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.

 

Should Gays be allowed to marry?

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2003 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Again peopel!! Those who seem to have a blind spot to questions that they can't answer, so won't read this anyways, but still. Leaving out stupidity, religon, ignorance, and myth.

So, how do you know it is just lust? You don't, just ignorance. Using the bible, again, no myth or ignorance, and this time also no religon!

So, without using stupidity, religon, ignorance, and myth, prove that gay sex is wrong. Also, dogs have gay sex. Monkeys have gay/lesbian sex. So nature isn't against it.

Of course, none of the ones using stupidity, religon, ignorance, and myth will read this post, so might as well not post it, for only people who use facts and science will read it.




posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 12:06 AM
link   
JediMaster isn't far from the Truth, has anyone ever met any homosexual, lesbian or gay, that actually "loves" the same sex?

A man can love a woman and vice-versa...regardless of all other things.

While there are gay marriages, I have yet seen a gay man actually even have a clue what "love" is...emotion is completely based around the entire clique rather than anything natural.

While there just HAS to be some gay somewhere who loves his/her partner...it doesn't seem to be a general trait.

Just as it is not a general trait for heterosexuals to be completely carless for their partners in relationships.

It's not a "stereotype" it just is true that often times a homosexual will be "partners" with a few other homosexuals at one time.

This is not common in stable population zones of the heterosexual world.



posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 11:55 AM
link   
How do you know it is not a general trait?



posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Hey guys. I just found this discussion, and I don't wanna get sucked into the argument factor of this debate, so I'm just gonna add my 2 cents and shut up, unless someone answers.
1.
First of all, gays compose less that 5% of the U.S. population right now. If it were a "genetic" thing, and not a disease/choice, wouldn't it be more proliferent? And anyway, within a year ago, scientists declared emphatically that there is no "gay" gene in our genetic structure. There is no natural inclination to be gay. That would be like saying there's a natural desire to do it with your dog. Long story short, gays should'nt marry just because they DECIDE they like their own kind.
2.
Children of gay parents do not turn out as normal adults, just like children of broken homes get screwed up. And BTW, many gays have a common background of neglect and abuse in the home. Take it for what its worth.
3.
I believe the Bible. It states in at least 3 places, including Leviticus and Romans, that homosexual relations with one another are an abomination. That doesn't mean down with gays, it just means gayness is a sin just like having adultery. And a sin is a choice, so I believe that all gays can change.
Even if you don't agree with the big book, you can't argue with history. Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously real cities, because we've found them. And you know why they were destroyed. More importantly, Rome. Rome had conquered almost the entire civilized world, but fell apart and was destroyed. Why? Because their social structure became perverted, including rampant homosexuality.
I say all this only to indicate that gayness is wrong, and will be punished just like all other sins.


upward and onward



posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Plunky Monkey -
If you respect everyone's freedom to believe what they want, then that means respecting my right to NOT accept all behaviors. Truth, or fact, involves a correct and an incorrect response - the very existence of this concept necessitates the existence of incorrectness, or wrong.



posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Wannabe! I said no religon/igonrance/myth! Well, that covers the last two you had.

Second, FM, Again, no religon/ignorance/myth/stupidity Anyways, just stating again for about the 8th time the rules for proving something. To prove something you need facts and science, not religon/ignorance/myth/stupidity.



posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   
i'm sorry. did you start this discussion?



posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Okay bud, tell me how I'm wrong. I'm not gonna go back and read 10 pages of stuff.

" Second, FM, Again, no religon/ignorance/myth/stupidity Anyways, just stating again for about the 8th time the rules for proving something. To prove something you need facts and science, not religon/ignorance/myth/stupidity."

How can you toss out everything I say with a blanket statement like that? I just put forth facts for you. Show me my ignorance. Facts and science can't prove everything.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that made you hate the concept of religion, or Christianity?

feel free to email me
mister_rodger@hotmail.com
[Edited on 3-8-2003 by wannabe]

[Edited on 3-8-2003 by wannabe]



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wannabe
Hey guys. I just found this discussion, and I don't wanna get sucked into the argument factor of this debate, so I'm just gonna add my 2 cents and shut up, unless someone answers.
1.
First of all, gays compose less that 5% of the U.S. population right now. If it were a "genetic" thing, and not a disease/choice, wouldn't it be more proliferent? And anyway, within a year ago, scientists declared emphatically that there is no "gay" gene in our genetic structure. There is no natural inclination to be gay. That would be like saying there's a natural desire to do it with your dog. Long story short, gays should'nt marry just because they DECIDE they like their own kind.
2.
Children of gay parents do not turn out as normal adults, just like children of broken homes get screwed up. And BTW, many gays have a common background of neglect and abuse in the home. Take it for what its worth.
3.
I believe the Bible. It states in at least 3 places, including Leviticus and Romans, that homosexual relations with one another are an abomination. That doesn't mean down with gays, it just means gayness is a sin just like having adultery. And a sin is a choice, so I believe that all gays can change.
Even if you don't agree with the big book, you can't argue with history. Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously real cities, because we've found them. And you know why they were destroyed. More importantly, Rome. Rome had conquered almost the entire civilized world, but fell apart and was destroyed. Why? Because their social structure became perverted, including rampant homosexuality.
I say all this only to indicate that gayness is wrong, and will be punished just like all other sins.


upward and onward


The Bible also condones murder and genocide

Rome fell apart from because of homosexuality
?Please. Give real evidence. Rome fell apart because of inflation, barbarian raids, and Christianity.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Otherwise, the next step will be : " Ooooh, look, I'm a zoophile and I would like to marry my dog. Who want to be my witness ? "


I don't think this argument holds water. The issue is if gays should be allowed to marry. It's about people, not animals.


Originally posted by ultra_phoenixAnd don't forget the childrens. For some of you, it's sound stupid and " retrograde ", but a kid need a mother AND a father. Not 2 fathers or 2 mothers.


I agree that the best circumstances for a child to be raised in are to be raised by both a mother and father who are both loving people who are capable of loving and supporting the child, but life has a way of putting people into circumstances that are less than ideal. Lots of children are raised by single parents, or have none at all.

While being raised by a mother and father is ideal, being raised by two mothers or two fathers isn't a bad second choice.

I should also point out that gay couples don't have children. If the issue comes up, it's because:

1) One of the couple already has a child from a previous union, which means the alternative is for the child to be raised in a single parent home.

2) They have chosen to adopt. This means their ability to care for a support a child has to be certified by a social worker and the agency handling the adoption. This puts them well ahead of heterosexual couples who only need to forget to use birth control.

3) In the case of lesbian couples, they have chosen artificial insemination, which means they have already demonstrated the financial ability to care for the child, these procedures are expensive, and not likely to be covered by insurance.


Originally posted by ultra_phoenixA society need some moral fences, otherwise this society will collapse !


Yes it does, but the issue is where those fences go and who gets to decide.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Okay, maynard, maybe I was too vague. You're right - it didn't cause the destruction of Rome, but its downfall was marked by increasing violence and increasing immorality - 2 signs of the approaching end of a civilization. Check out history, and look at America's culture. You think what I said is funny? Ok, you tell me how Christianity destroyed Rome.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 02:18 AM
link   
...yeeesh. On and on we go.....

Last time I checked, two men/ two women together can not propagate. No bearing of children. Adoption just takes care of the already born.

No bearing of children does not positively effect society.

This is good?

If gays want to continue forever together this is their business. For this union to become legal in all ways and benifits(monetary), I don't believe in it.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wannabe
Okay, maynard, maybe I was too vague. You're right - it didn't cause the destruction of Rome, but its downfall was marked by increasing violence and increasing immorality - 2 signs of the approaching end of a civilization. Check out history, and look at America's culture. You think what I said is funny? Ok, you tell me how Christianity destroyed Rome.


Christians didn't want to worship the pagan Gods so they felt seperate from society and therefore felt they didn't have to fufill their duties as citizens i.e., paying taxes. Being gay won't cause the downfall of America.



posted on Aug, 3 2003 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyriffic
...yeeesh. On and on we go.....

Last time I checked, two men/ two women together can not propagate. No bearing of children. Adoption just takes care of the already born.

No bearing of children does not positively effect society.

This is good?

If gays want to continue forever together this is their business. For this union to become legal in all ways and benifits(monetary), I don't believe in it.


What about a women that cannot bear children or a man that is sterile? Should they not be allowed to marry? According to your arguement, they can't bring children into this world so they shouldn't be allowed to marry.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Maynard, I asked that question before , no answer. Why? Because, they can't answer it.

Sorry, but bigots aren't liked in this country anymore. Just like racists. Before people loved them and thought it was right to be racist. Nowadays racists are looked down on and degraded. Why? For both are wrong.

Not saying you have to agree with it, but tolerate it. It doesn't affect you in the tiniest way, and yet you are ready to go the distance fighting against it. It would be like a Russian in Russia fighting against a tax cut in Zimbabwe. The tax doesn't affect him, so why does he care? Why would the Russian in Russia fight against a tax cut in Zimbabwe?

Of course, they won't answer that one either Maynard, for they can't.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Marriage is a religious ceremony let us not forget, religion prohibits gay relationships so in actual fact religiously a gay couple wont be married even if they go through the ceremony.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
They should create their own type of 'union' or 'engagement' and name it something else than marriage or wedding. Then the religious people won't get offended, and the ghey will have a way to 'prove their love to each other' (...like they need that) and everyone will be happy. Why do they feel the need to DESTROY religion by copying it?



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 08:37 PM
link   
No they shouldn't because thier acts are against nature itself.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Why do I still have to debate this. It is not against nature seeing that there is homosexuality among animals in the wild.



posted on Aug, 4 2003 @ 11:05 PM
link   
MTE, your arguement for aberrant behaivour does not make said behaivour a good and wholesome aspect for society.
And, whoever compared dogs and monkeys to people only adds to the CON arguement against!



What about a women that cannot bear children or a man that is sterile? Should they not be allowed to marry? According to your arguement, they can't bring children into this world so they shouldn't be allowed to marry.


I myself may in the near future be marrying a lady who can not bear children. I will feel natural in this regardless.
I also think a few here protest this much too much...








 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join