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 Gemwolf. There are records throughout history of same-sex marriage (or marriage rituals between people of the same sex). These include ancient China, Mesopotamia, Assyria, the Roman Empire, Spain and so on. (Keep that in mind if you get bored with the current events and want to dig deeper.)
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
A dog is not a consenting adult
A corpse is not a consenting adult
The point is, if one group wants to be included in what was once exclusive, what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.
This is changing the definition of not only a word but an important noun.
I think gay people should have Civil Unions that are recognized legally in every way marriage is.
And if any church sees fit to allow gays to marry then fine.
But don't force it on anyone's church by legal means which is what it will eventually come to in order for them to keep their tax-exempt status..
edit on 28-6-2013 by Asktheanimals because: corrections
Just like anything else in society. People get together and deliberate on the merits. Just like anything else. So what would stop it, would be enough collective decision deeming it immoral or unfit for society. Enough people get together to voice its support, but even more people voicing dissent. Tell me...if human/animal marriage was voted on right now what do you think the outcome would be? Seems like you feel the voters that support LGBT equality also support human/animal marriage. If not, on what grounds are these fears being substantiated.
As I said earlier, why don't we (the People) discuss these issues AS they actually arise instead of inundating our minds and our forums on situations that only exist in imaginative speculation. There isn't compelling reason to believe society would agree to adults marrying babies, but there is compelling reason society (let's say US as example) would not agree to that.
The collective decision. Therefore, whatever the subjective whims of the collective are the defining factor of reality?
You tell me...would the collective have voted to change the definition of marriage 50 years ago? 30? 15?
I am, however warning that there are those existent today who do support such things and would like nothing more than to sieze an opportunity to further their agenda.
within the next 20 years we will see activists the likes of which we couldn't have dreamed attempting to piggy tail on the strides the gay rights movement
A society who adopts the belief of subjective morality has one manifesto that reads as follows: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Is this what you believe?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Afewloosescrews
Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?
I've decided to Marry my dog, if he'll have me.
Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
The gay rights movement is attempting to convince the world that gay marriage is equal in both value and in definition to heterosexual marriage. Merely on the basis of two people loving each other, the former may seem to be true, but can we technically call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage?
Sorry incorrect again there have been many cultures that married gays including Greeks.
Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman.
Please see response above...
"Who cares what a marriage has been deemed in the past...it's time for progress and evolution," you might respond. OK sure, but have you considered the consequences of arbitrarily changing the definition of marriage? If we can now shift the boundaries of what constitutes a marriage to suit our societal whims where does it end?
Whoa there buddy...you just related same sex marriage to pedophilia....Any relationship between consenting adults should not and cannot be compared to any relationship one party is not able to consent (CHILD, DOG, CAT, TOASTER, etc). If you are trying to logically make a vaild argument I would stay away from this point...
What's to stop someone from saying "I am hopelessly in love with my (fill in the blank), and therefore should acquire the right to call this relationship with it/him/her a marriage...oh and hey while I'm at it enjoy the societal benefits that come with this title." After all, organizations like NAMBLA (google it) are lurking just around the corner eagerly waiting for this kind of opportunity.
Again, please see above response.
It strikes me that the recent Supreme Court rulings and any akin to them that seek to expand the definition of marriage could be setting a precedent for securing benefits and protections for groups that all of us would agree shouldn't be allowed these rights.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.
But don't force it on anyone's church by legal means which is what it will eventually come to in order for them to keep their tax-exempt status..
You make it sound so chaotic, but YES. That's our reality. Society is that collective. Not gonna debate that point because the other side (other worldly) is one that has no empirical merit.
Our moral compass evolves... kinda what we've been saying. We are growing and our understanding of what is right and just along side it.
Okay fine. Let them have at it. Don't see the relevance here. It seems like in one breath you're agreeing this isn't relevant and in another you make some direct corollary. Which is it? Let these people voice their thoughts. We will deal with it then....
And if they are absurd like people marrying multiple goats it won't fly.
Curious. Would you describe the movement for black rights or women's rights piggy-tailing on some prior rights movement? In my eyes it's the same movement.
The idea you need some divine universal guidance to have a heart and a moral compass is ridiculous, offensive, and demonstrably false.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Marriages are ordained by the Creator and nature.
Not the state.
This is changing the definition of not only a word but an important noun.