If the courts are going to allow gay marriage then they also need to guarantee that churches that choose not to allow gay marriages have the legal right to do so.

I see this as a huge potential legal problem. With the gay activist on this side of the states I'm pretty sure that there will be some people who will want to sue a church because they were denied their "civil rights", even though it is against the teachings of the church.

Originally posted by caballero
your making arguments that make no sense.

That ok because I feel the same about your arguments.

most people would not fall in love with their daughters

But some do and they are looked down upon and rightfully so. However using your logic, why not let them because LOVE is LOVE right?

Originally posted by projectvxn
Comparing gay marriage to beastiality and incest is completely illogical.

Not by using your logic. LOVE is LOVE right?

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Exactly, being gay is a form of a handicap since it will not allow one to breed.

We are also genetically bipedal - - - so a person born without legs will be denied the right to marry?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If the courts are going to allow gay marriage then they also need to guarantee that churches that choose not to allow gay marriages have the legal right to do so.

Totally agree. I don't know of one person that believes churches should be forced to marry gays.

Fortunately - there are many gay friendly churches now.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
So with that logic, all those men and woman who are UNABLE to have children should not be allowed to be married?

No because marriage is defined as a man and woman so why would not be able to get married? The one who is unable to reproduce has a defect just like someone who is gay. They cannot help it because something went wrong during birth.

Actually whattheory my point is not moot, if animals across all species also have homosexual members, then what are the chances of it being something that happens at birth. It is a natural thing.


But going by your point, does that also mean people who choose not to have sex at all are also 'wired wrong in the head'?

Why do you decide that it is a natural thing to want to reproduce and that not wanting to reproduce means you have a problem. Nobody should marry someone because they want to reproduce, they should marry because of love and then if they decide they would like children they may do so. Many STRAIGHT couples will have no children, are they also 'wired wrong'?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Exactly, being gay is a form of a handicap since it will not allow one to breed.

We are also genetically bipedal - - - so a person born without legs will be denied the right to marry?

Since marriage is defined as being a man and a woman, I don't see why they would not be able to marry. However the person born without legs has a defect just like someone who is gay. Something just got wired incorrectly during birth.

Originally posted by umbr45
Actually whattheory my point is not moot, if animals across all species also have homosexual members, then what are the chances of it being something that happens at birth. It is a natural thing.

Sure it is. What other species have homo members? Perhaps you want to compare yourself to 'other' animals but humans are supposed to mate with people of the opposite sex. Just because nature MIGHT have some other obscure species that is gay, that still does not mean its normal.

But going by your point, does that also mean people who choose not to have sex at all are also 'wired wrong in the head'?

No, because it's a choice. That is what makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Exactly, being gay is a form of a handicap since it will not allow one to breed.

We are also genetically bipedal - - - so a person born without legs will be denied the right to marry?

Since marriage is defined as being a man and a woman, I don't see why they would not be able to marry. However the person born without legs has a defect just like someone who is gay. Something just got wired incorrectly during birth.

Obviously I went for the extreme ridiculous.

However - there are women born without uteruses. According to your logic - they shall be denied right to marry.

Okay, so if people CHOOSE to never have sex there is no problem, but if people of the same sex want to be together, ending in the same result of no children there is a problem. What is your logic there?


And i do not mean 1 other species, I mean most species across the globe, we are one of those species, the only difference is that we are currently the dominating one. We are no different to them.

It is a natural thing. it has no negative effect other than there will be no children, though as my first paragraph states you have no problem with people who choose not to have them. A gay person is simply deciding to be with a member of the same sex and not have children.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by umbr45]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by projectvxn
Comparing gay marriage to beastiality and incest is completely illogical.

Not by using your logic. LOVE is LOVE right?

WhatTheory, again you are 'quote mining'.

It is a dishonest trait....where's your religious outrage at that?

As disgusting (for once I agree with you) bestiality is, it is not 'LOVE'!!! It is a fetish. (and again, it is most disgusting to me....but I am not a judge of others....and nor should you be)

Many, many, many 'straight' people have fetishes....that they practice behind closed doors, between consenting adults.

There are 'bondage' scenarios....'dressing up' scenarios....foot fetishes, etc, etc, etc....

Why not ban all of these Male/Females from being married as well??

WhatTheory.....do you wish to ban 'interracial' marriages? (a misnomer, since we are one species, one race....but some clearly disturbed and bigoted people think that skin color makes a difference). Phhhhft!!

I'm guessing, hope not to step on toes here....but just have a feeling that ATS member 'WhatTheory' is espoussing a religious bias, rather than a well-reasoned, logical consideration of others' rights.

Perhaps I may have crossed a line in the T&Cs by stating that opinion. I'm not sure.....

OK...discuss!!!!

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by umbr45
Actually whattheory my point is not moot, if animals across all species also have homosexual members, then what are the chances of it being something that happens at birth. It is a natural thing.

Sure it is. What other species have homo members? Perhaps you want to compare yourself to 'other' animals but humans are supposed to mate with people of the opposite sex. Just because nature MIGHT have some other obscure species that is gay, that still does not mean its normal.

Actually ALL species engage in homosexual activity. Male dogs do it all the time, cats do it, cows, pigs, dolphins, lions...like i said, every species does it. Just because you don't agree with it, and refuse to acknowledge it, does not make it a go away.

If you don't agree with it, say that, and leave it at that. There is no need to spout off about how people are "wired wrong".

I think this is a good step in America, slowly but surely they are starting to realize that EVERYONE is born with the same rights as everyone else.

With modern technology - same sex can procreate - just as hetero's do.

I read a report recently that science is working on human Parthenogenesis.

That's gonna freak some people out.

Has anyone else seen a disturbing trend in some people's opinion equating Homosexuality as being a birth defect?

There was a certain movement, oh, say....almost a hundred years ago, in Europe, proposing that there was the 'perfect race'.....and anyone who didn't conform to that imaginary ideal was, therefore, inferior.....and could be considered a 'sub-class', and somehow non-human.

Does this ring any bells?? Bring back any memories??

When ATS member 'What...' equated homosexuality to a 'birth defect'.....was no one outraged? Are there no parents online, who have loving children, who just may have been born disabled in some way?

Are those children fodder to be thown away?? NO!! (unless you're a Nazi in the early 20th century).

It is a sick ideology that cannot understand the diversity of life, and all that it has to offer.

Often, this myopic view of the world is because of religion, and its influence on the weak-minded.....

Reverend Ken Collins:

And herein can be found the true purpose of human sexuality. In Christianity, there is no docetic dichotomy between spiritual and material, between law and grace; one is lower and the other higher, and the lower one serves the higher. In the same way, our sexuality serves a spiritual purpose, even if we are chaste or childless. Our sexual urges force us to be social creatures, for without it we would be content as hermits, never learning the joy of fellowship, never learning the give-and-take of love or friendship, never practicing upon each other the skills we need to be in full fellowship with God. The primary purpose of our sexuality is not procreation, rather it is to teach us how to love, how to have fellowship; and when we slough off the cocoon of sexuality, we emerge as creatures fully able to contemplate God, fully able to have fellowship with Him and with each other.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Has anyone else seen a disturbing trend in some people's opinion equating Homosexuality as being a birth defect?

I see homosexuality as a birth "difference" - same as heterosexuality - or Red Hair.

A lot goes into creating a living being - we aren't stamped from a machine.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Has anyone else seen a disturbing trend in some people's opinion equating Homosexuality as being a birth defect?

I am not a parent, not gay nor do I have any friends that are, but yes I am sickened by people who think like this.

There is no true logic behind it, and religion is not an excuse for these thoughts. They are just the thoughts of ignorant people, but as history shows ignorant people can do terrible things.