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.
Originally posted by Pabama
reply to post by ImzadiDax
"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."
I appreciate your position, but you are protected by the same laws and given the same rights. Marriage between a man and a women is available to all. Choosing something different does not mean that you aren't included. That may be a cold answer, but that is how it is in most states.
It seemed that the thread was a Robertson bashing thread, deciding he is merely a hate-monger instead of considering the argument.
This is not vile. It is called logic. It is only vile because you disagree with it and can not refute it.
[
There doesnt have to be a link between gay marriage acceptance and incest acceptance. All there has to be is the ability to redifine marriage to be more inclusive.
In all fairness to those who are in love with their mother, or their dog, or 10 women and 2 guys they should have every right to marry because how can you say it is alright to change the definition of marriage to include one sub group of society
The whole point is once you redifine marriage once then it can be redifined to the whims of society at any time in the future. Refute that.
Another point I want to make is the inclusion of "love" in the definition of marriage.
You havent refuted anything about how making marriage redifinable does not eventually lead to redifining it to fit any sub groups view that they should also have the same rights to marriage.
the FACT that once marriage becomes redifinable it will be continually redefined to fit any number of sub groups
So I guess the definition of marriage should be limited to what you view acceptable, but what others view as acceptable is just some irrational psychobabble.
Originally posted by jsobecky
[
So there are laws against incest. Why not change the laws? It would be no different than changing the laws regarding gay marriage, conceptually.
justsomeboreddude put it very succinctly: why can't a man marry his father?
[edit on 18-5-2009 by jsobecky]
Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
The whole point is once you redifine marriage once then it can be redifined to the whims of society at any time in the future. Refute that.
No, the whole point of this thread is that Pat Robertson thinks that gay marriage will lead to legalizing child abuse.
I do not understand how you can not see how absurd the argument is.
Originally posted by Night Watchman
Originally posted by jsobecky
[
So there are laws against incest. Why not change the laws? It would be no different than changing the laws regarding gay marriage, conceptually.
justsomeboreddude put it very succinctly: why can't a man marry his father?
[edit on 18-5-2009 by jsobecky]
It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.
Apples and Oranges.
Once you allow marriage to be redifined then it can be redifined multiple times to become more and more inclusive.
It may not happen overnight.. but you open up the door to it happening by letting marriage be defined by the whims of society and its sub groups.
It used to be illegal to be gay in some parts of the world, and i bet somewhere it is still illegal to be gay. So if you can change the law to allow it legal to be gay then you can change the law to allow incest to be legal.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
You havent refuted anything about how making marriage redifinable does not eventually lead to redifining it to fit any sub groups view that they should also have the same rights to marriage.
Originally posted by ImzadiDax
You are right. If I were to marry a man I could be protected again under the same rights as most everyone else. I dont choose to be a lesbian, I have always been. I am who god has made me. Maybe I am a hethen and dont deserve the protection. Maybe I dont deserve life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I dont know. I wish it was a clear cut issue.
But what I do think is a clear cut issue is that giving me rights is not the same as incest or a man marrying his father. That doesnt make sense to me.
I am not trying to change anyones mind on this issue, just give a little insight is all.
♥
If we are going to open up marriage lets make it all inclusive. Why does that idea offend people that are for gay marriage? If it is changed to be inclusive for you then make it all inclusive. What right do you have to say what other people love is right or wrong? How does that make you any different from Pat Robertson who you say is evil and vile and disgusting?
Originally posted by Night Watchman
It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.
Apples and Oranges.
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
Originally posted by Night Watchman
It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.
Apples and Oranges.
Why should it be illegal to engage in incest according to your line of thinking?