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: BestinShow
a reply to: American-philosopher
So what does everybody think am I a bigot for not voting to pass same sex marriage?
Yes, you are...
But what's the use in pointing that out since you don't know what the working definition of a bigot is..?
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
What happens if a Gay man wants to marry a Lesbian woman?
Paradox eh!
originally posted by: queenofswords
We need unbiased factual studies long-term before we can be sure children are not psychologically harmed by this. This is the only issue that concerns me. I am always about children first. That is not discrimination.
originally posted by: jonnywhite
Marriage should be tied to procreation or children. Otherwise, it's a meaningless title IMHO.
You are right. Religious intolerance DOES harm those kids more than anything else.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EternalSolace
Can you answer my question since the OP won't. Forget about the benefits for a second. What is wrong with saying a man and a man are married or a woman and a woman is married? Why does that matter anyways?
OK, I will say it.
Procreation and the legal construct to assure the woman that he can't just dump her when she gets too old which was the norm when the legal institution was added to the religious one after Henry VIII.
The catholics handled it with hellfire.
originally posted by: flammadraco
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko
Regardless of the government's original intentions as far as marriage goes this is where we stand now. To be honest, it was Christians themselves who got marriage intertwined with government. Funnily enough it is Christians who are the ones trying to change it when they don't like where government is going with it.
Spot on.
You were right in the first place, the state shouldn't be involved except if there is a contract dispute in civil court.
In the same way that religious folk should not be involved if two tax paying adults want to get married!
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: EternalSolace
Can you answer my question since the OP won't. Forget about the benefits for a second. What is wrong with saying a man and a man are married or a woman and a woman is married? Why does that matter anyways?
OK, I will say it.
Procreation and the legal construct to assure the woman that he can't just dump her when she gets too old which was the norm when the legal institution was added to the religious one after Henry VIII.
The catholics handled it with hellfire.
Procreation is a sorry reason. Children are born out of wedlock all the time and not all hetereosexual couples have children either. Seeing as how single motherhood is on the rise in this country, marriage isn't being used to keep men from dumping their woman.
Your answer here is just Middle Ages justification for marriage. It's a bit outdated. Plus Europe didn't invent marriage. Their definition isn't the definitive one.