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.

 

Gay Marriage be Legal?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
When are you going to grow up?


The day you stop being an [edited by Ocelot for Offensive Content]




posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   


In other words answer this: which relationship provides more benefits to society that society would want to expend resources to support it or reward it:



This has nothing to do with it being natural that I can see, however I have seen stright couples that should not be allowed to have kids and gays that would make wonderful parents and vice-a-versa so I dont see your point either way.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   




In other words answer this: which relationship provides more benefits to society that society would want to expend resources to support it or reward it:

heterosexual marriage or gay marriage?

why do you think gays are fighting so hard to obtain children now, they know without the ability to raise children with social support that they cannot win this debate.


To answer the question maybe neither. With a more than 50% divorce rate and significant situations of fathers having mutliple children with multiple women out of wedlock heterosexual marriage has a long way to go at fixing it's own problems.

Marriage to me is a religious item. Civil Unions for hetersexuals and homosexuals makes more sense. Allow the term of marriage to be used to identify the type of cermony two people chose for confirming their commitment to each other (also makes it more of a religious statement I think).

Oh and just so this point is made to anyone thinking different. Homesexual does not equal pedophile



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Amuk,

I don't want gay families supported because it will be their agenda to support more gay families. Correct?

Then that will produce a reliance on genetic breeding or cloning systems to produce children for disfunctional pairings (gays).

In the end this causes the idea of human pairing and mating as a natural expression of humans to be DEVALUED and thus the original idea of humanity itself is under attack. I think that people really NEED to look longer term at this issue than it just being about nice and simple concepts that we are afraid to question like:

justice, fairness, modernity, equal rights, liberalism, sexuality, etc.

we need to see how this like many other changes in human conditions can lead to the eventual downfall of the human race period.

Yes, I agree that many heterosexuals do not make good parents but so be it. At least they are able to be parents naturally. Maybe society should make more resources available to really help familites like they used to do decades ago.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie





In other words answer this: which relationship provides more benefits to society that society would want to expend resources to support it or reward it:

heterosexual marriage or gay marriage?

why do you think gays are fighting so hard to obtain children now, they know without the ability to raise children with social support that they cannot win this debate.


To answer the question maybe neither. With a more than 50% divorce rate and significant situations of fathers having mutliple children with multiple women out of wedlock heterosexual marriage has a long way to go at fixing it's own problems.

Marriage to me is a religious item. Civil Unions for hetersexuals and homosexuals makes more sense. Allow the term of marriage to be used to identify the type of cermony two people chose for confirming their commitment to each other (also makes it more of a religious statement I think).

Oh and just so this point is made to anyone thinking different. Homesexual does not equal pedophile


but according to you though it means we should support unnatural unions and thus using technology make them 'natural' so that they can be accepted as equal and the 'same' as everyone else?

somewhere in there is a BIG LIE which I think will be one of many LIES that will lead to the downfall of humanity.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   


Then that will produce a reliance on genetic breeding or cloning systems to produce children for disfunctional pairings (gays).


I seriously doubt this why would they have to clone children when there are thousands of children abandonded by there herto parents that would be more than happy to have a real home no matter the sexual orientation of there parents.

And I do not see humanity haviung to rely on cloning because I for one and I am sure most of the people out there are not gonna suddenly become gay just because its legal. Maybe a few less breeding pairs in this world of what, 6-7 billion now, is not a bad idea.

I see what you are saying I just dont see it becoming a problem


[Edited on 22-2-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Amuk,

I can agree with your points but I see now overwhelming reason why Gays need to be married and to have children. There has not been sufficient argument made to convince me here.

Furthermore, I disagree with you belief that this is a benign direction we are taking. Genetic tampering and genetic breeding is a can of worms that all of society needs to consider and not just a few special interest groups.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Genetic tampering and genetic breeding is a can of worms that all of society needs to consider and not just a few special interest groups.


Who is backing this? I am not. I dont understand what this part has to do with gays getting married.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I have a theory why so many "macho men" are irrationally homophobic. I believe they live in fear they might enjoy anal sex if given the chance. What are your theories?



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Joining a little late.

I am against Gay marriage, but if it is their wish and we have to respect it, if they want to, I say YES.

They didn't tell us to stop marrying, why should we tell them? It is their life and they have a right.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
I have a theory why so many "macho men" are irrationally homophobic. I believe they live in fear they might enjoy anal sex if given the chance. What are your theories?


Im guessing most homophobes are just closet gays. They're just too stuborn to admit it.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
I have a theory why so many "macho men" are irrationally homophobic. I believe they live in fear they might enjoy anal sex if given the chance. What are your theories?



I have often wondered at the almost hysterical hatred some guys have toward gays. They have never bothered me and I do not fear them and have always figured that for each two guys taking care of each other left two lonely woman out there aching for a mans touch if you know what I mean........LOL



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Neo, I just don't get what you are saying. I have said my whole life, " If I had been born a woman, I would be a lesbian." I just love the female form that much. These are just different people, accept them. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? If I had a gay friend and he/she decided to marry I would be happy to be a part of their wedding.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

They have never bothered me and I do not fear them and have always figured that for each two guys taking care of each other left two lonely woman out there aching for a mans touch if you know what I mean........LOL


Exactly! The more gay men, the less competition for me.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
quote:
Then that will produce a reliance on genetic breeding or cloning systems to produce children for disfunctional pairings (gays).


neo, it seems that you are afraid that the gays are going to take over the world. geez, all they want to do is make-over your hosue and help you wear fashionable clothing, dont take it as a threat.

or maybe you're gay as hell and are doing this as a coverup???


and by cloning systems, what do you mean? gay-baby 3000 or something? it sounds like you dont have any gay friends...honestly, they dont give a damn that youre not gay, their just laughing because they're happy the way they are and they know youll never get a girl (if youre a guy)



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Have you guys ever heard the phrase:
"What you hate will ultimately end up in your family"?

The people who love to bash homosexuals should stop that nonsense, or God may just decide to give you a Gay son or daughter. Then what are you going to do? Kick them out of the house?



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ocelot
God may just decide to give you a Gay son or daughter. Then what are you going to do? Kick them out of the house?


i wouldnt be surprised if they did....or try to genetically alter their DNA........



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The point is just not getting through. Ocelot, you are making it seem that being gay is a bad thing. I'm not gay , I hope none of my kids are gay, not because of what I think, just because of society, their lives will be easier, if they are I will love them no less.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   

by THENEO: "I want to know if it is a natural biological abberation or a psychological condition."

Ok, let me see if I understand what you're getting at.

You want to determine whether or not Homosexualness is:
a)Biological:i.e.[inborn, hardwired, naturally determined, even if mentally not wanted or chosen] or...
b)Psychological:i.e.[willful choice even in defiance of ones natural biological desires)

I don't think it's an either/or situation that is going to help solve this. I also do not understand why it matters exactly or for what purpose, but I'll entertain the idea the best I can in an effort to try and understand the point behind what you're looking for.

~If it's Biological (not Psychological) then it is something that should be, in your opinion, allowed or atleast not persecuted against.
~If it's Psychological (not Biological) then it is something that should be publicly opposed and if possible reversed or something along those lines.
....am I understanding this correctly so far???

Isn't it possible that it is a little of both as well as one or the other? The fact that you like people of the opposite sex is determined by which one, Bio or Psycho or Both? Is it a Biological reaction that controls ones desire for, breasts or legs or body shape etc. or is atleast part of it mental as well? What part of Bio-Chemistry makes one person attracted to intelligence or submissiveness or charisma etc.? Will your body still function regardless of your mental stimuli?

Let's say a woman is Biologically Hetro, but all encounters with men are of an abusive nature. Bio is satisfied, Psycho is not. However, with a woman pleasure is recieved in the correct form although some choices have to be mentally forced to comply. Now Psycho is satisfied, Bio is pleased as well but had to be tricked into doing so out of nessessity. Which situation is more healthy for the person? Which one is better from a Society point of view?

Honestly, I am not sure what kind of a simple answer you're looking for or why it even matters so much. If you 'Know Yourself' that is all that is needed. Let other people figure out who they are for themselves without you or anyone else telling them who they should or shouldn't be and why.



by THENEO "if they are a naturally occuring biological analomy then they automatically deserve rights, if not then they are a form of mental deficient."

YIKES!!!! We are talking about PEOPLE here. A person who might be Biologically Different then most other people includes all kinds of things such as missing limbs, blindness, deformity, etc. My God man, please tell me you understand the meaning behind John Merrick(sp?) aka The elephant man when he said, "I am not an Animal. I am a man." Was he a 'biological anamoly' who's difference made him anything less than HUMAN???

Do you understand what is meant by EQUAL RIGHTS? That ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL, and that ALL PEOPLE deserve the SAME RIGHTS & those RIGHTS are not something given and taken by state or official powers the way 'Priviledges and Civil Rights' are given and taken away. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are above and beyond all legal institutions of governments in order to give all PEOPLE the SAME BASIC RIGHTS....EQUALITY at atleast a fundimental level. It is so important that EVERYONE understands what is meant by RIGHTS.

RIGHTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN OR TAKEN BY GOVERNMENTS. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED BY THEM, TO ENSURE ALL PEOPLE, AT SOME LEVEL ARE EQUAL.



posted on Feb, 22 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Sorry Mojom, I'm a lazy bastard, could I get a Readers Digest version of that?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join