Huge anti-gay marriage protest in France

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Or just pay 5 bucks for a marriage license and be done with it. There, settled.

License being the key word, or in other words permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal.

A marriage license sets up a relationship involving three parties with the third partner (government) being the dominant one. Anyone, gay or straight, who falls for that is a fool.

If your corporation fails you simply dissolve it, in a marriage you must have permission to end the relationship from that third partner and you must pay him again for the "privilege" of separation.

So you are not opposed to same-sex marriage, just marriage in general? Fair enough.

Mostly I'm opposed to foolishness and gays are currently demanding an equal right to be fools just like their straight contemporaries. So yes, I am opposed to same sex marriage on the basic principle that what government allows, government controls for the benefit of the corporations that write the rules. Its way too late to save the boyz and girlz who are already hooked into the system, I'm just looking out for the long term interests of people who are apparently jealous because they aren't yet hooked.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


Why so many 'Gay' threads on ATS?

They are as much a problem as the Extremists!

Looks like a lot of Subliminal Messaging going on on ATS!

Brainwashing to extremes....

What happens when people see flashing signs or in this case the same words over and over? Your mind keeps repeating these words over and over....

This is exactly what happens to get people brainwashed!

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Doesn't matter, sterile person can be made fertile.

Your Almighty can perform all sorts of miraculous feats, including gender change if that be Her will. So then we should have no hesitation granting those civil rights to same-sex couples. She could alter their gender and give them fertility, or not, according to Her will. Spendid! Then all can be happy and just place their trust in the Lord. Satisfied now?

edit on 28-5-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Neither should we have any hesitation to allow a 60 year old to marry a 10 year old, for God could easily change their ages, if he so wished, to make them more compatible in age.God can grant the young wisdom and knowledge to make them intellectually suitable. God can do many things, it is true.

But, he hasn't. He has set a particular order in place, and rules to follow, according to the order he has set.

Did he (she) really ?

Which god would that be ?

You know what I enjoy about these protests ? It's the only place you can find the elite christian religious zeolots actually agreeing with the empoverished muslim religious zeolots.

It's quite touching, really. Also, quite revealing, that the *only* thing the two groups have in common is the hate that stems from the irrational fear of an invisible facist.

Originally posted by Ismail

It's quite touching, really. Also, quite revealing, that the *only* thing the two groups have in common is the hate that stems from the irrational fear of an invisible facist.

Either you love the law, or you hate the law.

Christians love the law. The only hate is the people trying to overturn the law.

reply to post by SQUEALER


Your law. There are many laws, and most of them need to be updated just to keep up with society. Your law holds no sway over other men, nor should you expect it to.

This is my law. I chose it because it never will change.

"NOW this is the law of the jungle, as old and as true as the sky,
And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die.

As the creeper that girdles the tree trunk, the law runneth forward and back;
For the strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack".

-Rudyard Kipling-

By turning your back on one wolf, you have turned your back on the pack.
And so, after hurting the pack, your kind will die off but the pack will survive, and lick the poison from the wounds you left behind.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak


I'd be mad too for several reasons

1. the fact of having to live in france for starters
2. the economey there is in shambles
3. now they want you to pay for gay marriage insurance and other benefits

PS, I don't care if gay people get married. People get upset if they have to pay for their subsidies.

Originally posted by Ismail

Your law. There are many laws, and most of them need to be updated just to keep up with society. Your law holds no sway over other men, nor should you expect it to.

This is my law. I chose it because it never will change.

We all have our own law. As long as we're not competing over the same resources, different laws can co-exist.

The only time there's a problem is when you want me to pay you, because your law says I should.

That's when I produce my law.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

I'd be mad too for several reasons

1. the fact of having to live in france for starters
2. the economey there is in shambles
3. now they want you to pay for gay marriage insurance and other benefits

PS, I don't care if gay people get married. People get upset if they have to pay for their subsidies.

Gay marriage insurance?? What other kind of "subsidies" are robbing your piggy bank? A person can (often) add their spouse onto their health insurance plan by paying about triple the premium for a family plan as they do for a single plan. You don t mind them doing this if their spouse is of the opposite sex but resent it if theirs is of the same gender? It seems you may have other unvoiced interests, and maybe wish to cover them up by playing the pocketbook card? It doesn't fly.

Any person is authorized ONE spouse for all that entails. Why do you feel YOU must approve of their choice for that spouse?

Squealer has an almighty god with unlimited powers who makes up arbitrary rules according to Squealer's wishes. Frazzle has the altruistic ambition of wanting to save the gay community from the corporatist ravages of marriage. You feel you must approve of people's choice in a spouse. Not a homophobe in the bunch though, except the OP, apparently. All trying to take the gold medal in verbal gymnastics. Competition is fierce.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

Frazzle has the altruistic ambition of wanting to save the gay community from the corporatist ravages of marriage.

No, I'd prefer it if people attempted to save themselves from fascist corporatist ravages, unfortunately they demand to be ravaged just to keep it "fair". Who am I to deny them? I just say what I think and let the chips fall.

I don’t have a problem with gay people, but I DO have a problem with gay people making out, kissing, etc., in public. That stuff needs to stay in the closet and/or bedroom. I use to do stuff like that when I was a teenager, but then I realized there was a time and place for it! When I was a kid, I thought it was COOL to do so! I don’t care if you’re trying to make a point, but doing crap like that in public is childish and immature. Grow-up!

Originally posted by Propulsion
I don’t have a problem with gay people, but I DO have a problem with gay people making out, kissing, etc., in public.

Gay people need to do this. It's part of being gay. It's the excitement of rebelling against convention. You know, it's all about the forbidden fruit. People want what they are told they can't have.

When God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, what did they do?

That became the most interesting and exciting fruit, because it was denied them, so they ate.

Having people see them kiss in public, is the excitement. They know people don't approve. That increases the heart beat. Adds to the pleasure of being a "rebel".

If everybody ignored them, they'd go find a room. But, in private, they can't find that much excitement, because there's nothing there. There's no natural attraction between two men. They must do it in public to get the rush.

The attraction two gay men find towards each other is created by us, the disapproving public. We create the forbidden fruit, with our attitudes.

reply to post by SQUEALER

I cannot entirely agree.

Sure there is outrageous gay behavior that sometimes was (or is) meant to shock.

However, it was pretty much always in a context of what the straight society was doing.
Is there one thing gay people have done in public that straight people haven't?

Some gay parades and behavior are very much in the spirit of carnival and camp.
The anxiety is that it exposes all gender behavior as a performance.

It's not true however that there is no real attraction between "gay men", and that they only somehow want to shock people.
Most of the gay sex is going on behind closed doors.
Most of the same-sex attractions are never vocalized.

However, in the US there are religious cults who constantly want people to confess their same-sex attractions in public spaces, like churches or television.
They will then try to sell some bogus cure or therapy.

I'd say by the same token men and women who make out in public are not really attracted to each other.
Maybe the Kim Kardashian wedding, and other straight disasters, mean that men and women are not really attracted to each other at all?
What heterosexual performance is real?
It seems like a big ridiculous farce.
It appears thus that men and women get together to have babies nowadays, but there's no love or lasting attraction.
Even heterosexuals look happier with the same sex.

We get major fundamentalist same-sex gatherings and homosocial cult behavior from the major religions.
(Where thousands of hot, sweaty men get together and reclaim their patriarchal power for Jesus.)
It's not even men looking at men who look like women, like in the glam rock years.
It's a right out masculine love for uniforms and men performing their masculinity to other men.

Heterosexuality is so gay nowadays.
Maybe my view is slanted, but apart from hating on the "queers", heterosexuality is a bit lack-luster lately?

Oh well they can still be homophobic and hate the gays.
I suppose they do it for the childish shock value, because hating on any other group might have real consequences.

Well, if Gay people have the right to protest for gay marraige, then straight people have the right to protest against it.


Personally, I find gay marriage hypocritical.

Marriage is a religious concept. Your being wed under the eyes of GOD.
The bible and religion in general refuses to acknowledge you.

So, why would you want to be wed under the umbrella of an organization that choose to ignore you?

Make your own thing up, something you acknowledge and hold dear.

As far as I'm concerned, at-least here in Oz, Gay couples get the same rights as straight couples.

This marriage thing seems like a kid crying cause the other kid gets a red ball to play with.

The only thing that scares me, is gay marriage is one step closer to accepting gay adoption. Which in my mind should be denied under every imaginable aspect possible.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

How is civil marriage a religious issue, despite the fact that there are several religious denominations that will marry same-sex couples?

It also says in the New Testament that divorce is only recognized by Jesus if the woman fornicated, and any man who marries a divorced woman becomes an adulterer, and remains an adulterer, unless they repent and go back to the original marriage or celibacy.

Now a lot of fundamentalist people have had their second (or more) divorce, and are running anti-gay churches.
So who are the hypocrites?
No adulterers on a soapbox with their "bastard" kids (according to Deuteronomy 23:2) can point the finger at anybody else.

Everyone must obey God, or rather don't mention God.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

I'd be mad too for several reasons

1. the fact of having to live in france for starters
2. the economey there is in shambles
3. now they want you to pay for gay marriage insurance and other benefits

PS, I don't care if gay people get married. People get upset if they have to pay for their subsidies.

1- Life in France is quite nice. But nobody has to live there. They have the freedom to leave.
2-The economy is in better shape than the USA, I thank my stars everyday I am here and not back at home in bankrupt Calif.
3-What is Gay Marriage Insurance? Do you mean Health Insurance?
In France there is a multipayer system of health care, and if you want to add on top of the basic free care you get a mutual, which is not the same as insurance.

I've explained the controversy about gay marriage in France - it has nothing to do with any of these reasons, it is about adoption, and surrogacy, which will all become a problem because of gay marriage.

You know, this thread should just be re-titled, as it really is about gay marriage controversy in the US, which is based on different concerns.

But I guess it provides an arena for the ignorant to express their idiocies about France anyway.


(editted to add- Okay, I just fell on another post by the Last Starfighter in which he/she explains-
Rather than saying they are jealous they say the Europeans are lazy and get everything for free.
-So this isn't ignorance, it is jealousy again... )

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Well, if Gay people have the right to protest for gay marraige, then straight people have the right to protest against it.


Personally, I find gay marriage hypocritical.

Marriage is a religious concept. Your being wed under the eyes of GOD.
The bible and religion in general refuses to acknowledge you.

So, why would you want to be wed under the umbrella of an organization that choose to ignore you?

Make your own thing up, something you acknowledge and hold dear.

As far as I'm concerned, at-least here in Oz, Gay couples get the same rights as straight couples.

This marriage thing seems like a kid crying cause the other kid gets a red ball to play with.

The only thing that scares me, is gay marriage is one step closer to accepting gay adoption. Which in my mind should be denied under every imaginable aspect possible.

Marriage is only religious if you CHOOSE it to be and it's still governed by the CIVIL laws of the respective country it's held in.
If you get married in a church or other religious building etc you still need to sign a marriage certificate which has nothing to do with that church but is a legal document.
How do non-religious people get married then?
Oh yes, that's right, they get a CIVIL marriage which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Stop using religion as a shield for your bigotry.

reply to post by SQUEALER

Having people see them kiss in public, is the excitement. They know people don't approve. That increases the heart beat. Adds to the pleasure of being a "rebel".

No one has a lick of trouble telling smokers that they must keep their unwanted behavior away from the public because it "bothers" someone ~ even a lot of gays jumped right on the bandwagon to pass laws prohibiting smoking in public places while at the same time demanding laws that acknowledge and adopt, even in public schools and the boy scouts, their own bothersome (to others) behavior.

The US is filled with "I" oriented people who think everyone should bow down to their own preferences and its hypocritical in the extreme.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by SQUEALER

 

Having people see them kiss in public, is the excitement. They know people don't approve. That increases the heart beat. Adds to the pleasure of being a "rebel".

No one has a lick of trouble telling smokers that they must keep their unwanted behavior away from the public because it "bothers" someone ~ even a lot of gays jumped right on the bandwagon to pass laws prohibiting smoking in public places while at the same time demanding laws that acknowledge and adopt, even in public schools and the boy scouts, their own bothersome (to others) behavior.

The US is filled with "I" oriented people who think everyone should bow down to their own preferences and its hypocritical in the extreme.

I think most of us would agree that public "shows" of affection are inappropriate, i.e., deep or prolonged kissing, touching in inappropriate places, etc. I am speaking of heterosexual couples at present. The "hello" and "good-by" kisses on the cheek are very common in the country I live in and are not unknown even in the US and are generally considered acceptable.

We come to expect to sometimes see young lovers in the park who push the boundaries a bit and largely people don't say much about that, expecting they will not push it too far. And we expect they will grow out of that stage in time so maybe don' say much. I think though that holding hands while sitting or strolling is normally acceptable and we will often see long-time married couple doing so as well. In airports and train depots we expect to see some long good-by kisses. That is normal and natural. There are limits to good taste.

As regards smoking there are issues involving health, smells, and general comfort. Americans might nowadays be expected to grumble at a smoker who is fouling their air but in some societies to do so one might likely be awarded the one-finger salute for such a gesture. I think we can consider smoking a different matter for a different discussion.

I believe you make a good point in stating the US is filled with "I" oriented people. It is not an especially tolerant society. People lodge complaints about everything that annoys them, including some very petty and trivial matters. US police and code enforcement personnel are worked overtime following up on complaints about noisy neighbors, unsightly or unkempt lawns, or even over innocent matters that may attract attention or raise suspicious doubts such as a neighbor that might appear to have too many visitors - someone may suspicion they could be drug dealers when perhaps in reality it turns out they are Tupperware or Amway product salesmen. If we complain about every trivial matter or hint of suspicion we cannot blame our government for becoming a "police state" when they are just following up on citizen complaints. We get the society we ask for.

Accepting gay behaviors will be a slow process. Nearly half a century after overturning laws banning inter-racial marriage we still find many people who are intolerant of such pairings and will grumble at the sight of a mixed couple together. Should we once again ban inter-racial marriage because it continues to enrage some individuals? Should we expect gay couples to behave in a manner any more strict than we might expect of a heterosexual couple, i.e., holding hands and so forth? Perhaps we should consider laws banning any sort of touching in public whatsoever? In my opinion that would be over-the-top to go that far so perhaps we should just take our lumps.

As a heterosexual senior male over 60 I am not beyond sharing some distaste for some of the things I may see in society. I have no taste whatsoever for homosexual activity on my own part and find the thought distasteful, but, I find it supremely more distasteful deny simple pleasures of companionship and bonding that lends comfort to those individuals and essentially causes no one harm.

Some may argue the harm of such relationships and claim the participants of such pairing could receive harm by engaging in those acts, but I would have to argue that such harm could befall partners of any hetero-, homo-, bi-, or mixed pairings. Like it or not, people have the right to make mistakes or poor choices, or ultimately good ones. People have the right to find their own expressions of happiness whether it pays dividends in the long-run or ends in tragedy.

The "I" oriented people are the ones that meddle in others affairs. Often they do so over things they find somewhat distasteful, offensive, or just something not suitable for themselves. They will need to grow a spine.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro

Well said.
I also don't like to see people of any variation making out in public (eew...germs, germs).
However, I also exercise my democratic right to turn away when something offends me.

Incidentally, the anti-smoking laws that back the prejudices of militant anti-smokers were based on studies that supposedly showed that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
However, as Penn and Teller showed in an episode on second-hand smoke, the studies were misquoted, and actually found no significant link between second-hand smoke and cancer.

What always astounds me is the I orientated nature of some right-wing US religious groups and their highly offensive discourses, but I'll leave that debate for more appropriate threads.

If people are too squeamish to see men passionately embracing, kissing and butt slapping they can always switch off the sport's channel.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Wow, that was a lot and I agree with much of what you say.

There seems to be two distinct problems, disrespect for anyone and everyone and intolerance for anything and everything except our own wants. And, of course, the agendas and “missionaries” that promote these attitudes.

I have no idea what laws are on the books in France and I’m perfectly willing to leave the French to their own devices (good thing, too, since they don't give two hoots about what I think.) As far as I’m concerned Russia has it all over either France or the US on this particular issue.

But drawing comparisons is sometimes helpful in clarifying a problem. So drawing a comparison between non smoking laws and pro gay laws, at least in the US, is fair game IMO. For instance, consider that while every single person in a bar might be dying to light up but they can’t because people they have never met and who will never pass through the door at any point in their lives have said that they may not do that. OTOH, you’d have a hard time finding a town ordinance or state law on the books anywhere in this country that prohibits gay bars. Why? Well mainly because smokers are, for the most part, live and let live types who lack any semblance of political cohesion while gays are extremely cohesive in their ever increasing demands.

As Halfoldman pointed out, the issue of health and second hand smoke has always been a smoke screen (pun intended) thrown up to raise costs, drive smokers underground and turn them into pariahs. Oh and never forget all the taxes added to the cost of each pack “to cover the medical expenses of smokers." That went up in smoke, too, not one plug nickel ever went toward a smoker’s hospital or doctor bill. So who gives a damn about these people’s general comfort or what they might think stinks to high heaven? But then who knows, maybe the revenuers will come up with a way to tax unmarried gays extra to pay for diseases related to their proclivities.

On the inter-racial marriage thing, early French immigrants to Quebec were marrying native peoples for well over a century before it became un-pc. King Louis even promoted it. Then along came the British, running north from Washington’s federal troops, who found mixed marriage to be in such poor taste, which eventually forced the descendants of these marriages to do whatever it took to hide their evil roots.

So who knows, maybe the French (and Russians) can see further into the future than the rest of us ~ like maybe they’re seeing priests being forced to preside at homosexual marriages and being required to rewrite thousands of years of doctrine to accommodate “the new norm”, or else pay huge penalties for attempting to stand behind their traditional beliefs. I’m sure you’re aware that the idea of driving religion underground along with the smokers sends a little thrill up the backs of millions of people’s legs.

Oh, and speaking of “I” oriented people. Here’s a good one for ya, although you’re in Mexico so you may already know this:

Currently, same-sex marriage is only legally allowed in Mexico City, where a same-sex marriage law was enacted in 2010. The court's ruling comes from a lawsuit filed by three gay couples against the state of Oaxaca.

www.policymic.com...

Three couples. Yay democracy.