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 justsomeboreddude
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
He is the one who brought up that being gay is legal and commiting incest is illegal so why dont you ask him what it has to do with this topic. I was just making the point that why should one be legal and the other not?
Incest and gay marriage only relate in the sense that if you are going to make gay marriage legal why shoudnt other forms of marriage be legal as well?
If you are removing one limit on marriage why not remove them all?
Oh really, so care to name a society in our history that has allowed the following because of gay marriage? Care to name one that has accepted bestiality or molestation because of gay marriage?
Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I dont think anyone in their right mind would say a person who is gay is a heathen or that you dont deserve some form of fairness under the law. Everyone deserves life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I would say that giving you rights to be married is no different to giving rights to a man and his father in an incestual relationship. Do they deserve less rights than you or to have less life, liberty, and happiness then you do. Could it not be possible that it is how God made them?
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?
there are societies that allow these perversions because of how they decided to re-define marriage
what are the limits?
Leave 'gay' out of the argument for a moment while you ponder that, and you will se that he has a perfectly logical argument.
Originally posted by Night Watchman
It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.
Apples and Oranges.
I could also make the case that being gay used to be considered a mental illness, so whose to say other forms of love wont become considered normal just as homosexuality has.
Incest between consenting adults is no more damaging then any other relationship they could have?
They dont need to be related at all.
Tell me how they cant?
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Yes, before people had a better understanding of gays and their mental state. APA.org should help explain this to you.
The other groups are not considered normal now, what psychological evidence would lead you to think they will be? Gays are normal because of evidence, again the subgroups are not related, what evidence do you have for the others?
Incest between consenting adults is no more damaging then any other relationship they could have?
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by jsobecky
there are societies that allow these perversions because of how they decided to re-define marriage
Okay, so please show us the society and evidence that redefining marriage between homosexuals causes this perversion.
what are the limits?
Since being gay is legal and many of the other things listed are not the limit it pretty clear.
Leave 'gay' out of the argument for a moment while you ponder that, and you will se that he has a perfectly logical argument.
Not really this argument could be applied to any rights ever given to a subgroup, it has to have evidence supporting it’s claims to show that it has merit.
I am sure I could make a case why it is not insane to be in love with your relatives, your dog, your ink pen.. whatever.
How could it be any more damaging if both parties are adults and consent.
What you seem to not understand is that instead of the argument being for gay marriage it could just have well been for polygamy or incestual marriage, etc...
The gay movement just have more political clout and are better organized.
Are you saying you are against polygamy, incestual marriage, beastial marriage, etc? Under what grounds?
I never said there was a link between the two. I said that they existed because of re-definition of marriage.
You keep bringing 'sub-groups' into the discussion. Gay is also a sub-group. What makes it so special that we should include it and not all sub-groups?
They are only linked by the concept that if you make marriage redifinable then over time it can be defined to allow marriage between various forms of subgroups of people just like it is being redifined to allow marriage between the sub group of homosexuals.
I do find it very Pat Robertson of you to say that you are for some forms of marriage but you are against other forms of marriage. How is what you say any different than what he says?
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
They are only linked by the concept that if you make marriage redifinable then over time it can be defined to allow marriage between various forms of subgroups of people just like it is being redifined to allow marriage between the sub group of homosexuals.
Again, there’s no evidence to support your conclusion, so it is just an opinion with no merit.
I do find it very Pat Robertson of you to say that you are for some forms of marriage but you are against other forms of marriage. How is what you say any different than what he says?
Please compare my statement with Robertson’s; they are not at all alike. Comparing gay marriage to marriages between children and child molesters is in no way comparable to me stating that I am against humans marrying animals, sons marrying fathers, and multiple people marrying because of psychological studies. My position actually has merit, Robertson's comes out of thin air.