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.

 

Gay Marriage Still Unpopular in U.S.

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I can't understand why people oppose gay marriage.



Because being gay is not a natural state of being. No animals do it.. The odd dog that sniffs another males dog's butt does not count.. no animals shack up with another animal of the same sex and only try to have sex with that partner.

Only Man because Man is stupid.

It's not "Love" it's sick twisted perversion. They use "love" as an excuse to make the perverted acts legal. Most sane, normal thinking people can see through this charade.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by UberL33t
 


I can't understand why people oppose gay marriage.



Because being gay is not a natural state of being. No animals do it.. The odd dog that sniffs another males dog's butt does not count.. no animals shack up with another animal of the same sex and only try to have sex with that partner.

Only Man because Man is stupid.

It's not "Love" it's sick twisted perversion. They use "love" as an excuse to make the perverted acts legal. Most sane, normal thinking people can see through this charade.


ARe you still going on about how animals don't have homosexuality?

Your kidding right?


Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] Homosexuality is best known from social species.


A quick google search proves you wrong.

Source

Your whole argument is based on what I just showed you to be VERY wrong.

What's your reasoning now?

~Keeper





[edit on 5/29/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Well, you got me. I was wrong about that one. But I still say it's unnatural. Animals were not created by God in Gods image and told for them it was wrong for man to be with another man. Animals it seems do not have this requirement.

I don't hate gay people. I have friends who are gay. I do believe they all suffer from mental illness.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Well, you got me. I was wrong about that one. But I still say it's unnatural. Animals were not created by God in Gods image and told for them it was wrong for man to be with another man. Animals it seems do not have this requirement.

I don't hate gay people. I have friends who are gay. I do believe they all suffer from mental illness.


Well as I respect your opinion, I think your wrong.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Really though, if we were created in god's image, how great can god be considering how we've turned out?

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
What is marriage? Can someone explain this to me so i can understand why anyone wants this in the first place?

Excellent. The best question asked in the entire thread. Homosexuals aren't after marriage. What they really want is recognition that their same-sex relationships are equal with heterosexual relationships. No one can give them that. Not because of some oppressive law or religion. No, nature itself dictates their relationships have less meaning.

That's not to say their level of love is less, but that their love has no meaningful implication that an organized society would bother to recognize. Homosexuals impact society no more or no less married or unmarried. I have no doubt that they may love their partner greatly. The question remains however, "Does it really matter to anyone else?"

Just to throw out the nonsense of this being some sort of religious right phobia, why doesn't communist China legalize homosexual marriage? Why doesn't Russia recognize homosexual marriages?



Originally posted by Oneolddude
Well, it is strange times we live in indeed.

The liberal,socialists defend both the rights of the gay populace and the Islamic zealots.

One faction would kill the other.

That's for sure. Islam and homosexuality do not play well together. Look at the map in Wikipedia that shows which countries have laws punishing homosexuality.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by dbates]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
We have had gay marriage in the UK for a while now and the skies did not fall in or the ground break open... Not even a plague of frogs to be seen anywhere... Live and let live... One rule for everyone or not at all... I personally think that those religious people who spout off about gays have issuse themselves....



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Wrong Dbates.

Sorry, but it's not that we want them recognized as equal by society.

We want them equal under law. I don't care what jack and jill think of my relationship.

If the government wants to put it's dirty hands in marriage and make it a lawfull institution as it currently is, then it must respect and make sure the law applies equally to all people.

It's not about nature, and it's not about social norms.

We don't care.

Most gays just want the right to file taxes together, to have the medical rights and the retirement benefits etc...

Were not looking for acceptance by straights, that's absurd. Sure some are, but they aren't representing the average homosexual.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by dbates
 

Most gays just want the right to file taxes together, to have the medical rights and the retirement benefits etc...

I have no issue with two people living together filing taxes jointly. Why not petition for equal treatment under tax laws. I'd say that was a valid argument if you want to make it. Medical and retirement benefits are dictated by private institutions. You can't claim government or religious oppression in either of those circumstances. Still no answer on why communist China doesn't recognize homosexual marriages.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by dbates
 

Most gays just want the right to file taxes together, to have the medical rights and the retirement benefits etc...

I have no issue with two people living together filing taxes jointly. Why not petition for equal treatment under tax laws. I'd say that was a valid argument if you want to make it. Medical and retirement benefits are dictated by private institutions. You can't claim government or religious oppression in either of those circumstances. Still no answer on why communist China doesn't recognize homosexual marriages.


As I don't live there I can't really speak about them not legalizing something.

I have no idea what the political or ideological climate is like in China, other than their lack of human rights...

The medical and retirement benefits where I live are from the government as I live in Canada, luckily we decided it was a non issue way back in the early 2000's and we no longer have a problem with that.

Again, I don't even want to call it marriage. Marriage has always been a religious institution,and if the religious don't want gays having that title then so be it. I'm fine with that.

However, we should have civil unions. I don't see what the problem is with having homosexuals have all the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple.

Is there a reason to not have such a thing?

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I have no idea what the political or ideological climate is like in China, other than their lack of human rights...

Just trying to point out that those arguing that the laws were structured as they are due to religious reasons were not correct. China is extremely anti-religious and has a similar stance on homosexual marriage as the U.S. does.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
However, we should have civil unions.
~Keeper

Agreed. Then we have no disagreement on this issue. I think the majority of disagreement and resistance comes from those seeing the hijacking of the word "marriage" to be something other than what it already is. If those pressing this issue would focus their efforts in this manner they might get something accomplished.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by dbates]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


For a long time I've said that those who represent the LGBT community in media, journalism and what have you are the single biggest reason we don't have equally.

They ruin it for everybody else by insisting on getting the extreme, without an offer to compromise on the issue.

I even tried being an advocate for LGBT in Canada, but I got snuffed out for not being "gay" enough. That whole movement is extremist. I guess that's the way the media want it though.

It's very sad they've been able to divide people and create such a fuss over a non issue like gay rights, specifically marriage.

I'm sure that 80% of those who oppose such a thing would change their minds to yes in an instant if we removed the word Marriage from the debate and replaced it with Civil Union, or Happy Rainbow Contract....whatever the hell they wanted to call it.

~Keeper




[edit on 5/29/2010 by tothetenthpower]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 




Happy Rainbow Contract


That's hilarious.

What get's me is how the LGBT is SUPER justified in the media though. Take the LOGO TV Network for example. I am sure there are those that oppose this network and the material that it broadcasts. Be that as it may, it's still considered okay. That's just this network, there are plenty of LGBT related programming on many networks.

So it's okay to broadcast the lifestyle on television but it's not okay to live it in real life? Just seems a$$ backwards to me.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by UberL33t
 


Don't even get me started on the "All Gay" tv channels. What a waste of time.

If I had gay children, and were attempting to raise them in such an environment, that's the last thing I would let them watch.

It's such a horrible representation of Gay affairs in general. It just stereotypes and gives fuel to homophobia.

Amazing isn't it? We've come to a point where the Gay Community is actually influencing what they are trying to get rid of.

~Keeper



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I see no reason to maintain the government's recognition of marriage for anyone.

I'd suggest civil unions for anyone who wants it, gays, straights, polygamists, etc, and if they want to make a religious thing out of it afterward then that's their business.

I see no reason the government should be involved in religious practice anyway, especially since calling homosexual unions "marriage" pretty much destroys it's meaning.

We have come down to a debate about semantics and have lost equal protection. To repeat another poster, One rule for all or No rule at all.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Excellent. The best question asked in the entire thread. Homosexuals aren't after marriage. What they really want is recognition that their same-sex relationships are equal with heterosexual relationships. No one can give them that. Not because of some oppressive law or religion. No, nature itself dictates their relationships have less meaning.


Finally, someone gets it.


Originally posted by dbatesI have no issue with two people living together filing taxes jointly. Why not petition for equal treatment under tax laws. I'd say that was a valid argument if you want to make it. Medical and retirement benefits are dictated by private institutions. You can't claim government or religious oppression in either of those circumstances.


I agree. Marriage is inherently a religious or personally emotional contract. Why did government get involved? Taxes and benefits. For equality purposes, any two adults should be able to enter into a partnership for benefits, property and shared responsibility. It should not be based on sexual orientation or even natural relationship. Two adult siblings living together should also be able to enter into a shared partnership if two married people can. Get government out of the marriage business and the morality of it is not an issue.

That being said, I don't think society should, as is or as a result of such action, be deeming homosexual relationships or behavior acceptable options or lauding them like they do. That is detrimental to civilization.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 




I have no doubt that they may love their partner greatly. The question remains however, "Does it really matter to anyone else?"


Apparently it matters a great deal to some fundamentalist Christians who campaign against gays and gay rights spreading bigoted messages of hate.

Homosexual relationships are not more or less valuable than heterosexual ones in any social or natural sense but that's no reason to deny them their equal rights under the law. Denying them the right to get married is just the majority oppressing a minority and apparently enough people care to commit this oppression and vote against gay marriage.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321


That being said, I don't think society should, as is or as a result of such action, be deeming homosexual relationships or behavior acceptable options or lauding them like they do. That is detrimental to civilization.



I don't think gays can be much more of a detriment to civilization than heterosexuals have been.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by FearNoEvil
reply to post by Nutter
 


Christians try to follow and obey the teachings of the New Testament - not the Old Testament.




Last I heard Matthew was part of the NEW Testament.


As far as the OT. Then why do I always see scripture from Leviticus from you people if you only follow the NT?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Nutter]

Your quote in your sig is from Deuteronomy not Mathew, God abolished the laws of the old testament. They were only there to prove to man that they couldn't follow every law and so they needed another way. God gave man whet they were asking for to prove a point, like a parent letting their child eat candy until they get a stomach ache to prove a point.
Anyways here is my opinion, keep marriage as the word to describe a union between male-female, pick another word to describe a union between same sex couples. Those who are opposed may not like it but that can't object if its called something else.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Homosexual relationships are not more or less valuable than heterosexual ones in any social or natural sense

Well, let's not forget about reproduction. Saying one relationship is the same as the other just isn't factual. Which is why I still think there needs to be a distinction of some sort if nothing other than the name of the contract.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Reproduction might be important if there were any risk of our species going extinct but with our numbers nearing seven billion I don't see a difference between heterosexual or homosexual relationships.

We've already established our species, time to settle down and find equilibrium with the planet. If anything our continued population spike actually puts the world at risk.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join