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.

 

From gay marriage to polygamy?

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

dude honestly

I think u hella awesome but this constant bickering

why boy ??

EDIT: who does this general arguing help .. that is all I want to know
edit on 6-7-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)


DOUBLE EDIT: I am asking all of u
edit on 6-7-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well for starters, I was at the first page where you used the same lame argument that I hear over and over again. "If it's two consenting adults then what does it matter". That seems to be rather self-centered.

As for the "evidence", I'm sure out of the millions of relationships, you can find "evidence" to push in any which direction. Like I said, I'm undecided, but open for discussion.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well for starters, I was at the first page where you used the same lame argument that I hear over and over again. "If it's two consenting adults then what does it matter". That seems to be rather self-centered.

As for the "evidence", I'm sure out of the millions of relationships, you can find "evidence" to push in any which direction. Like I said, I'm undecided, but open for discussion.


I don't understand your point. Is it okay if they are not adults? If one or both does not consent?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I'm saying that what you do ripples out beyond the immediate circumstances. If two consenting adults have a family, then their marriage is not merely about two consenting adults. I don't see how this is even the slightest bit unclear.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

shhhh remember
fucm fucm Efin Efin fucm
edit on 6-7-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Well trying to present a topic of discussion like it is rarely discussed is disingenuous. You aren't the first or even one of the few who has attempted this argument. Hell, it's attempted to shame single mothers for being, well, single as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I'm saying that what you do ripples out beyond the immediate circumstances. If two consenting adults have a family, then their marriage is not merely about two consenting adults. I don't see how this is even the slightest bit unclear.


Fair enough. However, the law should be about objective results against citizens, not about "ripples."



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, it's rarely discussed in comparison to every other point. How many pages we had? Where else is it discussed.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
CONCLUSION : .,.,,,,, nvm.......



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I'm saying that what you do ripples out beyond the immediate circumstances. If two consenting adults have a family, then their marriage is not merely about two consenting adults. I don't see how this is even the slightest bit unclear.


Are you saying that the government should be involved in child-rearing, or determining the fitness of parents to raise children?

Assuming you're referring to children with the word "family" of course.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

ImPRESSIVE



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

How the hell did you get that from what I said?

I don't even know... (with some ppl)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Gryphon66

How the hell did you get that from what I said?

I don't even know... (with some ppl)


Did you notice the question marks at the ends of my sentences?

That means I'm asking you for further clarification, not making statements about what you said.

You're postulating that the well-being of children should be the determinant of the viability of a marriage.

That means that someone, somewhere, would have to make that determination.

Who? When? Where? By what method or criteria?

The fact that most men and women are easily able to procreate does not mean that they automatically make good parents.

The fact that two men or two women or a group of people are married does not automatically mean that they're bad parents.

So, I'll ask the question again ... who gets to decide whether a marriage/family life is "good" for the children?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't be passive aggressive. I post a comment in this thread and get attacked by low-T, passive-aggressive fools. Your question was ridiculous. This is all hypothetical, and I'm bouncing out of this thread, because the ridiculousness is simply too much to bear any further.
edit on 7-7-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, it's rarely discussed in comparison to every other point. How many pages we had? Where else is it discussed.


This particular conversation isn't necessarily indicative of the conversation at whole. You are just trying to apply anecdotal evidence here.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't be passive aggressive. I post a comment in this thread and get attacked by low-T, passive-aggressive fools. Your question was ridiculous. This is all hypothetical, and I'm bouncing out of this thread, because the ridiculousness is simply too much to bear any further.


Low T? LOL.

Who's running away without answering a simple question about your fallacious statement?

Did you realize you hadn't thought your posturing all the way through? LOL.

Don't let the door hit you.




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

That may or may not be the case, but I'm a stickler for that "consent" thing. Otherwise we could also make a rational argument for child marriages and I don't want to go there.


You finally posted something that I agree with and I am over-come with shock,
be still my beating heart!
I found another of your posts that I agreed with and I just had to star it too.This
is just too much for me now.
edit on 7-7-2015 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Doom and Gloom

This is the most tired argument anyone can have, it's laughable at best anyone actually thinks that Same-Sex Marriage could lead to Animal-Marriage

Sounds more like wishful thinking to me!



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy

That may or may not be the case, but I'm a stickler for that "consent" thing. Otherwise we could also make a rational argument for child marriages and I don't want to go there.


You finally posted something that I agree with and I am over-come with shock,
be still my beating heart!
I found another of your posts that I agreed with and I just had to star it too.This
is just too much for me now.


Lol. Well we are going to have to fix that now aren't we?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join