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.

 

Civil Marriages Are A Civil Right.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Wertdagf



When was the first instance of marriage? that might help you figure out who created it. The one that created it has charge over WHO it can belong to. If i had my way you would get no benifits for being married unless your raising a child. Its stupid to get a tax break just for moving in together.


The first marriages were pagan.No one has rights over it though.



The creation of life has ALWAYS been religiously tied.... Its always been for reproduction and has always carried religious overtones.


No it hasn't.People had sex and children long before organized religion was around.Marriage is also about money,business/power unions,showing good relations between peoples who have previously battled each other,a way of off loading someone you can't afford to keep etc etc.





Simplynoone



I will tell you why ...most Christians believe that if they did vote for it ..they would be condoning it (Which it would be ) ...so you will never get their approval for it ...And they are not trying to get all gays to turn to the Lord right now ...they are just saying we will not condone this behavour so we will vote no ..........


This isn't about getting approval or getting people to vote for it.Its about Christians who are trying to control the lives of others/non-Christians.Civil marriage is legal in government organizations,not religions.



As long as it does not become a MANDATE that Churches,Priests etc have to marry a gay couple ..then I personally see no problem with allowing them a marriage with the State


Thats my point.If this was about church's having to perform gay marriages then religions have a cause to argue.But as it is now,they don't.



California is about as liberal as they come and not that much of a Christian state .......if you cannot even convince them (Liberal Californians) to vote in your favor ..then I dont know what to tell you .......


I think the money the Californian council is getting off various church's is a deciding factor in that.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
[It is none of any ones business]

Then why are you making it the States Business ..we are the state remember ..All of us (well we were anyway) ...we are all the voters who change laws etc (at least we used to be ) ...............

Your making it everyones business by asking we the people (who you say is not any of our business) to get involved to help you vote it into law (your making it our business) ..Or am I missing something here ?

The reason that my "Hubby" and I do not go and get married by the state ..is because we DONT THINK IT IS ANY OF THEIR BUSINESS ..and I do not feel as if I need their permission to marry ....I believe that it is between my hubby and me and GOD >>>..no one else ..

And I am not with him for what I can get after his death ..or what I could get while being married to him in the eyes of the state ....I could care less about any of that .
I came in with nothing ..I will go out with nothing ..I care not for worldy goods....




[edit on 16-11-2008 by Simplynoone]


So do you not vote then on the issue? If not voting against it, then you are not the ones I am referring to. I am talking about those hell bent and determined to MAKE SURE there can be no legal union between gays.

For some people it is important for there to be a legal union.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Simplynoone]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


I could not agree more. I don't believe that the state should be sanctioning religious ceremonies. IMHO neither gay nor hetero marriages should have anything to do with the government.

Eric



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Dear Jakyll:

I do believe I could go along with civil marriages. If they are not done in a church and not a relligious ceremony. I would vote for that.

Peace to you,
Grandma



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
If there are legal civil unions, insurance coThat is my point. Fine religions want to remain against it. Then that is their right. Just as it is the homosexual communities right to be legally married by the state. They are not looking to force religions to have to accept it. If religion does not control our government then how is it a law that is only very bad upon due to moral religious beliefs, is not being passed. Bet it comes down to money. Think about it. Insurance companies have to insure the partner, and all that comes along with marriage. So, there is more to this that fighting the religions to stay out of it. It should not be a factor at all. Separation of church and state.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I personally find it curious that people seek out permission from the state in order to spend their lives together. And that goes for all couples. If you want to make such a statement, then make it to each other with god as witness. To seek permission from the state is to assume the state has the right to tell you yes or no.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Without the state legalizing it, you can not get insurance in many places through your spouse, collect their social security if they die, and so on. They got the love filled union already, now just want the rights.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
You have no choice. Accept homosexuality, or be labeled a homophobic, small-minded hate-monger. If you do not fully endorse gay marriage and homosexual behavior, you will be told to keep your opinion to yourself (or worse).

First, I believe nobody's behavior outside of the workplace (barring criminal) should ever be used as a discrimatory tool in the workplace. You have my vote there. I can concede on "legal civil unions" as well. But I have to draw the line on "accept this as normal behavior or die" mentality that this "movement" has taken.

Homosexuality is a behavior people choose. Just like choosing to be celibate, smoking cigarettes, drinking beer, or eating those delicious high fat fast food yummys.

Many homosexuals want to normalize their lifestyle in society and will use political lobbies, judges, and any tool available to "FORCE" the rest of us to accept this behavior as a "special exceptions" group. I don't see anything about tolerance in this movement, I see "You will give us full endorsement-or else"! And the rest of us are getting pretty sick of it.


Homosexuality is a behavior people choose....Plain and simple, argue all you want but that is pretty much the bottom line. Do what you want in private but stop trying to make the rest of us "accept or die" because that is really getting annoying.

So, yeah start calling me names but really, your behavior is not my business if it doesn't hurt me. Just stop trying to make everyone else agree with your position by force and stop trying to indoctrinate my children into acceptance of your lifestyle decision.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mystery76
Without the state legalizing it, you can not get insurance in many places through your spouse, collect their social security if they die, and so on. They got the love filled union already, now just want the rights.


Sounds to me like a better insurance company is needed. I don't care if gay people get married, but seems to me you should be able to include people you want, so long as you pay for it. If you just let gay people get married, you still have the problem of people who aren't married.

I was kind of disappointed prop 8 passed here in cali. I was kind of surprised. The commercials in favor of it were really dumb. If people can get married, let them all get married. But I have thought marriage was a rather silly concept, don't need a piece of paper from the state to spend your life together, no matter what your sexual preference is.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   
john 18:[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

a scripture lots of christians love to ignore. jesus' kingdom is NOT america. god doesnt bless america. god doesnt curse america. america is part of the world.

its hypocritical to even suggest that a christian has the duty to change the law so as to force his beliefs on others.

jesus is coming later to fix the world, until then worry about your own salvation



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Grandma



I do believe I could go along with civil marriages. If they are not done in a church and not a relligious ceremony. I would vote for that.


Thats because you're an open minded person who doesn't use their faith as a weapon.You're a good example for the bigots.






Mystery76



Separation of church and state.


Once the church stops giving the state lots of lovely money,the state would drop 'em like a hot rock.




badmedia



I personally find it curious that people seek out permission from the state in order to spend their lives together. And that goes for all couples. If you want to make such a statement, then make it to each other with god as witness. To seek permission from the state is to assume the state has the right to tell you yes or no.


I've always found that curious.But,like a religious marriage,many see it as a sign of true commitment etc.




infolurker



Homosexuality is a behavior people choose....Plain and simple, argue all you want but that is pretty much the bottom line. Do what you want in private but stop trying to make the rest of us "accept or die" because that is really getting annoying.


Oh,look,someone else who's been living under a rock.
Did you read the OP properly? Its a persons civil right to have a civil marriage,its the law.Also,dude,get with the program,if you believe being gay is a choice then tell me,at what age did you choose to be straight??





miriam0566



its hypocritical to even suggest that a christian has the duty to change the law so as to force his beliefs on others.


Very true indeed.A star for you.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


An interesting proposition which you forgot to define and expand upon in your OP - I understand, those pesky Christians can be so distracting.

So, and quite honestly, I would like you to promote your proposition by explaining what you mean by it:
When you say "civil right" what do you mean by that? I don't mean the consequnce of such a right being recognised but what that notion of "right" in itself means. What is their source and how do we discern them? Who define's them? Can the definers abrogate them?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 




When you say "civil right" what do you mean by that? I don't mean the consequnce of such a right being recognised but what that notion of "right" in itself means. What is their source and how do we discern them? Who define's them? Can the definers abrogate them?


Are you wanting to talk semantics maybe??

According to Britannia Encyclopedia,Civil rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity;procedural fairness in law;protection from discrimination based on gender,religion,race, sexual orientation,etc;individual freedom of belief,speech,association,and the press;and political participation.

"Rights" are that which is just,they are are legal or moral entitlements and permissions.


Governments and organizations such as the UN are the source,they define them.They cannot be abolished because that is to breach the civil rights.As stated in the OP,they have tried that in the US,i gave the laws they are in breach of.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Are you wanting to talk semantics maybe??

According to Britannia Encyclopedia,Civil rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity;procedural fairness in law;protection from discrimination based on gender,religion,race, sexual orientation,etc;individual freedom of belief,speech,association,and the press;and political participation.

"Rights" are that which is just,they are are legal or moral entitlements and permissions.

Governments and organizations such as the UN are the source,they define them.They cannot be abolished because that is to breach the civil rights.As stated in the OP,they have tried that in the US,i gave the laws they are in breach of.
[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]


No semantics here, its a very important proposition so one we need to be clear about.

So when you say "just" and "moral" where is their source and definition, is it also governments and organizations such as the UN?
How do they discern what is to be defined as rights - is it by request, or by majority or by some other means?
Does the government have to be a particular form of government for their declaration of what is a right or what is just/moral to be valid?
How do we insure the capriciousness of government does not call something a right which it is not, or fails to call something a right which actually is?
If the UN were, in this example, unable to agree that civil marriages were a civil right would that mean they weren't?
Who appoints these bodies which decide what are rights just/moral?
Who has oversight of governments, the UN and other organisations to ensure their decisions just?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


Short answer,the people.
And the people are made up of believers and non-believers.

Government organizations have to protect the rights of both groups.And common sense tells us that oppressing one group while letting others do what they want,is not just.Oppressing on group because of the beliefs of another is not just.Taking someones civil liberties away from one group because it upsets another is not just.

These laws are based on equality and morality.These 2 things can exist without religion,and do exist without religion.Majority does not come into it,its all about equality.

With the UN i was talking more about international laws,but even if they did have a say on civil marriage and some didn't agree it wouldn't matter.It is civil not religious,therefore it is a civil right that is available to everyone.




[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Short answer,the people.
And the people are made up of believers and non-believers.

Government organizations have to protect the rights of both groups.And common sense tells us that oppressing one group while letting others do what they want,is not just.Oppressing on group because of the beliefs of another is not just.Taking someones civil liberties away from one group because it upsets another is not just.

These laws are based on equality and morality.These 2 things can exist without religion,and do exist without religion.


I agree there, equality and morality do indeed exist outside of religion, but I won't distract from your proposition by discussing religion/faith and such things.

What if the people don't agree among themselves, is it a matter of a majority then?
What is "common sense" is that the sense the majority of people have? Does it subsist in the people or is it some concept independent of the people?
If one group does something that upsets another, or if two groups upset each other, how does government, or the people, decide which "upset" is more important or involves a right?
Should a group be upset by the "common sense" can they ignore that common sense and declare their own rights?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 


Re-read what i said.This is about equality not majority and not who is the most upset.Regarding this case Christians are in the wrong,they are trying to take away someone elses rights.If gay people demanded that they be allowed to get married in a church and said that Christians would have to comply,then they would be breaching the Christians rights.



[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Re-read what i said.This is about equality not majority and not who is the most upset.Regarding this case Christians are in the wrong,they are trying to take away someone elses rights.If gay people demanded that they be allowed to get married in a church and said that Christians would have to comply,then they would be breaching the Christians rights.
[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]


No this isn't about Christianity is it? It's about the proposition that "Civil Marriages are a Civil Right."

As you know there are many different groups of people as well as all the individuals so what "equality" are you speaking of?
Is everyone's wants or desires to be given equal opportunity for fulfillment?
Is equality only about certain things, like just and moral things, or is equality about all things, who decides the difference?
Surely there must be some standard for the sake of being just and moral. So who decides these?
If it's ultimately not the government or organisations like the UN but is the people on what grounds is it the people who decide - by majority, by request, as individuals?
What if one group of people's, or persons, notion of justice or equality does not accord with another's, who decides then - the people, a majority, "common sense"?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Supercertari
 




No this isn't about Christianity is it? It's about the proposition that "Civil Marriages are a Civil Right."


From the OP.



So why,when two homosexuals want to get married,do Christian religions throw their toys out of the pram? The union is not religious,most of these people are not Christians,so what right have they to demand that this practice be stopped?


This thread is about some Christians who want to stop homosexuals having the civil rights they are entitled too.

You can keep going on about 'who does what' and 'what happens when.' But it won't make any difference.Civil rights are being breached,is that too difficult to understand?




Is everyone's wants or desires to be given equal opportunity for fulfillment?


Sigh...i told you a cpl of posts earlier what a person's civil rights are.Those are the rights i am talking about.Which ones are you talking about?



[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
This thread is about some Christians who want to stop homosexuals having the civil rights they are entitled too.

You can keep going on about 'who does what' and 'what happens when.' But it won't make any difference.Civil rights are being breached,is that too difficult to understand?

Sigh...i told you a cpl of posts earlier what a person's civil rights are.Those are the rights i am talking about.Which ones are you talking about?
[edit on 17-11-2008 by jakyll]


"Civil Right" is a big claim, it's important to establish what a "right" is and who defines it. You haven't done that yet.
You've spoken of governments or oganisations like the UN, but haven't established how we can be sure they do not act capriciously in granting certain things "rights" status?
You've spoken of the people and "common sense" but haven't established on what grounds either of these entities can declare something a right, even saying its not about majorities, which might make "common sense", "particular sense."?
You've spoken about equality and being just and moral yet you haven't identified who decides what is any of those three?
By "right" you seem to mean "ought to be allowed" but then where is the authority of that "ought"?
You suggest if some group wants something then they should have the "right" to do it even if it upsets other groups - you haven't clarified who should make the decision of which "upset" should take priority?

All these questions are important if you want your proposition to be understood. If rights aren't defined then, using your example of the Christians, they might be able to claim the right to protest and lobby against another claimed right.

In this then there is found a very difficult situation where what one group calls a "right" is contradicted by what another group thinks is a "right", how and who decides between them and on what authority?

I know this is a big question in the US at the moment and there the Constitution says things which in this case complicates what you claim.
Indeed there is enumerated, as a right, that which you object to in your OP when you say: "so what right have they to demand that this practice be stopped? ", the Constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So, you propose that one group's want should be considered a civil right, but you do this by questioning another group's right which has already been declared. Should the right to freedom of speech, as here declared, be suspended for a particular group while another group achieves "right status" for something which has not yet been declared to be such?

California is a recent and interesting example. The State Constitution allows for referendum measures to be decided upon by a general plebiscite if proposed by a petition signed by 5% of the voters at the last gubernatorial election (recently that 5% was roughly 260,000 people).

In the most recent election Proposition 4, named "Child and Teen Safety
and Stop Predators Act: Sarah’s Law" was proposed and was defeated. This claimed that parents had to be informed before an abortion was performed. This was proposed with several rights in mind, the right of the unborn to life and the right of parent's to know if their child was having an abortion, and the rights of minors to have due care and attention when undergoing such a medical procedure and to ensure a minor's right not to be abused was not endangered by "secret abortions" being procurred. All these rights were claimed by those who petitioned for the referendum measure and by the five and a half million who voted in support of it. However, six million voted against the proposition.

In your opinion do the claimed rights of this proposition exist independently of this plebicite?
Does the measure's defeat in a general plebicite mean these claimed rights do not exist?
Had people the right to speak against this proposition?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join