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.
Why we should allow same-sex marriage
page: 4share:
Supreme Court ruled long ago that they had no right sticking their nose in on consenting adults' bedchambers. This is no different. Democracy
isn't about total consensus but what the majority decides. It's that arrival point of consensus of 50+1 If the majority thinks it's a-okay, then
that's that. Marriage is a personal choice at the end of the day and, unless someone is marrying their parent, grandparent, or sibling, the
government should have little say on this matter of a formal vow between two people to share their lives. Because I'm straight, they can't tell me
who I can marry (beyond close relatives lol) but if I were gay, I would not have the option at all? That's extremely unequal. What kind of liberty
do we have when we cannot choose who we marry? What implications do we have when personal and religious bias may affect court decision of the highest
order? Where is the separation of church and state then? What the Supreme Court decides could set a terrible precedent.
Outside of that, I hope that this issue does get rested once and for all (but hoping, on a personal level, that it sides with liberty and the pursuit of happiness). We have a whole lot of other fish to fry out there and I'm glad to see that this particular political talking point is finally seeing an end.
Outside of that, I hope that this issue does get rested once and for all (but hoping, on a personal level, that it sides with liberty and the pursuit of happiness). We have a whole lot of other fish to fry out there and I'm glad to see that this particular political talking point is finally seeing an end.
I stated this in another thread but I feel it bears repeating.
Do we enjoy equal freedoms for anyone, everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation?
Or is it simply lip service?
How hypocritical are we as a society when we deny the freedoms to a "class" of people, simply because we don't agree to their sexual preference.
Do we enjoy equal freedoms for anyone, everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation?
Or is it simply lip service?
How hypocritical are we as a society when we deny the freedoms to a "class" of people, simply because we don't agree to their sexual preference.
Originally posted by dave_welch
To not allow same sex couples to marry, you are no better than the person who doesn't want people of other religions to be able to practice their faith. There is no difference. Granted, we don't allow religions to have human sacrifice but, then again there's really no equal to that in this instance.
I do so agree with you...well said. Here are some images for people to think about.
reply to post by IknowJack
So, now you're comparing homosexuals to child molesters, necrophiliacs, and zoophiles? I can see this discussion with you is going nowhere. Apparently you are one of those people who like to pick and choose what they get from their Bible. Make sure not to eat any pork or shellfish while your up there on your high horse.
So, now you're comparing homosexuals to child molesters, necrophiliacs, and zoophiles? I can see this discussion with you is going nowhere. Apparently you are one of those people who like to pick and choose what they get from their Bible. Make sure not to eat any pork or shellfish while your up there on your high horse.
reply to post by beezzer
Well hey there beez. Nice to see you coming by to drop a logic bomb. Unfortunately, some of those here don't think very logically. I think Jim Croce said it best when he said:
"So now you turn your back on all the things that you used to preach. Now it's let him live in freedom, if he lives like me."
Well hey there beez. Nice to see you coming by to drop a logic bomb. Unfortunately, some of those here don't think very logically. I think Jim Croce said it best when he said:
"So now you turn your back on all the things that you used to preach. Now it's let him live in freedom, if he lives like me."
reply to post by dontreally
You don't know me, so I'll allow your thought that I am a liberal. I was just stating a simple fact. I assure you, I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative either. I believe in the freedom of choice. If someone wants to own a gun, and doesn't have a violent past, then let them. If two people love eachother, regardless of gender, they should be allowed to be married and to have that marriage be recognized by law. If someone want's to smoke a joint, or what have you, what's the harm. People don't give enough credit to the individual.
You don't know me, so I'll allow your thought that I am a liberal. I was just stating a simple fact. I assure you, I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative either. I believe in the freedom of choice. If someone wants to own a gun, and doesn't have a violent past, then let them. If two people love eachother, regardless of gender, they should be allowed to be married and to have that marriage be recognized by law. If someone want's to smoke a joint, or what have you, what's the harm. People don't give enough credit to the individual.
We should allow same sex marriage because statistically more men are marrying men and as far as that goes there will be more women for us men that
LOVE women.....
Originally posted by chisisiCoptos
We should allow same sex marriage because statistically more men are marrying men and as far as that goes there will be more women for us men that LOVE women.....
Wow, that's better than any point I raised. There's one more to add to the list!
Wow, that's better than any point I raised. There's one more to add to the list!
Your right because when it all comes down to a legal perspective, we all just want to be happy. We are changing so many laws here in the US as far as same sex marriages and Marijuana, etc. I think this is great, we are defiantly on the right path.
Since we are at it, how about a new law that says after midnight we can go out shopping or to the pub butt naked! If I cant go to the store after midnight and shop in the nude, I think my "poor you" rights are being discriminated against.
Your right because when it all comes down to a legal perspective, we all just want to be happy. We are changing so many laws here in the US as far as same sex marriages and Marijuana, etc. I think this is great, we are defiantly on the right path.
Since we are at it, how about a new law that says after midnight we can go out shopping or to the pub butt naked! If I cant go to the store after midnight and shop in the nude, I think my "poor you" rights are being discriminated against.
edit on 28-3-2013 by chisisiCoptos because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-3-2013 by chisisiCoptos because: (no reason
given)
edit on 28-3-2013 by chisisiCoptos because: language
reply to post by chisisiCoptos
Ha! Then again, I do a lot of my living after midnight, and there's some people I don't want to see naked, just like most people don't want to see me naked!
Ha! Then again, I do a lot of my living after midnight, and there's some people I don't want to see naked, just like most people don't want to see me naked!
Should two brothers be allowed to marry? Two sisters? Any combination of relatives?
reply to post by Carreau
With my knowledge of Egyptology, I would say no. King Tut had that bad foot associated with inter family cross breeding, his wife and have sister, Ankhesenpaaten, also had this foot problem. Their was many defects going on back then in those royal families.
With my knowledge of Egyptology, I would say no. King Tut had that bad foot associated with inter family cross breeding, his wife and have sister, Ankhesenpaaten, also had this foot problem. Their was many defects going on back then in those royal families.
reply to post by IknowJack
Other than polygamy, there's a huge difference.
This is a false argument used over and over and it is extremely weak.
The difference is called 'consent between adults'.
If you and fifty seven women are prepared to all consent to marriage, I have no personal problem with this. However, a seven year old girl, a dog, and a corpse are considered not capable of offering what would be accepted as consent.
Marriage in the past has accepted both pedophilia and polygamy (this is found in the Bible), so I give the Judeo-Christian faiths very little credit, nor do I consider their values to be any better than anyone else, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Other than polygamy, there's a huge difference.
This is a false argument used over and over and it is extremely weak.
The difference is called 'consent between adults'.
If you and fifty seven women are prepared to all consent to marriage, I have no personal problem with this. However, a seven year old girl, a dog, and a corpse are considered not capable of offering what would be accepted as consent.
Marriage in the past has accepted both pedophilia and polygamy (this is found in the Bible), so I give the Judeo-Christian faiths very little credit, nor do I consider their values to be any better than anyone else, regardless of faith or lack thereof.
reply to post by chisisiCoptos
Homosexual siblings can not reproduce, so your reason for not allowing it is invalid.
Homosexual siblings can not reproduce, so your reason for not allowing it is invalid.
Originally posted by Carreau
Should two brothers be allowed to marry? Two sisters? Any combination of relatives?
Should an old geezer of 92 be allowed to marry a hot babe of 21? That is just as disgusting to me, but we allow it. Might as well allow two brothers or two sisters.