to say about it.

The only real value (outside of tax purposes which is the states only stake in this) a "marriage" or "union" has is held with the parties involved.

Some people like the state approving of their union. Some people want a god of some sort to approve. Others are only concerned with how their family and friends see their union. Others still just want it established among themselves what their relationship is.

The state has no business wielding some blanket order domain over the personal status of private relationships. Nor does any church over the relationships of those not affiliated with said church for that matter.

The trouble is (again beyond the tax code) is people seem to want "marriage" to be universally defined. A one size fits all prospect and that's absurd. Which is why no institution or state should claim domain over it.
edit on 19-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Then the sate couldnt/shouldnt/wouldnt have anything to say about it.

The only real value (outside of tax purposes which is the states only stake in this) a "marriage" or "union" has is held with the parties involved.

Some people like the state approving of their union. Some people want a god of some sort to approve. Others are only concerned with how their family and friends see their union. Others still just want it established among themselves what their relationship is.

The state has no business wielding some blanket order domain over the personal status of private relationships. Nor does any church over the relationships of those not affiliated with said church for that matter.

The trouble is (again beyond the tax code) is people seem to want "marriage" to be universally defined. A one size fits all prospect and that's absurd. Which is why no institution or state should claim domain over it.
edit on 19-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


I understand your point but im wondering what your solution would be? I couldnt imagine a society where marriage didnt exist, Though im sure there'd be a lot of happy men


I kid, i kid.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Who's saying marriage cant exist?

It just shouldnt exist as defined by the state unless of course the state is your god then by all means have a state sanctioned marriage. It should exist as defined by whatever your respective belief system is or isnt. Marriage doesnt have anything to do with anyone or anything that is outside of that relationship.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So your saying the concept of marriage came from religion?

Sounds awful stupid to me.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So your saying the concept of marriage came from religion?

Sounds awful stupid to me.


As we know it it came from lords and ladies trying to unite kingdoms and resources and other conglomerate styled interests as that.

Just as stupid as if it were born of religion.

I'm saying it's no damn business of the state regardless of where it came from.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Who's saying marriage cant exist?

It just shouldnt exist as defined by the state unless of course the state is your god then by all means have a state sanctioned marriage. It should exist as defined by whatever your respective belief system is or isnt. Marriage doesnt have anything to do with anyone or anything that is outside of that relationship.


It just sounds so highly unorganised...

Nothing to do with the state... little to do with religion but given meaning only by those who choose to call it marriage? Dont we already have something along those lines... called a relationship?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Pretty much. I'm not "married" but I still refer to the person I've been with for years and years and years as my "wife" if it ever comes up.

What's the difference if I live with the person and own a home with this person for 50 years as a "married" pair or not?

Things like taxes and insurance policies should be focused on co-habitation and a sharing of resources. Not whether or not someone is "married." After all, I can be "married" and still not live with the spouse or share any resources with that spouse and in the eyes of all that is legalese that's acceptable for the "benefits" that come along with "marriage" so what's the point?

And why is organization an issue at all? It only matters now because the state claims domain over marriage. Just like the tax codes. It wouldnt be an issue if it simply wasnt an issue. By virtue of making it an issue a slew of others issues are created that never existed before.
edit on 19-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Pretty much. I'm not "married" but I still refer to the person I've been with for years and years and years as my "wife" if it ever comes up.

What's the difference if I live with the person and own a home with this person for 50 years as a "married" pair or not?

Things like taxes and insurance policies should be focused on co-habitation and a sharing of resources. Not whether or not someone is "married." After all, I can be "married" and still not live with the spouse or share any resources with that spouse and in the eyes of all that is legalese that's acceptable for the "benefits" that come along with "marriage" so what's the point?

And why is organization an issue at all? It only matters now because the state claims domain over marriage. Just like the tax codes. It wouldnt be an issue if it simply wasnt an issue. By virtue of making it an issue a slew of others issues are created that never existed before.
edit on 19-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


Im not saying there's a difference, i just think marriage is important in terms of the legal side of it. What would happen if something should happen (and i hope its never the case) to either you or your partner? How would the law go about your assets? What if one of you was hospitalised and neither of you were allowed to see one another? The legal side is all im really bothered about, seems silly to highlight these points but best to be safe then sorry i think



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


A living will and trust takes care of most of these legal marriage concerns.

And avoids the shameful display of asking the government for permission in the form of a marriage license.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Im not saying there's a difference, i just think marriage is important in terms of the legal side of it. What would happen if something should happen (and i hope its never the case) to either you or your partner? How would the law go about your assets? What if one of you was hospitalised and neither of you were allowed to see one another? The legal side is all im really bothered about, seems silly to highlight these points but best to be safe then sorry i think


You mean how they deal with every other non-government controlled contract? Well, with contractual law.

The legal system is actually much better prepared to deal with a non-government controlled marriage then a government controlled one. Then it would be a simple legal matter, not a legal/societal bamboozle that the government has turned it in too.
edit on 19-6-2013 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Im not saying there's a difference, i just think marriage is important in terms of the legal side of it. What would happen if something should happen (and i hope its never the case) to either you or your partner? How would the law go about your assets? What if one of you was hospitalised and neither of you were allowed to see one another? The legal side is all im really bothered about, seems silly to highlight these points but best to be safe then sorry i think


You mean how they deal with every other non-government controlled contract? Well, with contractual law.

The legal system is actually much better prepared to deal with a non-government controlled marriage then a government controlled one. Then it would be a simple legal matter, not a legal/societal bamboozle that the government has turned it in too.
edit on 19-6-2013 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


I dont think the government would be messing with it if there wasn't demand
edit on 19-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

I dont think the government would be messing with it if there wasn't demand
edit on 19-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)


That's interesting. So government never gets involved in something unless people want it to?

Even if that were true should popular demand dictate how others live their lives?

Other people are not your property.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I dont think the government would be messing with it if there wasn't demand
edit on 19-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

Government control was instituted long before your government was a twinkle in the eye of another country that didn't even exist when the marriage was bastardized.

So, please enlighten us as to what 'demand' constituted government intrusion into a pure private matter?



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mindlessbrainpower89
Why do you think so many queers want rights to it? This is why, marriage is the ultimate commitment and profession of love, not just to G-d, but in all eternity. This is when nothing separates you from your spouse, not even death. Here is an example, of how marriage has ALL to do with G-d and religion and with nothing else.


Your language betrays you. Obviously you do not like gay people, but fact is we are here and we always have been. Your own bible supports my argument with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah being so early in the book. I am not here to take anything from you and nor is any other gay person. However the same cannot be said about your own prejudiced mentality. Presumably you would have us all disappear into oblivion it you could wish / pray it into reality.



Couples wedding in the Roman Catholic Church essentially make the same pledge to one another. According to the Rite of Marriage (#25) the customary text in English is:
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
In the United States, Catholic wedding vows may also take the following form:
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
The priest will then say aloud "You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide. Amen."

This is just the Catholic church. I could show you all the other churches too! In all the different sects of Christianity, they all say words at the end which connect the marriage with G-d. Why? Marriage was first known by those who believed in G-d and the religious community. Why? When you believed in G-d and followed his commandments you were making a marriage with God. Hence, the reason why you are baptized. It is a marriage between that person and G-d!


Firstly it's God, his name in the bible is either Yahweh or Jehovah depending on your point of view. He allowed us to call him that when he gave the name to Moses.

Secondly, we all know that the church is not going to marry gay people. The church has already made that quite clear. We can create our own wedding ceremonies outside the church that may or may not use the word God. We don't need men in silly frocks in overtly gaudy buildings muttering praise be's and amen's to marry. Nor do atheists or non christians.




This is really hard to understand, isn't it?


Not really, you are a Christian and you have tunnel vision. There, I summed it up in one sentence for you.



Here is another reason queers weren't meant to marry, they naturally never were meant to. Why? Well, is there any way a queer couple can be physically bonded? No! They can't have kids together! Can you stick two pipes together in which both have female ends? No! There is no way to connect them naturally!
Ah, what do I know? I am just an old grump.



We are HUMANS and how does a baby make you physically bonded? Logic fail 101 there. Perhaps you mean spiritually and emotionally bonded. Either way you have just swung a giant left hook at all the straight childless couples out there too. Sex is the physical bonding part and oh shock horror, we gay couples have it too. We also love each other very much and emotionally support each other through the trials and tribulations of our lives. Futhermore, whatever kind of bond you perceive that childbearing brings, it is oh so often broken through divorce anyway. The bond with the kid remains but the bond between the married couple is smashed to bits. We call it a break up for a reason.....
edit on 19-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-6-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join