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.

 

ATS temperature on same sex marriage

page: 19
14
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Seeing as we are being asked for our opinion on this, I'll give mine.

I think same sex couples should have the RIGHT to get married.
I also think that religious clergy have the RIGHT to not perform the ceremonies or have them officiated in their Churches/Synogues/Mosques etc if it is against their religious beliefs.

So long as the rights of BOTH can be respected, and there is exemptions in the legislation to protect that right, then I'd support it.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


Doc..

Do you tolerate or affirm the following:

All of the above at one time were argued by opponents using the same exact arguments that you are making. Many of these are now considered societal norms.

Just want to know where you draw the line.


I like some more than others. I like rock & roll, unless it's after midnight and I have to work in the morning. The neighbors have it at a 10....I need it at a 2.

Whether or not someone else has made an argument on another topic doesn't really limit the appropriateness of making it here.

But you brought up polygamy.....

So what about it? if gay marriage should be legal, why not polygamy?

Why shouldn't it be legal to marry your pet llama, or a bicycle, or your sister, or a ghost, or a cartoon character.

Why not just get rid of marriage altogether, right?

That's why some of us are against re-defining marriage.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


I wasnt addressing any level of appropriatness here,
just asking whether or not you tolerate the items on the list of affirm them, and where you draw the line.

Essentially its about intellectual honesty, I dont think that is out of bounds in this discussion, so I will ask again...



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
Live and let live, that's what I say.

Same sex marriages dont hurt or affect anyone, so I dont see the problem.

Nothing much to add to that really


Besides the fact that it distances you farther away from god? Men were not created for other men, and if you believe in evolution the same applies. It's evil, causes diesease, rebels against god, and simply an abomination against humanity, and isn't good for anyone no matter "how good it feels"



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by imjustlikeyou

The reason that it takes both sexes to make a child is because it takes both sexes to raise them successfully. Why ignore that fact.



(snip)

Yes - it takes two components to produce a child. There is nothing wrong with the reproductive system of gays. They are attracted to the same sex - - that's all. Many gays have produced offspring with women. However TODAY - - in this modern Open world - - gays can live their lives as God made them. They don't have to pretend to be who they are not. Just like straight couples who can not conceive - - they can use modern methods.

Elton John's son - - IS -- Elton John's son. Did he use a surrogate? Yep - - just like many straight couples do.

No - - I don't have "father" issues. I just celebrated my 21st wedding anniversary.

 


Mod Note: Civility & Decorum are Expected Please Review This Link.
edit on 13-2-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)


I am hoping that somehwere you support your claims.

I will ask again.
What evidence is there that you are born "this way" as you claim or that god made them that way.
Are pedophiles born that way? Are adulterers born that way? How about philanderers and playboys?
Are men who are abusive to women born that way? How about (fill in the blanks)?
No, there are environmental factors that are being passed from mother to child that are making girls out of men and increasing female hormones through water and food that causes little girls to go through puberty at 4-5 and little boys grow breasts. If we clean up our food and water from these pollutants would we see less "gay" behavior?
Now if you want to discuss this as mature adults discussing mature content we can.
I suspect you will once again try and offend me and blow me off and pretend you didn't just learn something and go on with your witch hunt.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Gay people should absolutely be allowed to marry. Why should they be spared the misery the rest of us have to endure every damn day of our sad and pointless lives.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


I wasnt addressing any level of appropriatness here,
just asking whether or not you tolerate the items on the list of affirm them, and where you draw the line.

Essentially its about intellectual honesty, I dont think that is out of bounds in this discussion, so I will ask again...


I DO think it's beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion; you're asking me to unpack a whole barrel of red herrings. And why? I don't have to "prove" to your satisfaction that I'm not a mean person. The thread here was asking about the ATS views on gay marriage, and not whether those who disagree are automatically social neanderthals.

Which is basically what you are accusing me of.

Fine. Lets begin.

Interracial marriage. I affirm interracial marriage. And live it out with my wife, Frau Dr. (she no longer posts here, because she thinks ATS is a mean-spirited place; but that's a conversation for another day.)

Divorce. I tolerate divorce. While it is bad for everyone, is sometimes is the best option. Although if you look at the most recent studies, the damage to children is much more severe than previously measured. Still, it is necessary in many cases. It's even mandated by both Moses and Jesus, for a much wider array of reasons than their followers realize. But again, that's another thread.

A Jewish community. I affirm my local Jewish Community this way: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד "Sh'ma, Yisroel, Adonai elohecha, Adonia, Echud." (Hear, Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one.) And also this way: υμεις προσκυνειτε ο ουκ οιδατε ημεις προσκυνουμεν ο οιδαμεν οτι η σωτηρια εκ των ιουδαιων εστιν "Humeis proskuneite ho ouk oidate heymeis proskunoumenho oidamen hoti hey soteria et ton ioudiawon estin." (You worship you know not what; we worship what we know--because salvation is of the Jews.) I'll have the corned beef and kraut on rye, with a schmear of thousand island dressing, please.

Rock and roll music. It depends and varies widely. While I affirm the Doors, I only tolerate Katy Perry. See? It's highly contextual.

Women entering the workplace. Only if they want to. My wife has terminal degrees in two fields, and is a medical professional. But some women (and men!) are homemakers. Each woman, each family, has to make that choice themselves.

Women's suffrage. As much as I affirm male suffrage, yes. I wish that there were more exacting requirement than merely that you are 18 and can read one of the 20 languages printed on the ballot. And don't get me started on the secret ballot, either. Until after 1884, it was illegal to hold a secret ballot in most of the United States. Until that time, secret ballots were considered anti-democratic because they engendered conspiracies and vote fraud. Look up "Australian Ballot" (!) on wikipedia to learn more.

The Catholic faith. I don't affirm it, because I'm not a Catholic. I affirm a different denomination (protestant). I certainly tolerate them, even welcome them in the sphere of public discourse.

Cathiolics and protestants attending the same schools. Sure, if they want to. I think it's pretty obvious that their interests are better served, and their children better educated, in private schools. But not everyone can afford that.

Sex out of wedlock. I don't affirm that one. I think that every time you share sexual intimacy with someone, you create a lasting permanent spiritual bond with that person. Having partners that you wont spend the rest of your life with leaves your loyalty fragmented forever after. (from experience). I think it should be tolerated, because I don't think the state should police an individual's bedroom sexual politics. So tolerated it, yes. But I wouldn't lift it up as a societal good.

Polygamous relationships. No. Intolerant. I don't believe it is possible to practice polygamy without some spouse being made inferior. I don't think it is good for society to have a number of "Junior sister wives" in our society. But I guess a pro-gay marriage enthusiast might say that "it's no one else's business, if they want to." Of course, places like the FLDS compound in EL Dorado Texas could then become the new societal norm. sister-wives indeed.

Racial integration. I'm all for it. since race is a political, rather than a biological category, it is fundamentally impossible to accurately track, let alone enforce any such isolation. I wish we'd remove race as a category from government forms like the census and college entrance exams. Since any data stored is inevitably abused, it's only a matter of time until some racist data-mines all of the local minorities and attacks them. I usually put down "unknown" when asked about my children's race. It's funny because, govt workers won't assign race if you don't--they could be sued for putting you in the "wrong race category." It's like south africa before 1990 in some ways....

Now that I've given you all the ammo you'd need for a nice round of attacks on my character, why don't we get back to the topic of this thread?

edit on 15-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: fixing highlights and bolds



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


manna2 - - - first of all I don't do long barely comprehensible rants.

Try picking one or two points for discussion.

As one female scientist put it - - - sexuality is no longer looked on as Black and White - - - sexuality is All Shades of Gray.

"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause."
discovermagazine.com...

No I am not saying Gay is a disease - - but Malaria was real - - long before scientists discovered its origin.

Do I think pedophiles and certain behaviors are born. Actually Yes (at least a disposition to certain behavior). Neurophysiological brain research is a fast growing field.

From Live Science: Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals: www.livescience.com...

Science, genetics and homosexual marriage: . . . switching one single gene in a female fruit fly (the common name for Drosophilia) turned her gay. A previously heterosexual fruit fly suddenly began performing the mating ritual as if she were a male. www.rawstory.com...

I realize my posting style is simplistic - - that is by choice. I intentionally only post in threads that I can give opinion.

I can Google and provide scientific reports and links - - - - just as opposition can Google and provide reports and links.

On controversial issues - - its isn't always a useful tool. Therefore - I will stick with personal opinion from my 20 year involvement of gay Legal Marriage rights.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
No problem with it but am against same sex couples adopting.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay.



You cannot prove a negative assertion with a lack of evidence. It is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance
edit on 15-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: adding prepositions



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by Annee

"Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay.



You cannot prove a negative assertion with a lack of evidence. It is the logical fallacy known as


Did you bother to read the entire article?

I think you just want to believe - what you want to believe.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I DO think it's beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion; you're asking me to unpack a whole barrel of red herrings. And why? I don't have to "prove" to your satisfaction that I'm not a mean person. The thread here was asking about the ATS views on gay marriage, and not whether those who disagree are automatically social neanderthals.

Which is basically what you are accusing me of.


Not making any sort of allegations, I am sure you are a wonderful person, obvisouly well educated with a solid head on your shoulders. This has nothing to do with being a social neanderthal or not. This simply has to do with where dr strangecraft draws the line.

Interracial marriage. I affirm interracial marriage. And live it out with my wife, Frau Dr. (she no longer posts here, because she thinks ATS is a mean-spirited place; but that's a conversation for another day.)

I think this might be the most telling of all statements. There are places in the world where your type of marriage is viewed in the same light that you view same sex marriage. You have no problem with interracial marriage and in fact are living it. Why? because you are in love with a person of a different race. Just as someone may be in love with someone of the same sex. You affirm one, but will not affirm the other.

I by no means whatsoever want to attack you or your character, so please dont get your back up here. I suppose it simply boils down to a belief in what being gay actually is. Is it a choice? Is it biological? We are now seeing same sex attraction is other species. Is that biological or is it a choice of the animal?

If one thinks that being gay is a choice, how can they ever see them as the same as anyone else. Being bacl is not a choice. Being born a female is not choice. When we all believe that being gay is not a choice, then we will begin to move forward.

Question for all of those who think that being gay is a choice. Could you choose to be gay? or are you simply choosing to not be gay? Is all sexual prefereence a choice?





posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme




There are places in the world where your type of marriage is viewed in the same light that you view same sex marriage.


More true than you know. My wife was once physically accosted in such a setting when it was learned that she was married to me.



You have no problem with interracial marriage and in fact are living it. Why? because you are in love with a person of a different race. Just as someone may be in love with someone of the same sex. You affirm one, but will not affirm the other.


She has never returned to where she was accosted by her own people. We live in an area where our backgrounds are not considered relevant to most. We don't live in an area where our marriage is not recognized, and demand that "they" change their social norms to suit us.



I suppose it simply boils down to a belief in what being gay actually is. Is it a choice? Is it biological? We are now seeing same sex attraction is other species. Is that biological or is it a choice of the animal?


Desires are what happen to us. They spring from the unconscious, and from instinct. What makes us human is the fact that we humans can decide how we will respond to those desires. I understand that you may not be a religious person; but indulge me, and please permit me to use religious language, since religion and philosophy have covered this ground extensively in our culture's past:

Temptation and sin are two different things. Temptation comes from realizing that we could choose a particular path. That knowledge isn't sin. Sin only comes into play when we willingly choose the path of the negative desire, or make it more likely that we won't be able to exercise temperance. If I am on a diet, looking at a slice of cheesecake is not sin. The sin occurs only when I eat it, and am not true to myself. I could tell myself that I am fat because I was born this way....I have always wanted cheesecake. So does that make it OK to be fat? Is it the case that I never had a genuine choice?

OK enough religious language.

As I've stated before, I don't really believe in hard and fast categories like "gay" or "straight," which totally ignores bisexuals. If some are born gay, are others born... bisexual? Or born... to experiment? We all feel urges. And what about transexuals. They were born one way... but they changed themselves.

The only question is how we respond to our urges. I believe that you and I are only as gay or as straight as our most recent sexual encounter. I think our gender probably morphs constantly through our lives.

There is a fundamental argument that I have never seen refuted. It is quite simply this: There are only two kinds of sex acts. Consenting sex acts, versus non-consenting acts. If you consented to the act. This means you chose to have the encounter. Unless it was rape, every single sex act was a choice.

Just like if I am obese. I may have a genetic pre-disposition to obesity. I may have a weakness for cheesecake. But if I held the fork, if no one took a funnel and forced the food down my gullet all those years, then... obesity has been my choice up till now.

Now, it's a lot easier to say "I was born this way." But the truth is, I made the choices that brought me to this point. I gave in to my genetics, if you want. But I can make other choices from now on. I can choose what I will do in the future. If I consented to all those meals, then my obesity has been a choice. Just like my sexual encounters have been a choice.




Question for all of those who think that being gay is a choice. Could you choose to be gay? or are you simply choosing to not be gay? Is all sexual prefereence a choice?


[joke] I would not, did not, choose to be gay, Sam I am. I do not like my sex that way [/joke]

Seriously. I have had gay men make a pass at me, a time or two in college. There were guys in high school that experimented in the locker room, they said. I wasn't interested. But I've been really desirous before, and I can understand why they experimented. So yeah. I am comfortable saying I have always chosen heterosexuality up to this point.

But I have a counter question, YDNSM,

What about the guys in high school, who just experimented some, but got married to women and have remained married every since? Are they "gay" forever because of something they did back in their youth? Or were they actually straight, and those experiments "don't count" toward their "real" gender identity?

If ONE person changes their team, what would that mean? If ONE person changed from gay to straight or straight to gay, would that mean that they had a choice? Or just that they were confused because The Advocate wasn't there with a list of top ten signs that you were gay all along? Or maybe we should quit labeling people as either, and just say you are as straight or as gay as you feel, today.

See, it all comes back to consensual sex = choice.

I don't think we need to redefine marriage to suit 10% (at the very most) of the affected population. I don't think that the minority tiny matters more than the majority, or should get to make all the rules. For me, that's what the question boils down to.

edit on 15-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: to fix quotes



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
,But I have a counter question, YDNSM,

What about the guys in high school, who just experimented some, but got married to women and have remained married every since? Are they "gay" forever because of something they did back in their youth? Or were they actually straight, and those experiments "don't count" toward their "real" gender identity?

edit on 15-2-2011 by dr_strangecraft because: to fix quotes


Thank you much for your debate on this topic, I feel it added quite a bit to the discussion, and I appreciate your point of view.

To answer your question, any level of experimentation certainly does not even come into the debate here. To me, one is born gay or straight, or as you correctly pointed out, bisexual. One may be born homosexual, but never once have homosexual relations, and choose to live their life following societal norms as a heterosexual, but they are still as they were born, and only they would know.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I DO think it's beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion; you're asking me to unpack a whole barrel of red herrings. And why? I don't have to "prove" to your satisfaction that I'm not a mean person. The thread here was asking about the ATS views on gay marriage, and not whether those who disagree are automatically social neanderthals.

Which is basically what you are accusing me of.


Not making any sort of allegations, I am sure you are a wonderful person, obvisouly well educated with a solid head on your shoulders. This has nothing to do with being a social neanderthal or not. This simply has to do with where dr strangecraft draws the line.

Interracial marriage. I affirm interracial marriage. And live it out with my wife, Frau Dr. (she no longer posts here, because she thinks ATS is a mean-spirited place; but that's a conversation for another day.)

I think this might be the most telling of all statements. There are places in the world where your type of marriage is viewed in the same light that you view same sex marriage. You have no problem with interracial marriage and in fact are living it. Why? because you are in love with a person of a different race. Just as someone may be in love with someone of the same sex. You affirm one, but will not affirm the other.

I by no means whatsoever want to attack you or your character, so please dont get your back up here. I suppose it simply boils down to a belief in what being gay actually is. Is it a choice? Is it biological? We are now seeing same sex attraction is other species. Is that biological or is it a choice of the animal?

If one thinks that being gay is a choice, how can they ever see them as the same as anyone else. Being bacl is not a choice. Being born a female is not choice. When we all believe that being gay is not a choice, then we will begin to move forward.

Question for all of those who think that being gay is a choice. Could you choose to be gay? or are you simply choosing to not be gay? Is all sexual prefereence a choice?



Is it from environmental excitotoxins and female hormones in water and food supply?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

To answer your question, any level of experimentation certainly does not even come into the debate here. To me, one is born gay or straight, or as you correctly pointed out, bisexual. One may be born homosexual, but never once have homosexual relations, and choose to live their life following societal norms as a heterosexual, but they are still as they were born, and only they would know.



I appreciate your view, and want to expand on it.

You mention that "any level of experimentation certainly does not come into the debate here."

But who decides, ultimately, whether a person is "just experimenting," or "really" gay. I think that making such distinctions involves imposing simplistic labels on a complex constellations of sexual thoughts and acts.

I will use a hetero example for comparison. I experimented with promiscuity in college. Since then, I have decided that monogamy is the only way to be true to myself and what I stand for. So, am I a monogamist who experimented with promiscuity way back then; or am I a promiscuous guy experimenting with monogamy (for a decade and a half!).

If gay people sometimes have straight encounters, or straight people sometime have gay encounters, then that is a pretty telling sign that our labels aren't really describing human behavior. (I believe they merely describe our political stances). To make those labels work, you have to slap a label on someone, and disregard the moments when the label doesn't apply.

Even more confusing, many in the "gender is determined at birth" crowd want to make it about thoughts and feelings instead of overt sexual practice. Which is ridiculous. Watch this:

Imagine me having a gay thought. Now a straight thought. now a gay thought. and back to having a straight thought.

Did my orientation change twice in the past minute? Or do half of my thoughts "not count" when defining my gender label? I'm not asking you to agree with me; but can you see why I believe that all the labels based on attraction (gay, straight, bi) are fairly useless? Now, you can try to tell me that there are some gay people who never once have a straight thought passing through their mind. But that is just as silly as claiming that some straight people never have gay thoughts. See?

I hope this wasn't too convoluted (I've had loads of coffee this morning, and the ideas are coming pretty fast). But based on the above, I arrive at the following conclusions.

1. Labels like "gay" and "straight" are fairly useless for describing a person's whole emotional life.
2. Sex labels can only really work to describe outward appearance or behavior; until we can read each other's minds, labeling thoughts is a doomed enterprise.
3. Since consensual sex is a choice, people are not "locked in" to their gender roles for the whole course of their lives, unless they want to be.
4. Since (many) people (can or do) actually migrate in and out of what are essentially political labels over the course of their lives, changing long-standing definitions and traditions only serves to devalue those definitions and traditions, without serving enough people to make the sacrifice by the majority worthwhile.

That's where I'm coming from.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I will use a hetero example for comparison. I experimented with promiscuity in college. Since then, I have decided that monogamy is the only way to be true to myself and what I stand for. So, am I a monogamist who experimented with promiscuity way back then; or am I a promiscuous guy experimenting with monogamy (for a decade and a half!).


Only you can answer that, but if you were to ask me I would that you are monogamous, who explored promiscuity whilst exploring to identify your sexual identity. You were monogamous before and monogamous after.



Imagine me having a gay thought. Now a straight thought. now a gay thought. and back to having a straight thought.
Did my orientation change twice in the past minute?


No it didnt change, that would make you a bisexual.



I hope this wasn't too convoluted (I've had loads of coffee this morning, and the ideas are coming pretty fast). But based on the above, I arrive at the following conclusions.


I have yet to have either -eine- yet, caffeine or nicotine, forgive me as well



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Did my orientation change twice in the past minute?


I believe what was stated is: your orientation does not change no matter what you do. You are born as you are

If you are straight - you are straight - - no matter what you do - think or experiment.

If you are gay - you are gay - - no matter what you do - think or experiment.

Then there is Bi - - but every Bi I've ever talked to or heard talk - although they enjoy sex with both sexes - - leans one way or the other. In other words - - they are more attracted to same sex or opposite sex.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
wow, can this be more confusing?
And you think you are born like this?
You cannot for one minute recognize that environmental pollutants are the biggest problem causing these tendencies.
Well, that and much looser morals in society as I have to suffer and watch as they sexualize little girls ever more every day.

And if you do not think that is confusing.
What about the japanese guy that married his robot.
Some guy married a goat as well.
Are they born that way, and sometimes they experiment?
I mean, huh?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by manna2
...You cannot for one minute recognize that environmental pollutants are the biggest problem causing these tendencies...

Which environmental pollutants?
Homosexuality has been around quite a lot longer than the wide-spread dissemination of environmental pollutants.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join