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.

 

Minnesota Becomes the Twelfth State to Sanction Same-Sex Marriage

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Sorry, I didnt know this thread was dedicated to religious arguments only.

Did I miss a signpost or something?

Feel free to completely ignore me and only focus on the simpletons perspective then.




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Actually if you had been listening you'd see i was referring to the government stepping in and making it legal. They shouldn't be forcing religious institutions to perform gay marriages, that would trampling on peoples free will.


Churches in America have always had the right to refuse to marry ANYONE!

The insistence on having special laws to prevent them from marrying gays is scare tactics and redundant.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Annee
 


Sorry, I didnt know this thread was dedicated to religious arguments only.

Did I miss a signpost or something?

Feel free to completely ignore me and only focus on the simpletons perspective then.


It's about same sex marriage.

It is not about abolishing Legal Government Marriage.

I assure you, there are many existing threads on the subject you keep trying to turn this into.


edit on 20-6-2013 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

It's about same sex marriage.


Yup.


It is not about abolishing Legal Government Marriage.


Is that not a means to providing same-sex couples with the ability to marry?

If no one is standing in your way shouting "NO!" then you can do it.
edit on 20-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Annee

It's about same sex marriage.


Yup.


It is not about abolishing Legal Government Marriage.


Is that not a means to providing same-sex couples with the ability to marry?


NO! You're talking about a completely separate issue.

Gays want exactly what Legal Government Marriage is Today RIGHT NOW.

They want the full Equal Rights of what Legal Government Mariiage is Today RIGHT NOW. Exactly as it is for straight couples.

They do not want to change it. They do not want to do away with it.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Annee

It's about same sex marriage.


Yup.


It is not about abolishing Legal Government Marriage.


Is that not a means to providing same-sex couples with the ability to marry?


NO! You're talking about a completely separate issue.

Gays want exactly what Legal Government Marriage is Today RIGHT NOW.

They want the full Equal Rights of what Legal Government Mariiage is Today RIGHT NOW. Exactly as it is for straight couples.

They do not want to change it. They do not want to do away with it.


So, not only do you speak for the gay community at large, but it's about the perceived entitlements then? Just a grab for the golden ring?

Here I was thinking it was about a union between people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Guess I dont know what marriage is.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

So, not only do you speak for the gay community at large, but it's about the perceived entitlements then? Just a grab for the golden ring?

Here I was thinking it was about a union between people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Guess I dont know what marriage is.


Don't try to twist words.

What part of LEGAL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE are you not getting?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Don't try to twist words.

What part of LEGAL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE are you not getting?



What words am I twisting? People want to marry without obstacles. I offer a solution. THE solution to end any and all nonsensical debate over who has dominion over your personal relationships.

You make it sound like people just want to file a joint tax return.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Annee

Don't try to twist words.

What part of LEGAL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE are you not getting?



What words am I twisting? People want to marry without obstacles. I offer a solution. THE solution to end any and all nonsensical debate over who has dominion over your personal relationships.

You make it sound like people just want to file a joint tax return.


PEOPLE? You can speak for you.

I am not naive and I do not live in an idealistic world.

AND I'm not going to list all that Legal Government Marriage offers and guarantees. I've done that in many of the other gay marriage threads on ATS.

If you want facts, you can look them up yourself.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Annee

Don't try to twist words.

What part of LEGAL GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE are you not getting?



What words am I twisting? People want to marry without obstacles. I offer a solution. THE solution to end any and all nonsensical debate over who has dominion over your personal relationships.

You make it sound like people just want to file a joint tax return.


By the way -- CHOICE is the solution.

When everyone can CHOOSE what type marriage they want.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

By the way -- CHOICE is the solution.

When everyone can CHOOSE what type marriage they want.


Which brings us back to more or less intrusion.

If government has to legislate a vehicle for every choice that's volumes of legalese and tax codes.

If government just butt out of it then everyone gets their choice with the benefit of less regulatory waste.

I see that lots of people would rather stay home and beg mommy and daddy for a raise in their allowance than strike out on their own.
edit on 20-6-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Annee

By the way -- CHOICE is the solution.

When everyone can CHOOSE what type marriage they want.


Which brings us back to more or less intrusion.

If government has to legislate a vehicle for every choice that's volumes of legalese and tax codes.

If government just butt out of it then everyone gets their choice with the benefit of less regulatory waste.

I see that lots of people would rather stay home and beg mommy and daddy for a raise in their allowance than strike out on their own.


NO THANKS!

I CHOOSE Legal Government Maririage.

I have that CHOICE --- gays don't. That is the issue. I have the choice, gays don't.

Marriage Equality will give them the right of choice.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I get it. You're happy in your box and you want to drag everyone else in.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the box and let people do as they wish. Que sera.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Annee
 


I get it. You're happy in your box and you want to drag everyone else in.

Personally, I'd rather get rid of the box and let people do as they wish. Que sera.


You want to take away Rights, before someone has them. In this case gays right to Legal Government Marriage.

I'm not dragging anyone anywhere. I am fighting for Equal Rights. Once gays have that right, they can choose whatever they want.

I never said abolishing government marriage is an invalid subject. But, it is not about the right of gay's to marry. It is an entirely different discussion.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
You want to take away Rights, before someone has them. In this case gays right to Legal Government Marriage.

I'm not dragging anyone anywhere. I am fighting for Equal Rights. Once gays have that right, they can choose whatever they want.

I never said abolishing government marriage is an invalid subject. But, it is not about the right of gay's to marry. It is an entirely different discussion.


You want to claim that you fight for rights, but you toss aside any theory that does not fit YOUR view.

Interesting.

Removing the government from marriage is the only way to provide EQUAL rights to EVERYONE (I used your words intentionally).

As it stands now, regardless of the rulings on homosexual marriages, there will still be a minority of US Citizens, all of which are consenting adults, that will still lack these rights.

Polygamy
Polyandry
OS
Incest

As long as it only involves consenting adults, it should be their right, no?

The benefits that you are trying to hold as the corner stone of your argument are not intrinsically tied to marriage, so it is not like anybody has to lose anything. Tie the benefits to parentage and habitation, problem solved.

Even better, tie it to civil law, and let us all choose who we share our benefits with?

Nah, too simple.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 20-6-2013 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Removing the government from marriage is the only way to provide EQUAL rights to EVERYONE (I used your words intentionally).

As it stands now, regardless of the rulings on homosexual marriages, there will still be a minority of US Citizens,




Legal Government Marriage is between 2 partners, as it stands Right Now Today. Tax benefits, Social Security, etc etc, are set up to accommodate a "pair" -- marriage of 2. What gender that pair is changes nothing.

REPEAT: Nothing is changing Legal Government Marriage by including the right of same gender couples to marry.

Equal Rights for couples no matter the gender mix.

---------------------------


Abolishing government marriage and multiple couple marriage is a complete change of structure --- and a completely different discussion.



edit on 20-6-2013 by Annee because: DAMN QUOTES



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Ah, so it is not equality for everybody.

Just wanted you to be 100% clear on that.

Thanks for ruining your own credibility in any discussion that involves 'rights'...



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee
 


Ah, so it is not equality for everybody.

Just wanted you to be 100% clear on that.

Thanks for ruining your own credibility in any discussion that involves 'rights'...


YES! It is.

I actually support multiple marriages, but understand the complexity of changing an entire structure system.

Same gender couple marriage changes nothing.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I actually support multiple marriages, but understand the complexity of changing an entire structure system.

Same gender couple marriage changes nothing.


Your first sentence directly contradicts your second.

Try reading actual laws before you make silly statements.

Marriage is a title. That is it. It has no actual law of it's own. Every part of marriage that does involve law, refers to the legal codex that pertains to that specific legality. Monetary (benefits, wills, yadda, yadda) defers to civil, abuse to criminal, family to family law, etc, etc.

If you had any understanding of the actual law itself, you would realise that removing 'marriage' from the government is the simple solution. The laws are already there to handle the rest, let us actually use them.
edit on 20-6-2013 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join