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 pngxp
I was meaning more if say a 30 year old and a 13 year old want to get married, both consenting, or something along those lines. should that be ok too?
Originally posted by pngxp
reply to post by SaturnFX
so homosexuals arent born that way either then, its learned and a symptom of something?
what i do care about is the issue being forced on so many and the hate towards people who say they dont support it.
and why do people who say they support traditional marriage get demonized as homophobic and all sorts of crap?
and perhaps pedophile was the wrong word? i was meaning more if say a 30 year old and a 13 year old want to get married, both consenting, or something along those lines. should that be ok too? if that is just who the 30 year old is attracted to and the 13 year old is attracted to him, then why not? in plenty of parts of the world, and at one time here in the states, 13 was considered plenty old enough.
maybe make the girl 16. does that change it? or the other way around and the boy is 13 and woman is 30?
if we are really going to open it up for everyone, it should really be for everyone right?
There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples. Partners in same-sex couples cannot receive these important benefits -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits. www.nolo.com...
Brown (its leader, Brian Brown) promised to keep up the fight against same-sex marriage and asked his followers for more money. The group is also going after corporations like Starbucks which publicly advocate for marriage equality. NOM's plan is to garner support in the Middle East, an area hostile to same-sex marriage and an area the coffee chain is interested in expanding in.
"[Starbucks's] international outreach is where we can have the most effect," Brown said. "So for example, in Qatar, in the Middle East, we've begun working to make sure that there's some price to be paid for this. These are not countries that look kindly on same-sex marriage. And this is where Starbucks wants to expand, as well as India. So we have done some of this; we've got to do a lot more." www.advocate.com...
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by SaturnFX
I do have to disagree with you a little bit in your post. Religion is not originally a product of religious institutions but was adopted by them so they could reflect the values of each particular religion. That is why you have groups that define marriage as man/woman, man/woman/woman, woman/man/man or what are the duties of each partner in a marriage.
The law (as someone recently informed me) for America it that ALL marriages are civil and are only religious to the individual couples who see fit to perform it by their faith. Most definitions of marriages found in dictionaries and other places define marriage as "is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship" or "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life". It isn't until you get to 4th or 5th definitions that religion and spirituality begin to appear.
First, the issue isn't about what constitutes a family. The issue is whether our government has the right to ban citizens from enjoying their civil right to marry who they choose simply because certain segments of society find their choice to be morally corrupt.
Second, a family is not "one man married to one woman, period". That is one form of a family. It is not the only form. And historically, even in Judaism, it was most certainly not one man and one woman. Many of the major patriarchs of the Bible had multiple wives. And their families also included children!
Third, comparing gay marriage to slavery is comparing apples and oranges. Slavery was an instutition that placed one person in control of the other-- there was an innate inequality. The slave was not even considered a human being, but a mere possession and the consent of the slave to enter into this institution was not required. Marriage is an institution in which the consent of both parties is required and in which the parties are equal partners.
onespiritproject.com...
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by Juggernog
Hopefully Obama will pass something where even if your state does not legally recognize same-sex marriage it will recognize another state's marriage license regardless.
maybe make the girl 16. does that change it? or the other way around and the boy is 13 and woman is 30? STILL ILLEGAL! Unless its russia or something, then meh