It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Forget Your Morals: Why the Gov't Cannot Allow Gay Marriages

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I can athink of another thing that will greatly change with same-sex marriages. Health care.
With more people put on as spouses, health care costs could soar. Many of these folks are currently without insurance and it's bound to have an impact of out-of-pocket expenses.

Acutally, it's the UNinsured that are causing the problem. Not the married-and-paying-for-spousal care.

Uninsured folks generally run into real problems with buying medications and trying to get health care. They take risks and ignore conditions that need treatment, and by the time they get to a hospital there are a whole host of problems. Treatment is generally expensive.

With insurance (my spouse went through a period of unemployment), they get treatment and medication (expensive heart medication, in this case.) And I paid for it... insurance ain't cheap. When my kids were little, they also didn't work -- and I paid for their insurance as well.

So, rather than causing problems in the health care system, this would cause fewer problems. Additionally, people who are in relationships are generally in better health.

The proportion of homosexuals in the population is small... fewer than 10%. That's not going to make much of an impact because not all of them will marry.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 11:42 AM
byrd forget that there is gay sex involved. I think I keep mentioning this point.

it is not about the sex and being gay. It is about 2 people of the same sex being able to marry regardless of their sexual perference.
It opens the doors to many more issues that doesn't involve homosexuality.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 01:54 PM
Its also about birthrates.

Higher birthrates, more poverty, quicker soldier replenishhment, history replaced easier, religion and custom melted sooner.

sure allowing them would lead to a decay/change of morals quickly, but only in that area.

countries with weak birthrates lose their power sooner or later, like old people that cannot recover from injury as fast.

personally i wanna live to 100 and have generations that span 30 years, so dont think this is my idea.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 02:33 PM
Anyways, I am sure the terrorists are all waiting in lebanon, Saudi Arabia, wherever just waiting to marry someone of the same sex to get into the country.

Ha, hahahaha, hahaha, ha, hahaha, and a last and final, ha.

Anyways, I am sure when the 8% of the people who are gay or lesbian are allowed to marry, the country will collapse into chaos, big businesses will go bankrupt, stock market will crash, what catholic preists do to little boys will not be punished(oh wait, that has already happened) and people will be allowed to marry goats and dogs. But until then, the world will be perfect as long as we discriminate against the gays.

Now that I am done being a republican/christian/bigot, I will go back to the open minded democrat that I am. Gay marrige. Marrige is NOT defined as a man and a woman, no where in the constitution does it say that. So Skavi, who ever else, that not a good arguement.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 03:41 PM
james the lesser, it is not about the 8% of homosexuals getting married, it about same sex marriage which means any two people of any sexual preference being able to marry.

if there are benefits to marriage, which many of you claim there are, that's why the homosexual population wants marriage so badly, then any two heterosexual males or females could marry legally on paper reap those benefits and then continue with their lives.

I must either be a genuis way ahead of my time, or a total idiot!

don't bother saying it, I know most of you think I am idiot, but screw you all, my point is valid.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by worldwatcher

Terrorist, Criminals, whatever, any male/male or female/female combinaton can occur. The people who will take advantage and abuse and use it for negative stuff are more than likely not going to be GAY

why is no one understanding me.....I need a break or something, I can't seem to put my point into words you people will understand.

Arabs terrorists and Foreign Immigrants won't be gay, but they will act like it if it can secure them entry into this country, help them get driver license's and jobs. The same law that will benefit the gays will hurt everyone else.

That is a chance, in your view, that the US will have to take. In my view, something like this probably won't even happen.

And you know, this whole thing is in fact a moral issue no matter how much you may try to avoid it. Behind all the legal issues, legal exuses, and so on, everybody has different morals and obviously they are reflected somehow in what they say, this isn't science.

'hurt everyone else'? When do we draw lines on who is everyone else, opposed to someone else. Many lines can be drawn between people, and somehow I think if say a terrorist event happened in this country it would hurt Everyone. Or, all sorts of people.

By the way I thought it was a bit funny as some people start their posts saying, 'I'm not gay but', not especailly here but other threads discussing this issue.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by worldwatcher
if there are benefits to marriage, which many of you claim there are, that's why the homosexual population wants marriage so badly, then any two heterosexual males or females could marry legally on paper reap those benefits and then continue with their lives.

I must either be a genuis way ahead of my time, or a total idiot!

don't bother saying it, I know most of you think I am idiot, but screw you all, my point is valid.

I can see where you are coming from. I think. There would just have to be a few people who would do that. But you'd have to be reaaaaaalllllllllly good friends, divorces can be very messy.
I'd rather be adopted.

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:42 PM
This is simple.
If homosexuals are allowed to marry...what becomes of the institution of marriage.
It is a NATURAL law that it take a man and women to procreate! If we change that...not much will happen now..but somewhere down the road, we will disappear into nothing.
Lwt me say if gays wish to enter in a legal binding contract that the 2 "and notice I saw 2" people wish to bond in, I have no complaints to any CIVIL UNION. But the Institue of MARRIAGE has stood for thousands of years, I do not agree with changing it. If you wish to call me a bigot...go ahead....BUT I CAN NOT DISAGREE WITH NATURE!!!!

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 06:50 PM
Yes, it takes two to procreate, but you don't need to marry to procreate, do you? So that arguement is sunk deeper than the Titanic.

And why does it take a man and a woman to marry? It doesn't.


posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 02:08 PM
Forget the moral issue, since via our own constitution this should not be an issue at all anyway!! Moralistically it is pure pandering by the current illegal regime to retain a few crappy votes.

Basically its an issue so shrub won't have to have his cronies dump 100k democratic ballots/votes into the ocean AGAIN or disallow the votes of 100k people based on a family name AGAIN that is the same as a felon from another state!!

1. Security risk? They not only let the 911 terroist in the US we trained the MFers on how to fly the f'ing aircraft too!!! So a unsuspecting lonely American or an aware co-conspirator could marry a foriegn born terrorist, allowing Akmed or BOB, access to the US. The US-Canadian border is mostly ungaurded and can be crossed on foot or in a 4x4 across thousands of miles of open terrain. Why would Bob or Akmed bother to marry some stupid American male or female, just to gain access when they can buy or sneak their way in so easily?

2. Cheating federal services? Well if the neo-cons have thier way these sevices will not exist much longer anyway so again this is a non-issue.
But, for arguments sake as it was posted earlier, a "moral union" between man & woman can be a convenience marraige for tax breaks and social services right now. So that one is out da window too!!!

So basically this whole issue comes down to pandering for votes, period!!! Does not matter since shrub will need to declare marshall law and stop the election from happening as his only hope to remain in the WH.

With the LCR's turning against him and the paleo-conservatives turning against him, this regime will lack enough votes from his own party to even maintain a majority on the conservative ticket!!!

By-by Dubya, go crawl back into the bushcrimefamily hole back in Crawford!!!

& Good riddance!!!!

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in