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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
It's actually entirely possible to create a baby from the genes of a homosexual couple, related to both parents. So reproduction isn't an issue, except with a male homosexual couple where a surrogate mother would be needed.

Marriage is a man-made institution. We give marriage it's definition, it does not exist outside of human influence. What's the problem with expanding it to include homosexual couples?




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
It's actually entirely possible to create a baby from the genes of a homosexual couple, related to both parents.

You're kidding right? That's only been done with mice. All the offspring were female and only 2 of 460 attempts resulted in offspring that developed properly. To suggest that any two women could go order up a baby with just their genes is like saying you could go to Mars next week. It's nearly impossible and so cost prohibitive that it would never be common-place.


Originally posted by PieKeeper
So reproduction isn't an issue, except with a male homosexual couple where a surrogate mother would be needed.

Right, and I'm rich except for when I'm poor, I can fly except for when gravity works. The fact is that two same-sex individuals can not have a baby alone. They would be fighting nature, not bigots.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
You're kidding right? That's only been done with mice. All the offspring were female and only 2 of 460 attempts resulted in offspring that developed properly. To suggest that any two women could go order up a baby with just their genes is like saying you could go to Mars next week. It's nearly impossible and so cost prohibitive that it would never be common-place.


I never said it was feasible at this moment, but it is possible, like you have shown. Advances in technology will eventually make it feasible.

In any case, reproduction is no reason to deny individuals a freedom that the majority are allowed to partake in.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Regardless of race, sexual preference, religion etc..

We should all be treated equally under the law. The fact is currently, we are not treated as such.

There should be no such thing as 2nd class citizens.

~Keeper


Well social norms drive everything. Do you see gays as 2nd class citizens? My whole point by asking questions dealing with age consent and polygamy along with many other lifestyles and behaviors is that society drives what is considered ok or not ok. Even gays people see many other lifestyles as not really ok, but they see their own as just fine and I’m sure that is the way with everyone that are different than what main stream society views as normal.

So with all that said we have many that think it is just horrid practice that society may have negative views on JUST the gay lifestyle, but everyone, even the gays, do not accept all lifestyles either. With the gay community they have most surely have been the squeaky wheel so to speak and have a lot of backing in money along with Hollywood’s own special lifestyle views that they think are social norms but are not.

This has created a special category for the gays in the form of hypersensitivity that so many other groups are not afford the same equality. So the question is whether the gay lifestyle is some speical group or just another group that doesn’t follow societies norms, and I see them as just that, just another group that live within their own norms that the majority do not agree with, but hey with enough money and Hollywood influence that can change since they done a rather good job at it these last 40 years.




[edit on 31-5-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:34 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.



Well I'm not so sure they are not after marriage. I agree that any two people should be able to enter into a legal agreement of responsibility so that they can make any and all decisions on the other, but I do not think that is merely the case here, and I'm not sure that a contract can't be done already.

If a group that lived a lifestyle outside of societies norms and they wanted their behaviors to be unconditionally accepted by society then to have it unconditionally accepted by the government and the law is the direction they would want to go. In this case marriage is their holy grail to meet this agenda, and what is commonly referred to as the gay agenda.


[edit on 31-5-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
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.


China also has a 1 child policy. Of which has caused many female babies to be killed to further the name.

Do we really want to compare ourselves with China?

If anything, it shows just how closer to China the US is instead of the western countries such as Britain, Canada, Holland etc. who have legalized gay marriage.



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]


Personally, I have no issue with it being seperate. The problem arises when we realize "seperate but equal" is rarely actually equal in real life.

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
The fact is that two same-sex individuals can not have a baby alone.


Why do homosexuals need to reproduce when we have heterosexuals breeding like rabbits and then giving the babies to the state?

And before I hear that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals. I'll say that the only problem that people who grow up in a homosexual setting encounter is from heterosexual society.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by dbates
The fact is that two same-sex individuals can not have a baby alone.


Why do homosexuals need to reproduce when we have heterosexuals breeding like rabbits and then giving the babies to the state?

And before I hear that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals. I'll say that the only problem that people who grow up in a homosexual setting encounter is from heterosexual society.



homsexuals might be better parents, but there is a study out that says more kids commit suicide while having homosexual parents.

looking for the article and already a thread posted here:


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


And DeathTribble's response is exactly what I'm talking about.


Originally posted by DeathTribble
Here's the problem I have with this research. It has practically nothing to do w/ the effects of having gay parents and everything to do with the effects of living in a society that views gays as wrong and aberrant.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join