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.

 

Huge anti-gay marriage protest in France

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

How about when they try to force your public approval of something that disgusts you?? That's what is going on now.


Like meat for a vegetarian, the smell of cabbage fields, the tortured guy nailed to a cross as a religious icon? I turn the other way from things that bother me. I left the US society full of petty complaints begging for government ordinances, laws, and meddling for one which allows for more personal liberty.

Not all gay pairs are exhibitionists, not all young heterosexual couples are discreet in public, and not all same-sex marriages need involve homosexual pairings.

The argument I have put forth for years in favor of same-sex "marriages" could involve heterosexual lifelong friends who have outlived their families and wish to select for their next-of-kin a friend they could trust to keep domestic company with, to act in their behalf in times of incapacitation, have hospital visitation rights, inherit their belongings after demise, etc.

View it as you wish, "marriage" is a civil contract that conveniently bestows a next-of-kin status on two persons mutually entering such contract. Gender really should be no barrier against selecting trusted persons in your life. MUST I place my trust to make decisions in my behalf and inherit my estate to a person of the opposite sex ONLY?

Marriage is a CIVIL contract. It is a convenient domestic contract for any number of reasons and purposes. It becomes ultimately more serviceable if it is not gender-exclusive. Many select marriage as a domestic vessel for raising a family. I have been married twice and never had to agree to procreate as a condition of that license. I have no offspring and doubt at my age I ever will. People can write their own marriage vows beyond what the law prescribes and they can follow whatever tradition they choose if they feel a moral imperative is essential.

I believe equality among the genders trumps whatever other concerns may be involved. Try petitioning your city hall for an anti-public touching ordinance if enough of your neighbors have issues with it, write your congressman, petition the FCC if the media offerings bother you, shut off the TV. Don't concern yourselves by speculating about what goes on in other people's bedrooms.


edit on 31-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak

How about when they try to force your public approval of something that disgusts you?? That's what is going on now.


Like meat for a vegetarian, the smell of cabbage fields, the tortured guy nailed to a cross as a religious icon? I turn the other way from things that bother me. I left US society for one with fewer petty complaints begging for government ordinances, laws, and meddling for one which allows for more personal liberty.

Not all gay pairs are exhibitionists, not all young heterosexual couples are discreet in public, and not all same-sex marriages need involve homosexual pairings.

The argument I have put forth for years in favor of same-sex "marriages" could involve heterosexual lifelong friends who have outlived their families and wish to select for next-of-kin is a friend they could trust to keep domestic company, act in their behalf in times of incapacitation, have hospital visitation rights, inherit their belongings after demise, etc.

View it as you wish, "marriage" is a civil contract that conveniently bestows a next-of-kin status on two persons mutually entering such contract. Gender really is no barrier against selecting trusted persons in your life. MUST I place my trust to make decisions in my behalf and inherit my estate to a person of the opposite sex ONLY?

Marriage is a CIVIL contract. It is a convenient domestic contract for any number of reasons and purposes. I becomes more serviceable if it is not gender-exclusive. Many select marriage as a domestic vessel for raising a family. I have been married twice and never had to agree to procreate as a condition of that license. I have no offspring and doubt at my age I ever will. People can write their own marriage vows beyond what the law prescribes and they can follow whatever tradition they choose if they feel a moral imperative is essential.

I believe equality among the genders trumps whatever other concerns may be involved. Try petitioning your city hall for an anti-public touching ordinance if enough of your neighbors have issues with it.. Don't concern yourselves with what goes on in other people's bedrooms.


edit on 31-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



I agree, bedrooms are off limits. So whose bedroom did this little exercise take place in?


Two girls in a New York state middle school were told to stand in front of class and "pretend they were on a lesbian date," and ask another girl for a kiss. The "exercise" was part of an anti-bullying workshop.

Parents were not informed that such an exercise would take place nor were they given a chance for their children to opt out.


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...


You can deny the agenda all you want, that doesn't make it NOT an agenda.
edit on 31-5-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


No, marriage is more than a civil contract. Gays could have all the civil contracts they wish without demanding State (i.e. universal)Approval via ligitimization by recognition of their "marriage." No one outside of family would be able, or willing, to contest legitimate civil contracts agreed to by such participants.

What is being demanded by Gays is that non-gays approve of their choices. That is not a reasonable demand.
edit on 31-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


No, marriage is more than a civil contract. Gays could have all the civil contracts they wish without demanding State (i.e. universal)Approval via ligitimization by recognition of their "marriage." No one outside of family would be able, or willing, to contest legitimate civil contracts agreed to by such participants.

What is being demanded by Gays is that non-gays approve of their choices. That is not a reasonable demand.


Marriage in the US is a civil contract and bestows familial rights, nothing more unless you care to make it so. Look it up! Take vows before a civil justice, or have it "sanctified" before your deity of choice if you wish to.

I have never had a gay person ask me to approve of their partner. What makes you feel anyone needs your approval? Maybe their only demand is that you BUTT OUT of their affairs.

If I outlive my wife I may want to name my own next-of-kin. It is a simple matter with a marriage contract. I should hire an attorney on YOUR DEMAND!?! Go blow smoke up someone else's backside.

I left the US because of such busy-bodies that want to be everybody's nanny.

Reply to frazzle -

Write to your school board. Write your congressman.

If everyone over there is that gay then maybe you are out-numbered now. I haven't set foot in the US since Bush was President.


edit on 31-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


That particular term "busybody" more accurately describes the folks who are trying to change what has been been the Law, the custom, and the accepted morality for millenia, now doesn't it?
edit on 31-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


That particular term "busybody" more accurately describes the folks who are trying to change what has been been the Law, the custom, and the accepted morality for millenia, now doesn't it?


Yeah, kinda' like racial discrimination.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Somehow, I'm having difficulty equating you guys with MLK.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 



Reply to frazzle -

Write to your school board. Write your congressman.


Fnding one that isn't personally morally bankrupt would be the challenge. But you already knew that and you even admit that's why you made a run for the border.


If everyone over there is that gay then maybe you are out-numbered now. I haven't set foot in the US since Bush was President.


Not outnumbered ~ out shouted. But did you ever consider that maybe you should limit your proselytizing for gay marriage down there in Mexico where you have some personal skin in the game? I'll bet there aren't any schools down there that TEACH homosexual behavior.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
Somehow, I'm having difficulty equating you guys with MLK.


Ya' know, as a heterosexual male over 60 there are just some things that don't tickle my fancy either. Maybe it is because I have left behind such a meddlesome society that demands governmental interference over every petty matter that I have chosen the value of personal freedom and prefer to ignore those things that don't suit my personal tastes while placing value on the liberty of every individual to select their own path so long as they cause no harm to others. I don't consider things harmful to another just because it offends their sensibilities.

I wish every minority group had the freedom to express their individuality. However today's society prefers we all live by one-size-fits-all. My ideal society would let persons of like values congregate together. They could choose to be inclusive or exclusive, so long as all minorities also had their place for expression. Some things I might view as healthy others might view as aberrations - gambling in Las Vegas for instance.

I might prefer a place where no public consumption of alcohol is acceptable. By the same token I would like to see a city full of drunk drivers get a snoot-full and go carousing around at their will. The devoutly religious living with others of their cloth, thieves living with thieves and theft their acceptable way of life if they choose it. communities just as inclusive or exclusive as they wish to make it.

In the absence of that and where all have to live under the same subjective tyranny I wish to grant the maximum amount of personal expression to each individual. I disdain oppression and stifling of individualism. I see where intolerant societies are headed, laws upon restrictive laws compounding themselves. Turning the other cheek also means looking the other way when something offends their sensibilities.

I made my choices so maybe should not have a say-so about the goings-on of American society, but by birthright I am and always have been American and hate to see such a great society stifled by the oppression of pettiness. If same-sex pairing were the only thing that offended Americans it may be valid to consider keeping that restriction if such really contributed to their core value. Sadly, it is not. It is just another in a long list of petty gripes that steps on someone else's liberties.

If America wishes to survive strong they may need to put their pettiness behind them, suck it up, and grow a spine. Give attention to those things that make their society strong and not just fret over their neighbors bumping uglies together.

ETA - There is a reply to frazzle in the above statement as well. You are getting the society you ask for. Mexico does not teach acceptance of homosexuality specifically. They teach the value of liberty and for personal tolerance if they wish to keep their liberty.


edit on 31-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Marriage isn't some kind of natural law, its a human construct. I mean can't people just be happy to be in love with each other , without the sanction of government and religion.

Most people I know who got married did it because it was what the girlfriend wanted. Her big day that she'd probably been planning since childhood. They cost a small fortune, which would be better invested in the off springs future.

Each to their own I guess.


I know this is a couple days late and and a dollar short, but your post is exactly how I have felt about marriage. It's no longer about love, but rather a business contract.

How much money can we spend for a one day party?

What kind of benifits do I get out of it? Does your work cover me as well?

How much alimony do I get if the marriage fails.

As for myself, I am not entangling myself in that nightmare.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Once again, you already have the liberty to do what you want. Draw up a private contract if that's what the parties want, Live together.

You do not have the right to demand the approval of the State (the people) for something that a large percentage find not only objectionable, but sinful, distasteful, disgusting.

That's the reason for the large French protest.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
What is being demanded by Gays is that non-gays approve of their choices. That is not a reasonable demand.
edit on 31-5-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)
What is being demanded by gays is equal recognition of their marriages from the state they pay taxes to just like everybody else; considering the fact that what they're doing isn't harming anyone, it's a pretty reasonable demand.

The demand that they shouldn't be allowed to do this is pretty unreasonable. There has yet to be any valid reason whatsoever as to why gays shouldn't have their marriages recognized by the state.


Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Once again, you already have the liberty to do what you want. Draw up a private contract if that's what the parties want, Live together.

You do not have the right to demand the approval of the State (the people) for something that a large percentage find not only objectionable, but sinful, distasteful, disgusting.

That's the reason for the large French protest.
You can use that same logic to justify the jim crow laws.
edit on 31-5-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
We both already have the same rights--to marry someone of the opposite sex.

In most states, we are both prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex--

So our "rights" are exactly the same.

Not the same as jim Crow laws.



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 


Well I am not against gay people, but I don't necessarily have to agree with their beliefs on marrying someone of the same sex. I don't judge those people God does, so honestly I don't care what they do, but I will say marriage is a union between man and woman to have children together for a reason. Because d*ck goes in p*ssy, and that is what it is made to do anything else is not going to reproduce children and is why most people are against gay marriage. Not because they don't feel people should have rights, but soley because it is designed to keep people reproducing and having functional man and woman parents. If people that are gay can marry than basically marriage isn't necessary for anyone because at that point we have just done something that is pointless because that is why people get married and what it is for. Now I understand there are some people who cannot have children and they get married too, but it was originally designed for love between man and woman to continue our existence. If we continue gay anything, it would actually eventually put us extinct as a human race. Just an idea for anyone who is gay and thinking of marriage, it may not be wrong ok, I don't know, but it is definitely not something that people will live if everyone turns gay and marry's one of the same sex. We would all be jacked up with imbalanced views and men thinking they are women, and women thinking they are men is a whole other department.Even gay people know what they are doing is not adding anything good to the food chain, in fact, it will kill it off simultaneously. Marriage is meant for man and woman, if a gay person wants to marry someone, it is pointless they can be in love and live together without marriage lol, but they will never have kids naturally and that is what is f*cked up.

God bless, gays, straights, and anything that is on the planet,

DONTEXECUTEWOMEN



posted on May, 31 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

It's great that everyone who chooses to be married to the "opposite sex" has had the right, and still has the right to get thus married.

But isn't it fantastic that in many countries people also have the right to marry somebody of the same sex?

It's fabulous, and if you're against same-sex marriage, just don't marry somebody of the same sex.

Simple really.

What is the major problem actually?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


"The Problems" with this have been adequately enumerated in many prior posts.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by MuzzleBreak
 

It's great that everyone who chooses to be married to the "opposite sex" has had the right, and still has the right to get thus married.

But isn't it fantastic that in many countries people also have the right to marry somebody of the same sex?

It's fabulous, and if you're against same-sex marriage, just don't marry somebody of the same sex.

Simple really.

What is the major problem actually?



What's fantastic is that this is no different than any other "hot morality issue" all of which are devised to keep the people at each other's throats. Divide and conquer. And its not as if you'd be gaining a new "right", you'd simply be getting a new privilege to be regulated and taxed. Another zero added onto the general fund.

What is really fantastic, though, is that even though you may get your fondest desire and the law may come down in your favor, people are becoming less and less impressed with laws and lawmakers in general and that's as it should be.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 

Yeah, it is divisive (not only from one side obviously).
And we all have discussed many valuable points relating to the topic (including in this thread).

But just revising: at the end of the day, two adult people (paying equal taxes and dues) should be able to define their relationship as they see fit.
Who the hell is anybody else to come and say they cannot be married?
Who on earth is anybody outside an adult relationship to stick their nose in it?
That's basically what it amounts to.

Mind your own religion, and relationship, or marriage.

Stop shoving the Bible (or the holy books) and patriarchy down other people's throat and enjoy your own pursuit of happiness.
edit on 1-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by frazzle
 

Yeah, it is divisive (not only from one side obviously).
And we all have discussed many valuable points relating to the topic (including in this thread).

But just revising: at the end of the day, two adult people (paying equal taxes and dues) should be able to define their relationship as they see fit.
Who the hell is anybody else to come and say they cannot be married?
Who on earth is anybody outside an adult relationship to stick their nose in it?
That's basically what it amounts to.

Mind your own religion, and relationship, or marriage.

Stop shoving the Bible (or the holy books) and patriarchy down other people's throat and enjoy your own pursuit of happiness.
edit on 1-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


It won't be "anybody" sticking their noses into it, it will be the governments with their gargantuan noses, just like always.

As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for because you just might get more than you bargained for. Remember how social security was "given" to us to take care of us old folks, NOT to be an identification number? How many examples of waiving rights in exchange for privileges does anyone need to understand that the intent of new law is never what the headline reads. Read the fine print and then extrapolate.

Gallic shrug.




top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join