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.
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.
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."
Originally posted by markosity1973
Little by little we change the world into a better place.
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.
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.
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?
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)
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
So your saying the concept of marriage came from religion?
Sounds awful stupid to me.
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.
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)
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
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)
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I dont think the government would be messing with it if there wasn't demandedit on 19-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I dont think the government would be messing with it if there wasn't demandedit on 19-6-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
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.
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!
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.