Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

So much ugly in this thread! I mean, really, this is just ugly to the nth degree...

Let's get to the real point here. What is really going on here is that many are just giving excuses and reasons to discriminate, to justify bigotry and prejudice. Instead of trying to justify such things, why don't you just be honest, with yourself and with the rest of us. All you are doing is applying lipstick to a pig.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65c5cffa815f.jpg[/atsimg]

No matter how you dress it up, it's still just a pig. It's also not an American Ideal. I have a tee shirt that sums this whole debate up: "Against Gay Marriage? Don't Marry One!" Denying us equal rights will not make us go away. Denying us equal rights will not decrease our numbers. Nor will it stop us from having relationships, or anything else, for that matter. It makes me ashamed to not only be an American, it makes me ashamed to be a member of the human race.

No wonder people say that America is going down; if you can't even let gay people get married and focus on more important things, then you clearly have priority problems. Let go of that old book of yours and live in the modern time instead...

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
So much ugly in this thread! I mean, really, this is just ugly to the nth degree...

Let's get to the real point here. What is really going on here is that many are just giving excuses and reasons to discriminate, to justify bigotry and prejudice. Instead of trying to justify such things, why don't you just be honest, with yourself and with the rest of us. All you are doing is applying lipstick to a pig.

It seems very easy for you to throw those words around to anyone that disagrees with your lifestyle or opinion. I disagree with a lot of lifestyles and opinions just as you do. I could go back through your posts and pick and choose to prove it, but are any of us really doing as you say? Yes to some extent, but so are you.

As for discrimination we all do it every day. It is a part of our thought process. When you shop you discriminate, when someone needs to pick a person for hire they need to discriminate to get to one candidate, when you pick your life partner your discriminating etc. For every choice or thought we are all discriminating, but the difference is the difference between legal and illegal discriminating.

If I disagree with your lifestyle, yes I’m discriminating, but if I do not hire you based only on your life style I’m now discriminating illegally. Once again a rather big difference that you want to blend all together to use as some tool to label anyone that disagrees with you.

As for prejudice…

–noun
1. An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

I think everyone of us has a lot of knowledge, thought, and have reasoned out their views on this…don’t you?

2. Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.

Once again I don’t see any preconceived opinions, and if there was I could argue it is on both sides.

3. Unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

I don’t see “lifestyle” as one of the examples, and you see people’s feelings, opinions, or attitudes as unreasonable only because you disagree with them. The funny part is I don’t see your opinion as unreasonable for I only do not agree with it.

An unreasonable opinion might be to say that you should not be gay or have a lifestyle you want, but one we dictate. The fact that no one is saying that even if they disagree with your lifestyle kind of kills this definition too.

4. Such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. Damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Once again not really fitting….


Personally I have zero problems with you and the way you are. I have two close friends that are gay and with one of them our friendship actually grew stronger after he went public... you see I always knew he was gay, but in hiding it he created a barrier with our friendship. I work and socialize with gays too and view them no differently than anyone else.

With that said I can’t say I agree with their lifestyle, and I would suspect much of it is the hardwiring in my brain that finds not the person but the behavioral actions disgusting. No, I don’t run away in fear or curl up in a ball if I’m confronted with it; I just find it very distasteful, and I would bet that the same switch that made you gay is the one that makes me not want to be gay.

So as long as one of my friends is not making out on my couch I'm fine with it all, but I do see the political side that you are pushing while wielding the swords of discrimination, bigotry and prejudice to silence anyone that doesn’t feel the way you do.

So I’m a traditionalist and you are a secularist… big deal, but I bet you are a traditionalist in many things except for your own personal agendas. Your personal agendas are yours and not mine, your lifestyle is yours and not mine, and as I said a few times already why is yours special over all the others? Marriage has been defined and the government recognizes it, if we change that then we might as well open the door and do away with any and all definitions, and it is because of this, and only this that I disagree with you.


[edit on 6-9-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


Fair enough, but I would point out that in matters of rights and freedoms, I'm always a secularist. I don't agree with many religions, but I will defend the rights of them to exist and for people to choose those beliefs to the death, even yours. We are all multi-layered. We can hold on to our beliefs and still not insist that others subscribe to those beliefs. It is what the Founding Fathers were trying to achieve. We, Americans, will seldom (if ever) agree on anything. There will always be a majority and a minority on any issue.

The trick is to look deep inside ourselves and come to terms with the real reason why we feel the way we do. As mere human beings, it is a natural predaliction to justify base gutteral feelings and beliefs. I was not just 'throwing words around', but instead trying to get others to take a good look at their true motivations. I completely understand that some just dislike homosexuals. They can't understand how someone could 'choose' something that to them seems so wrong and unnatural. It's just outside the realm of possibility to them. I can not only understand that, but can see it in myself as well (on other topics). We are all guilty of it from time to time, but it is in recognizing it, we can actually deal with the underlying issue at hand.

Thank you for at least dealing with this issue and this debate in a well thought out manner. I would just ask that you take a good look at the 'why' and less on the 'what'.

reply to post by Xtrozero


You know, that is a really interesting argument(s) you are making. I'm processing it all.

May I ask: If two gay men had a ceremony where they bound themselves together and called it "handfasting" instead of "marriage", and then if they were allowed civil unions to make everything legal (who gets what, etc) would that be okay? Is it that the definition of marriage in your head man-woman and you want it to stay that way? Or is it that you just don't like two men in a monogamous relationship at all?

I'm thinking it is the former.

Homosexuals getting the right to marry effects me in no way. More chicks for the rest of us I guess

reply to post by Fakey McNamerson


ROFL! So that means gays that don't marry will give up and go find a woman?

Civil union in Texas would be unrecognized. However, this is a civil AND religious issue. As stated before the ONLY way gay and straight will ever have equal rights when it comes to marriage (unless it is enforced at gunpoint) will be to abolish the State's recognition of it. Are gays willing to accept that? The complete destruction of the legal marital system? You want equality, that's the only way it'll happen.

As I see it, there's only one reason for the STATE to recognize a marriage in the first place, and that's to keep tabs on the household. The STATE has a vested interest in the union of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, because they produce future taxpayers. Two men cannot produce a child. Two women cannot produce a child without a man (be that a donor or otherwise).

Man this made me come off as a complete homophobe when nothing could be further from the truth. To see the absolute FUTILITY of these arguments should lead us all to the same conclusion. Neither side is going to bend, so either let it drop for now, or derail the marriage train.

Originally posted by Zyril
No wonder people say that America is going down; if you can't even let gay people get married and focus on more important things, then you clearly have priority problems. Let go of that old book of yours and live in the modern time instead...

That old book of ours predicted more science that science is now confirming everyday, that old book of ours predicted more problems and plagues due to our debased depravity that has come to haunt those involved like no other.

That old book of ours warns about things yet to come so it is worth keeping around. That old book of ours has had more of its truth borrowed and used in more modern books because it still applies to the truth and truth never changes.

If America goes down, it won't be because of that old book of ours son, because that old book of ours played a big part in our laws and our society and what made this country "the land of milk and honey"

If their is to be a reason this country is going down it is because we have outlawed that old book of ours and don't listen to what it says anymore.

Having our Governmentt put the stamp of approval on a type of relationship that none benefit from save those that are in it is not worthy of such a family to community connection because it isn't about family it's about couples and coupling isn't deserving of most of the benefits marriage is granted by the Government for the sacrifices made in them.

Marriage is defined as that which is between one man and one woman. NOT one man and a man, NOT one man and three woman, NOT one man and his brother or sister. If gays want to create a new type of union comprable to it they have been given the green light on it but they said no the demand it be the one that doesn't define the type of union they will inevitably have. They want that one because it has a legitimate connotation to it and they want our approval that what they do MUST be accepted among those who

1) Don't care who they love

2) Don't care who they live with

3) Don't care who they have sex with

4) Don't care if the like to parade around like quasi cross dressing transvestites.

The only thing they care about is that they leave marriage the way it is because that is what it means ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

They can have civil unions that give them virtually everything marriage can offer but they said no to that too.

Why?

Because they said it isn't recoginsed in every state even though THAT has nothing to do with it and is NOT the reason they won't accept civil uinions. They won't accept them because even GAYS don't like the stamp of gay on their union and civil unions would ultimately become "gay married" couples. I know this because gay marriage isn't recognised in MOST states so their argument is BUNK.

The fact is, if gays are ashamed of what they are then making us, forcing us to accept them isn't going to change how they see themselves.

That isn't our fault, it is thers

Originally posted by Arrowmancer

Man this made me come off as a complete homophobe when nothing could be further from the truth. To see the absolute FUTILITY of these arguments should lead us all to the same conclusion. Neither side is going to bend, so either let it drop for now, or derail the marriage train.

I wouldn't worry about it, it seems their are enough "heterophobes" in this thread too. The ploy they have tried to use attaching this idea they have that how they behave with someone of the same sex being WHO they are and not WHAT they do is a sick joke and makes a mockery of genuine and real civil rights struggles and is an insult to those who have fought for them. Jaxon Roberts is NOT discriminated against for who he has sex with nor is he discriminated against because he is gay. No one knows he is for that matter unless he tells them he is and that is no ones business under the same laws he doesn't have to answer.

He is not discriminated against because he is Gay and can marry anyone he wants as long as it is someone of the opposite sex and THAT has nothing to do with his civil rights, it has to do with the same thing it means to join the Boy scouts or use a mens public restroom their are access rules to certain established icons of America and if woman were imposing their ideas on joining the boy scouts, males would say NO. They could call it discrimination and many that have lost their cases in court because the law provides for such distinctions and traditions and MARRIAGE is one of the most honored and sacred religious and state santioned and approved establishments in this country and EVERYONE should do more to protect it then agree to bastardize it by making it accessible to behaviors that have nothing to do with who we are. Who I have sex with doesn't define me no more than it defines them so they are NOT a "special victim" of any kind of discrimination. Everyone doesn't qualify for marriage and being gay has nothing to do with them being allowed to or not but wanting to marry someone of the same sex to qualify for something requiring the opposite sex doen't qualify for marriage. It's really that simple.

NOT an equal rights issue but a sexual identity issue, the inability to understand the meaning of marriage issue and the inability to tolerate those who have voted against it and quitely told them NO.

This rejection they insist is based on our disapproval of their lifestyle. If it is, that has nothing to do with why we won't allow them to be married, their are many people that have sex in ways I don't think I'd particularly like but I don't see that as a reason they can't get married.

They disapprove of how they want to impose their own definition of marriage to one that to qualify, all you have to do is ask. You won't even need a significant other, because if this passes predicated on sexual practices, then I can get married to myself because I masturbate. Polygamy would throw their kink in the ring and have a good chance of passing because it would be case law precedent which sets the bar for all subsequent laws beyond it.

Gays should leave marriage alone.



[edit on 6-9-2009 by Stylez]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by John Matrix

 

I would also add that vaginal sex is the cause of HPV in women, which is far more serious (I know because my daughter has it) and cannot be treated with good ole Preparation H! Let's face it, sex is a crap shoot no matter what type it is

[edit on 2-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

Not true. You can get HPV without having had sex too. The virus is within all of us and no one knows what activates it. Research has not been %100 conclusive that HPV even causes Cervical Cancer. Women who have never had sex should also get pap smears.

I say these things because I had CC and had it treated. I did a tonne of research at the time and found out many things in this regard.

Funny how people kick up a fuss about something like gay marriage. Who cares!!! People are being killed every day in Iraq by US soldiers - women and children too - but no one seems to give a crap about that!!! But gay marriage...what an outrage...sigh.

I have no idea what has made the world such a crazy, backward place when others worry more about what 2 consenting adults do in the bedroom than war, death and poverty.

Deal with it......It's not like they are making everybody become gay....

I think homosexuality is just wrong but if they want to marry then whatever....just don't push that stuff on me and we can be cool....


that is how it should be...

reply to post by Arrowmancer


He means the opposite (and he was joking). He's saying that the more gay men that marry each other, the more women left over to pick from.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85
Deal with it......It's not like they are making everybody become gay....

I think homosexuality is just wrong but if they want to marry then whatever....just don't push that stuff on me and we can be cool....


that is how it should be...

You don't understand. once gay marriage is legitimized by the state the state has an obligation to teach homosexual sex and how they have it etc to kids K - 12 their are numerous lawsuits by pissed off parents because of this. Google fistgate and see how it all started and it is STILLL a mess in the courts.

Again Gays should either create their own thing like marriage and deal with the fact that it is known as "gay couples" but using the word married was ment to mean one in flesh where the respect is given for the dignity of mans seed in the fruitful life giving environment of a womans womb and to merge this meaning with mans seed in the fruitless death and disease prone recepticle of the rectum is an insult to the meaning of marriage and the last thing I want to see is it becoming a federal mandate it be taught to our kids behind the guise of tolerance and diversity when teaching kids how gays have SEX is none of the schools business

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Stylez]

Everyone hold on a moment.

I have a question for Jaxon and Stylez:

Are either of you willing to go to war (I mean WAR) for this issue? You both feel strongly, but would either of you resort to violence to achieve your goals?

As you both seem to be thinking men, impassioned, but thinking, I don't think you would either go that far. Yet. Please calm down try playing Devil's Advocate for a moment. Can you see from the other person's perspective? While looking through the situation can either of you see ANY solution? You can't see one from your own end, maybe you need a change of viewpoint.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Everyone hold on a moment.

I have a question for Jaxon and Stylez:

Are either of you willing to go to war (I mean WAR) for this issue? You both feel strongly, but would either of you resort to violence to achieve your goals?

As you both seem to be thinking men, impassioned, but thinking, I don't think you would either go that far. Yet. Please calm down try playing Devil's Advocate for a moment. Can you see from the other person's perspective? While looking through the situation can either of you see ANY solution? You can't see one from your own end, maybe you need a change of viewpoint.

Ha ha ha well NO, I am all for the rule of law and if the laws were changed I'd have to accept it but like a lot of people are saying lately, they would resent gays for tramping on something they believe means more than just someone loving someone else. I think I HAVE played devils advocate in that many have tried to offer alternatives based on what gays say they wanted out of marriage and they were given several concepts that can accomodate them but for reasons that are contrary to what they initially said they wanted from marriage, they wouldn't accept them. This is when sociologists and psyhcologists got interested and it would seem what they REALLY wanted is acceptance of their lifestyle and attaching it to marriage in many ways would "legally obligate" people to respect their liasons free from shame imposed on them. This is tantamount to legislating attitudes and thoughts. Well guess who was behind the hate crimes bill which many have dubbed "thought crimes". It was the gay lobby.

This proves even more that gays have more of an issue with themselves than even WE do. You see this on many of their websites also, calling themselves things that they say is bigotry if straights say it but they say it to eachother all the time. They think being called a "Married couple" rather than a gay couple, looks better and Ill admit it does but that is ONLY because you automatically think it is one man and one woman. The moment you discover it is a gay couple, what ever the attitude you have about gays begins to diminish the meaning of married because now their is that hesitation "Yeah but what kind of married couple"

You see it won't change what people already think about gay couples by elevating it in status in the minds of others but it will diminish thoughts and images of married people and most people who have thought this out well know this is true.

You can't strengthen the weaker status of one by weakening the stronger status of the other.

The weak one is still weak and it can only weaken the stronger one

Marriage is having enough problems without exascerbating things by adding more reason to diminish it as a family ideal rather than a bandaid for gays and the shame they have about what they do.

You said yourself you don't mind it as long as it isn't in your face. Well pushing the gay agenda onto marriage is pushing gay sex and all it represents, in your face and they don't give a DAMN what you think about that. In fact you have only one choice according to them. You either capitulate and succumb to thier intimidation tactics or you are summarily ridiculed as a hateful bigot against humanity, a scourge over equal rights a cancer to society, a religious nut job who holds to an ancient bronze age book. You are disgusting and a vile human being etc.

They have done this for so long to so many that didn't deserve it, that many who would have otherwise voted in favor of them and marriage, now hate them because they witnessed this first hand getting this kind of reaction consistently. Consequently Gays have alienated the very voting block of centrist straight americans they need to get their political goals accomplished.

We saw this initially when Miss America was asked that loaded question by a very deceitful calculating and manipulative Perez Hilton.

You don't think Perez knew, what kind of answer he would get asking a bible belt born again Christian what she thought of same sex marriage and what her opinion on it was? Of course he did. What happend was an immediate backlash and while the media was at first on the gays side, Americans at home saw this as what GAYS are like in general.

Sneaky manipulative antagonists and slowly but surely the media backed off and started supporting her.

Most of the damage gays encounter they bring upon themselves. Just watch any gay parade and ask yourself, what self respecting American would dance around acting out lewd sex mime infront of everyone just to make a point.

The point they make is clear they are very weired, strange, out there, bonkers, you name it, if you seen one of these parades you've undoubtedly heard it. Most of the attempts at trying to shame us or the "How dare you " ploys they use is mocked up to play the victim dictum.

This again would be the image conjured up and merged in marriage.

It isn't that gays don't understand all this, they DO and many of them agree they make a bad case for themselves worse but when it comes to us, regardless of that,

they just couldn't care less so ,,

why should we



[edit on 6-9-2009 by Stylez]

Now, Jaxon? Don't respond to Stylez, respond to MY question, please.

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Now, Jaxon? Don't respond to Stylez, respond to MY question, please.

HA HA HA Thats quite good arrow,

I like your style and I hope I explained everything well

You did, Stylez. You brought your arguments across clearly. I'd like to see J's response, a short synopsis of his views. I respect you both and would like to think that common ground could be found somewhere. As much as I hate flaming, I think the two of you are well matched and could probably create one helluva show in the debate forums.

Originally posted by Stylez
Marriage is defined as that which is between one man and one woman. NOT one man and a man, NOT one man and three woman, NOT one man and his brother or sister.

Sure, let's just keep on listening to that ol' book, shall we? While we are at it, why not take our morals from it too.





[edit on 6-9-2009 by ZeeSquared]

WOW, go to work, come home and have so many questions to answer, but here it goes:

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Civil union in Texas would be unrecognized. However, this is a civil AND religious issue. As stated before the ONLY way gay and straight will ever have equal rights when it comes to marriage (unless it is enforced at gunpoint) will be to abolish the State's recognition of it. Are gays willing to accept that? The complete destruction of the legal marital system? You want equality, that's the only way it'll happen.

This is not true. If the Supreme Court rules that such laws are unconstitutional, like they did concerning interracial marriage in Love v. Virginia (details previously posted in this thread), then State recognition stays in tact. Next issue...

Originally posted by Stylez
Because they said it isn't recoginsed in every state even though THAT has nothing to do with it and is NOT the reason they won't accept civil uinions. They won't accept them because even GAYS don't like the stamp of gay on their union and civil unions would ultimately become "gay married" couples. I know this because gay marriage isn't recognised in MOST states so their argument is BUNK.

The fact is, if gays are ashamed of what they are then making us, forcing us to accept them isn't going to change how they see themselves.

That isn't our fault, it is thers

OK, that is, as you say, BUNK! Perhaps you've heard of these little things like 'Gay Pride Week'? We have one every year. Parades, events, etc. The only homosexuals that are 'ashamed' are the ones that are still in the closet, and they are not vocal about this issue. Next issue...

Originally posted by Stylez
Jaxon Roberts is NOT discriminated against for who he has sex with nor is he discriminated against because he is gay. No one knows he is for that matter unless he tells them he is and that is no ones business under the same laws he doesn't have to answer.

He is not discriminated against because he is Gay and can marry anyone he wants as long as it is someone of the opposite sex and THAT has nothing to do with his civil rights

As to the first paragraph, also BUNK. Since you have no idea what my life experiences have been, you cannot say such a thing. It is not true. I have experienced plenty of hate and prejudice just because of my sexual orientation. Until you walk a mile in anothers shoes, don't assume you know what their life is like.

As to the second paragraph, I don't ever expect to hear the 'sanctity of marriage' stance from you, since you are endorsing loveless marriages. Next issue...

Originally posted by Stylez
You don't understand. once gay marriage is legitimized by the state the state has an obligation to teach homosexual sex and how they have it etc to kids K - 12 their are numerous lawsuits by pissed off parents because of this. Google fistgate and see how it all started and it is STILLL a mess in the courts.

I don't think this should be 'taught' in schools. There should be resources for students dealing with their own homosexuality, but never taught to the masses. Sex education should only be about the reproductive process, and to tell you the truth, it belongs in biology class. I've never been a fan of 'Sex Ed'. Any homosexual who is for such a thing should be ashamed of themselves for such a position. Next issue...

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Everyone hold on a moment.

I have a question for Jaxon and Stylez:

Are either of you willing to go to war (I mean WAR) for this issue? You both feel strongly, but would either of you resort to violence to achieve your goals?

As you both seem to be thinking men, impassioned, but thinking, I don't think you would either go that far. Yet. Please calm down try playing Devil's Advocate for a moment. Can you see from the other person's perspective? While looking through the situation can either of you see ANY solution? You can't see one from your own end, maybe you need a change of viewpoint.

As a pacifist, and a highly spiritual being, I would not be willing to go to war over any issue other than national defense. Hence, I support the Afghan War, and opposed the Iraq War. As a nation founded on the rule of law, these battles belong in the courts, not the streets. Next issue...

reply to post by Stylez


Too long to quote, but let me deal with a few of the points made. One, what kind of marriage would be crystal clear. Either both would be present, thus identifying what kind of relationship it is, or a man refering to his 'husband' or a woman refering to her 'wife' would do the same. And quite frankly, it has nothing to do with the title, and everything to do with the protections provided by civil marriage. So why not civil unions? Because that would fall under 'separate but equal', and that is unacceptable. It's not really equality.

As to the idea that this will "diminish the meaning of married", only recently in recorded history has marriage been about romantic love. For most of history, marriages have been arranged and controlled by the womans father for profit or prestige, and not about love. It is a practice still followed in many parts of the world. If we really want to protect 'traditional marriage', this is the system that we would be protecting. Marriage based on romantic love is a rather new notion, and not a long standing tradition.

Originally posted by Stylez
We saw this initially when Miss America was asked that loaded question by a very deceitful calculating and manipulative Perez Hilton.

That question should never have been asked, and that frakkin' idiot should not even be famous. He does not speak for the Gay Community, just himself. I wish he and his stupid celebrity blog would dry up and go away! Next issue...

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
Now, Jaxon? Don't respond to Stylez, respond to MY question, please.

If you look under a member's Avatar, there is a line that says "Member is on ATS now", "Member was on ATS X minutes ago" or "Member is offline". If one is offline, one is not ignoring your questions or posts, it means they are not available to. Since I've been at work since this afternoon, I simply could not answer or respond. (This is not a snipe to make you look stupid, but I can see you are a relatively new member and may just not know.)

reply to post by ZeeSquared


The 'Betty Bowers' stuff cracks me up!!!

There, all caught up!

[edit on 7-9-2009 by JaxonRoberts]