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.
Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. In other religions, marriage is revered in a similar manner.
There are laws that make gay marriage illegal as well, so if those can be changed why cant the laws against incest be removed.
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Night Watchman
So there are laws against incest. Why not change the laws? It would be no different than changing the laws regarding gay marriage, conceptually.
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
This is an extreme hypothetical that is supported by no evidence. No such thing has happened in other places where gay marriage is recognized AND the acceptance of gays in society has not led to a wider acceptance of incest. You can find no solid link between the two. Find us a link, a substantiated link or stop spouting this vile. You can not deny people marriage because of one groups unsubstantiated slippery slope argument, that argument could be used for virtually anything and often has been used while trying to deny others rights.
I guess it is safe to say you are not going to send scriptures to defend your position. I assume that is because you have none. You just keep saying the same things over and over without defending your logic.
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by ImzadiDax
Because today we're talking about your rights, tomorrow we will be talking about some other group's rights.
You want to redefine marriage. Well, what is an acceptable definition. One that suits only you?
No, a much better solution would be to create a new category: civil unions. But many gays are against that. Why, may I ask?
Originally posted by Pabama
reply to post by ImzadiDax
Gay "marriage" dosen't equal incest, and perhaps it was a poor example, which I inserted rather flippantly. The point was that someone (re) defined marriage as simply as a state contract for two people to agree to take care of each other. It's simply not that simple. The question that many people have is "Will redefining marriage allow others to argue for a further redefinition?" The only context in which I think this will happen is when there are "robots" ( I use this term loosely, as a genre for all future human like creations) will people be able to marry them? These robots will someday have the ability to make decisions, and with that, preferences. Will they be able to marry a person? This is going to happen- people loving robots. If society says they cannot, why cannot they use this same argument?
Here's an external link to start you off. I'll see if I can find some threads.
www.otkenyer.hu...
Originally posted by ImzadiDax
Originally posted by Pabama
reply to post by ImzadiDax
Gay "marriage" dosen't equal incest, and perhaps it was a poor example, which I inserted rather flippantly. The point was that someone (re) defined marriage as simply as a state contract for two people to agree to take care of each other. It's simply not that simple. The question that many people have is "Will redefining marriage allow others to argue for a further redefinition?" The only context in which I think this will happen is when there are "robots" ( I use this term loosely, as a genre for all future human like creations) will people be able to marry them? These robots will someday have the ability to make decisions, and with that, preferences. Will they be able to marry a person? This is going to happen- people loving robots. If society says they cannot, why cannot they use this same argument?
I do understand your point. Dont think I havent looked at both sides. I dont know all of the awnsers. What I do know is that I am not protected by the same laws that protect others. That when it comes down to it "we the people" doesnt always include all people.
♥
dax
The only thing you have provided is another person's opinion of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Nothing proved or disproved there.