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.
Urgh.
Who cares?
Sexual Orientation is not a status. It should not be treated as a status, nor should it be involved in a conversation regarding rights.
The problem is simple. A group of people, are ineligible to participate in a government program.
A program which enables them to take advantage of certain services and financial savings, for attempting to work as a team.
The 'Family Unit" so to speak. The family unit is no longer traditional and we must stop attempting to return to this 1950's nuclear mentality. What we must focus on are healthy families, not traditional ones, or culturally accepted ones.
The only logical and moral action, is to afford the right to any legal, consenting "Team" to participate in this program for the betterment of their family unit.
The law actually requires this as one of it's basic tenants.
~Tenth
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Marriage as an institution should be the domain of religion...
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Whichever religion you choose...as it is now, your church can bless your Partnership...they can call it Marriage FWIW, but marriage is not a government function.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I'm going to quote a post I made from another thread.
3.4% of Americans LGBT - Gallup Poll
Urgh.
Who cares?
Sexual Orientation is not a status. It should not be treated as a status, nor should it be involved in a conversation regarding rights.
The problem is simple. A group of people, are ineligible to participate in a government program.
A program which enables them to take advantage of certain services and financial savings, for attempting to work as a team.
The 'Family Unit" so to speak. The family unit is no longer traditional and we must stop attempting to return to this 1950's nuclear mentality. What we must focus on are healthy families, not traditional ones, or culturally accepted ones.
The only logical and moral action, is to afford the right to any legal, consenting "Team" to participate in this program for the betterment of their family unit.
The law actually requires this as one of it's basic tenants.
~Tenth
I've been thinking about this since I posted it and I realized that when we discuss marriage equality, then we must not discuss it from the point of gay or straight. We must discuss it from the point of legal, or not legal.
There are certain things we must all agree to, because they are facts.
1. The Government as stated above, created a legal institution.
2. The Government has no right denying consenting, legal adults access to said institution.
3. The Law requires that we all have the same rights. Period.
If you agree with these 3 statements, than you cannot be against two adults joining in as a "Team" financially, in order to move themselves forward.
Everyone who disagrees with 'gay marriage', I want you to forget the sexual orientation part and I want you to focus on what's written above, and ask yourself the following:
Does it make sense, to deny legal and consenting adults access to a government program?
You have no information about who these people are, other than the fact that they are of the legal age to make the decision required, have consented to this contract and are good, tax paying members of society.
The answer to the entire marriage equality debate is really just that simple.
ETA: I also support polygamy as a means of marriage equality as well. There's no reason 3 people who live together as one financial unit cannot get access to the same benefits as two.
~Tenthedit on 10/20/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by crankyoldman
Oh that's my argument for everything regarding marriage.
I was simple writting a solution from within the actual system. But you're right, the state has no business validating relationships.
~Tenth
Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Better idea, make America a Christian Republic and give every atheist, LGBT and anyone else who objects a one way ticket to Europe.
Why the radical views? Because homosexuals are truly pathetic.
Instead of making something new for themselves, plot their own course, they demand to take something that isn't theirs.
Besides, homosexual rights activists do not equality, they want subjugation.
The gay rights activists tipped their hand before California's vote on Gay marriage on how they wanted to use legalization to force the Church to change it's doctrines on Homosexuality(the same way Mormonism was forced to change their Doctrines in regards to race).
So it becomes a very different matter. It isn't merely about humanism or self determination, but the very existence of Christianity and Judaism.
Plus gay rights activists aligning with the feminist hate movement for the last half century, well you know the old saying "an ally of my enemy is also my enemy".
It is good to see where the dice fall though.
Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by tothetenthpower
Better idea, make America a Christian Republic and give every atheist, LGBT and anyone else who objects a one way ticket to Europe.
Originally posted by Pinke
I don't think it's about the word 'marriage' or anything else like that. That's all straw and fluffy things.
It's about the government 'legitimizing' homosexuals as a form of relationship or 'life style'
thus encouraging children and destroying the family unit. Acknowledging homosexuality in a family unit calling it whatever still won't be acceptable.
The governments won't take its hands off marriage simply because they need the term to control families and encourage/discourage behaviors.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
My thoughts is that your first item should never have been.
The government should not be legislating marriage.
Originally posted by crankyoldman
The marriage formula is an official, State own corporate institution, it is NOT about love, as the contract says nothing, not one word, not one hint, about love.