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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyler
I have a gay china man in my gym, bugger always trys to slap my ass

What about the football players? (Supposedly) not gay, but still slapping each other on the fanny...




posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Druidism, Witchcraft. They have proof of those over 30 millenia. If need proof, go to dogpile.com or yahoo and just put whatever in. Of course, dogpile changes, so what was there one week isn't there the next. But still, they promoted peace and such, and didn't have a book. They both believed in do whatever, as long as you didn't hurt anyone. And I know, Druids did sacrifice, but it was an honor, and only happened around twice a year.

Also, yes, Witchcraft believed in peace, the stereotype brought by morons as green skin, warts, and evil cackle, all that bs is just a stereotype, like all blacks are stupid, all asians are good at math, and christians are good.



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I don't care whether anyone judges me. Really, look at this in the correct light. If we are all afraid of how we are judged by others then we relinquish our free will. We become 'policed' by what we are told is popular opinion. I personally find this disturbing considering how we get our information these days, especially with regards to our perception of public opinion. Realistically speaking, I can think of no benefits to the destruction of the traditional family model. The unfortunate aspect is that 'traditional family model' was made to be synonymous with 'repression of the female'. I do not, however see the average 18-25 year old single mother reaching the fullest of her potential and realizing the freedom that this liberation from the 'traditional family model' has won her. That was just a generalized example, ad hoc. of how public opinion can be manipulated using antipodal definition. Such as it is, I can see the benefits and drawbacks of 'allowing' homo-sexual marriages into the realm of legality (which is really what the issue is about, not the moral ramifications, as we are lead to believe). I can also see the moral ramifications of condoning it as an 'a-sexual' estate. This is what this strain truly alludes to. The fact of the matter is that children do learn from their environment. This includes gender roles. Regardless of the sexual preference, these learned roles still play a key factor in the relationships the child will have as an adult. For example, a male child is raised in a family where the maternal figure shows dominant characteristics and the male displays subordinate characteristics. The child, being a male, learns to associate femininity with dominance and masculinity as subordinate. The question posed is, will the male child grow up preferring dominant female characteristic in a partner, subordinate male characteristics in a partner, dominant male characteristics in a partner or subordinate female characteristics in a partner? As well to be considered ; How has this association between the characteristics of the parents and the development of the child affected the perception of himself, especially if he displays the personality traits of the dominant female?
Confusing issue, yes? Now, include the irradication of gender into the equation, the non-specific roles, the complete void of gender specific scenarios, and other similar issues and WoW! Then you have a really confusing issue, especially when that child hits the age of sexual awareness. I digress, though.
On track, the underlying theme of marriage is to denote the responsibility of parentage to any child in question, making it a matter of legal obligation. Love has nothing to do with marriage, and can live quite fine without it. My opinion is that homo-sexual marriages should not be 'legalized'. I also refute the 'fact' that homo-sexuality is natural. The aspect of homo-sexuality that we see in nature is not homo-sexuality. It is the establishment of dominance between males and females in a group or unit. The difference is that it isn't done for sexual gratification, no type of penetration is attempted, no copulation occurs. It is only in the perverse aspects of human psychology that we find this wholly un-natural behaviour, and, it is due to un-natural conditions during the development of the individual. It has already been stated that the first two years of infant development are the most relevant to its growing psychology. It is therefore not so unreasonable to assume that adverse environmental conditions during that period could effect the future of the subject in question. As well, it would be beyond the recognition of the individual in question as to their moment of self-sexual clarity because 'they've always been felt that way'. If you also include abuse suffered through childhood into the factor of development, taking into account sub-consciental repression of traumatic events, and recognitave events, the realm of homo-sexuality being a naturally occurring phenomenon and the numbers that represent it very well could be reduced to the realm of dodecadecimal. What do you think? (not that I care) LOLOLOLOL



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser

And I know, Druids did sacrifice, but it was an honor, and only happened around twice a year.



It was an honor and it was happening ONY 2 times per years ? Woaaaaw !!! It was a cool religion until you wasn't the sacrificied.


Fortunately, Jews, Muslims and Christians do not sacrified peoples. ( except for some crazy fundamentalists who must be stopped ).



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 03:54 AM
link   
there are plenty of sacrificial instances in the bible.
In fact I seem to remember a wacky little bitbit tucked at the back about God sacrificing his own son or somthing.



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 04:46 AM
link   
yeah, that vaguely rings a bell with me.... anyway, to get back to the topic:

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:

"Anyway, homosexuality is an abomination to God Eyes ! All monotheist religions ( Christians, Jews, Mulims ) share the same opinion about this : It's an abomination !

When you're gay or lesbian, you're against God. So, be against Him if you want, it's your choice and I don't care.
"

ahhh ... i wondered when we'd see your true colours. this i think is the point. just as you said "it's your choice", so gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry, right? after all, its their choice.

- qo.
(and, quite frankly, god is a sadistic #wit that can kiss my ass before i'll worship him ...)



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Its funny how little you have to dig before you see somones true colours

"homosexuals shouldn't marry because psychologically children need both a mother and father"

really are you sure your not just a bigotted christian who simply doesn't like gays?

"No. I'm a completely rational person and I believe sincerely that, looking at biological paradigms in nature I can safely say, objectively, that gay people shouldn't marry"

are you positive? I mean, your not simply just against it because a 2000 year old book tells you its an abomination?

"Nope, I'm a rational......scientific......no, hang on scrap that, actually yes. I don't like gays because its against God"

thought so.

[Edited on 25-11-2002 by Lupe_101]



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
there are plenty of sacrificial instances in the bible.
In fact I seem to remember a wacky little bitbit tucked at the back about God sacrificing his own son or somthing.


Yes, I don't remember exactely, but I think it was a kind of test. But he didn't kill him, God stopped him. ( strange test, isn't it ?
)


Originally posted by quiet one
ahhh ... i wondered when we'd see your true colours. this i think is the point. just as you said "it's your choice", so gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry, right? after all, its their choice.


Hey, wait a minute ! I gave you what you was looking for and you're not happy ? In your mind, I had to be like this, so I wrote this phrase cuz you was waiting for it.


But I'm agree with you. If some peoples want to be gays or lesbians, it's only their problems. But when God will ask them what they did in their lives on Earth, I hope for them that God will be agree with the human laws, otherwise.....



Originally posted by Lupe_101

I mean, your not simply just against it because a 2000 year old book tells you its an abomination?


2000 years ? I think it's a little bit more than 2000 years.



[Edited on 25-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 05:23 AM
link   
really?
I thought it was quite a bit less and thought I was giving christians the benifit of the doubt.



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Gays, maybe should be allowed to marry. They should just never be allowed to adopt kids, or have IVF ( in the case with lesbians ).



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 11:47 AM
link   
why not, mad scientist? sure you're entitled to your opinion but it means nothing if you don't explain ~why~....

- qo.



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
there are plenty of sacrificial instances in the bible.
In fact I seem to remember a wacky little bitbit tucked at the back about God sacrificing his own son or somthing.

And you not only seem to miss the point, but feel the need to mock it.



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 09:40 PM
link   
the words "circles", "decreasing" and "ever" do seem to repeat themselves with growing frequency as one reads the posts.
I would continue to assert that, in any given sacramental or legal sense, as things are, homosexuals simply cannot "marry" whether allowed to -or not. And I can conceive of no substantial amendment to ritual or legislation that would permit this without real or potential damage to vast numbers of heterosexuals: simple things such as wills, inheritance,liability for debts and so forth.
As for homosexuals living together as couples: this has, I'm sure, gone on throughout recorded history and probably long before that.
I don't much care for homosexuals insisting that they are "right", "virtuous","justified" or "enlightened"; but I don't much care for heterosexuals insisting upon these things either.
If homosexual couples are accepted - then so be it. And, if homosexuals are the latter day avatars of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah then taking the NT's advice to heart "Judge not lest ye be judged", I'm prepared to leave it to the Almighty to punish them in everlasting fire.

On balance, what is unacceptable conduct for homosexuals is much the same as it is for heterosexuals and laws exist. Beyond that, I cannot help but think that it is a matter for them and their consciences.

But "no" they cannot "marry" in any significant sense of the word and they will seek in vain for any real approval from any major organised religion: so must many others, homosexuals are not unique nor uniquely discriminated against.



posted on Nov, 25 2002 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Yea, tell that to the groups that say down with faggots, kill the faggots, and also vandalize gay peoples properties or actually lynch a couple of them.

They are discriminated against. They are todays version of the blacks in the sixties. Except they can vote without fear of being killed. Also, just because they gay, why can't they be religous? Don't all religons promote acceptance? Love, peace? Well, just because they gay does'nt mean they don't believe in that. Besides, god gave ten commandments, humans wrote books. God never says "Thou shalt not take it in the rear by another guy" Only humans did in books.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 03:23 AM
link   
"And you not only seem to miss the point, but feel the need to mock it. "

nah, don't think I've missed the point in the context of the discussion, but as far as mockery goes, hell yeah, I mean you have to admit theres somthing pretty funny about grown adults taking the drug adled ramblings of long dead money lenders to be the literal world of a supreme being.

makes me laugh anyway.

......

and laugh.......and laugh......and laugh.....



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 04:56 AM
link   
By Estragon:

"I would continue to assert that, in any given sacramental or legal sense, as things are, homosexuals simply cannot "marry" whether allowed to -or not."

what?!? the whole religious issue has been well covered and i think you argree with what other have said: leave it to the religious folks to decide. however, legally marriage is simply a matter of legislation and i see no reason why homosexuals could NOT marry. would you care to elaborate?

- qo.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
"Thou shalt not take it in the rear by another guy" .




But there is a phrase, something like : You'll not do/go with a man like you do/go with a woman. I'm not sure for the phraseology.




[Edited on 26-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:39 AM
link   
UP (and others) why do you continue to push the religious issue? if you want to do that take it to the religious forum.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:45 AM
link   
NO! If they want to marry, they may also find another country to live in~!



posted on Nov, 26 2002 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Quiet One, it is a universally recognized more that same-sex relationships are not recognized. Don't let a biased media and politically active court system fool you, society does not want it at this time. Society changes and there will come a time when Adam and Steve is totally permissable, but we aren't there yet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join