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.

 

Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

page: 10
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Don't believe or care about marriage since it is something that is derived from religious institutions. The state should not recognize marriages, but should only recognize civil unions between two consenting adults. The churches themselves should decide whom to marry. Marriage is a private matter..A civil union should be no different in regards to the benefits a married couple would have now.

That is pretty much how we have it in Sweden. Though it has been upgraded from "registered partnership" to "marriage" and the church decided, after voting, to wed gay couples.

"Same-sex marriage in Sweden has been legal since 1 May 2009, following the adoption of a new, gender-neutral law on marriage by the Swedish parliament on 1 April 2009, making Sweden the seventh country in the world to open marriage to same sex couples nationwide. Existing registered partnerships will remain in force, and can be converted to a marriage if the parties so desire, either through a written application or through a formal ceremony. New registered partnerships will no longer be able to be entered into and marriage will be the only legally recognized form of union for couples regardless of sex.

On 22 October 2009, the governing board of the Church of Sweden, voted 176–62 in favour of allowing its priests to wed same-sex couples in new gender-neutral church ceremonies, including the use of the term marriage.Same-sex marriages were performed by the church from 1 November 2009."

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
It should be no one's damn business as long as they are of of age. It's their life let them do what the hell they want.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
There is no logical argument for marriage to be regulated by laws at all. This non-issue will persist until the legal institute of marriage is finally abolished.
It is not governments business to regulate personal romantic relationships.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
My partner and I had a Civil Union.

It was lovely, and we did it,in part, in support of Gay Marriage.

Mainly we did it for ourselves as a legal 'get around' from the religiously-based ritual, and becuase we love each other, deeply. She is my rock.




We have no regrets, are not gay, not religious,but fully support anyone anywhere who loves another and wishes to show that through Union.

edit on 22-5-2011 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

If you mean AIDS then you need to do your homework:

www.avert.org...

Global HIV and AIDS estimates, end of 2009

The latest statistics of the global HIV and AIDS epidemic were published by UNAIDS in November 2010, and refer to the end of 2009.

Estimate Range
People living with HIV/AIDS in 2009 33.3 million 31.4-35.3 million
Adults living with HIV/AIDS in 2009 30.8 million 29.2-32.6 million
Women living with HIV/AIDS in 2009 15.9 million 14.8-17.2 million
Children living with HIV/AIDS in 2009 2.5 million 1.6-3.4 million
People newly infected with HIV in 2009 2.6 million 2.3-2.8 million
Adults newly infected with HIV in 2009 2.2 million 2.0-2.4 million
AIDS deaths in 2009 1.8 million 1.6-2.1 million
Orphans (0-17) due to AIDS in 2009 16.6 million 14.4-18.8 million

At the end of 2009, women accounted for just over half of all adults living with HIV worldwide.

By far. there are more heterosexual people with AIDS than homosexual. It is just a Western society peculiarity that AIDS is more predominant in homosexual people.

All other STDs are just as common among heterosexuals as they are homosexuals I am afraid. So not a valid argument either sorry.


edit on 22-5-2011 by markosity1973 because: Add link



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 


I agree with you totally. I was just trying to see it from the short-sighted business point of view.
I don't know why gays would want to get married except for the benefits.
A lot of us straight folk learned the hard way!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
heres my logic

with all thats happening right now

how the hell can we be having this conversation

we have much more serious issues to deal with then gays

im at the point where im so sick of hearing about gays and gay marriage, the next time someone talks to me about gay marriage in person im going to punch the in the face whether they are gay or straight

im frankly just fed up with hearing about gay marriage and im even more fed up with hearing about gays
why is EVERYONE SO OBSESSED WITH SEX!?!?


everyone wants everything instantly

people dont realize its still relatively new to not have black people as slaves

let alone consider how new it is to ACCEPT gay people

this whole side of the world was only discovered a bit over 500 years ago

we still have very serious issues to deal with, much more then MARRIAGE

50+ percent of marriages all fail anyways
marriage doesnt mean a damn thing in this world anymore PERIOD

i dont give a damn whether or not gays marry, what i care about is how much resources this ignorant topic keeps wasting while we are in world war!

seriously, our nation is coming apart at the seems, we are bankrupt, we are stretched thin in wars, we have our own govt fear mongering us EVEry single day, we are struggling with health care, drought, floods, famine

yet we are here talking about gay marriage

if i was gay, right now i wouldnt be worrying about who i can marry, id be worrying about the issues above along with the issues that are affecting us that i havent bothered to mention

this world is in dire straights and we're playing games over what hole people can put it in while married

pathetic

it really is

call me anti gay, call me whatever you want, like i said though, you want to be gay, fine i dont care, its none of my business, its none of anyones business, just shut up and lets fix the world, fix the real problems that affects ALL OF HUMANITY not just the gays

in my opinion right now the gays are being selfish
we all see the problems this world is facing, they could easily back down and bring up the fight again at a better time

seriously yes i am serious, marriage means nothing

its time for reality people



what i shouldve put is the censored banner that mods always put up after deleting my posts for simply telling it how it is and speaking truths



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The only logical argument against gay marriage is that despite what some people might say, it does open the pathway to other forms of "unique" marriages. Once you unlock the traditional doors of marriage to other forms of marriage, what justification do you have to limit it only to straight couples marrying and homosexual couples marrying?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by No Retreat No Surrender
I would simply say because its not natural and is not as nature intended. Neanderthal man knew that man was ment to be with women. Otherwise half the world would now be gay. Man is not ment to be with man. Thats the wrong way to go.

Here is a looong list of documented evidence of animals who display homosexual or transgender behavior: en.wikipedia.org...

So to say it is not natural and not as nature intended does not work as an argument.

p.s you do know that the neanderthal race did die out?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


Well if you say "marriage is between a man and a woman", then that as in itself against gay marriage.

There is a "but" in this,

but if you change the definition of marriage, then sure, gay marriage will become logical.

Don't worry about changing the definition though, it is already on the way. Google definition has:

1. "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."
and
2. "A similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex."

So they are already adding extensions, then from extensions they will slowly change the actual definition from formal union between man and woman, to formal union between same sex couples.

----------------

Why don't they label the official union of the same sex couples something different?

After all, it doesn't fit with the definition of marriage. I just don't get it, maybe some one can help me explain which is more logical, labeling the official union of same sex marriage something other than marriage, or changing the definition of marriage? It is so so



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The only logical argument against gay marriage is that despite what some people might say, it does open the pathway to other forms of "unique" marriages. Once you unlock the traditional doors of marriage to other forms of marriage, what justification do you have to limit it only to straight couples marrying and homosexual couples marrying?


Definition of Marriage: "Official Union between a Tree and a Man or Woman".

Definition of Marriage: "Official Union between a Male or Female Dog and a Man or Woman".

Am I predicting the future correctly?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The only logical argument against gay marriage is that despite what some people might say, it does open the pathway to other forms of "unique" marriages. Once you unlock the traditional doors of marriage to other forms of marriage, what justification do you have to limit it only to straight couples marrying and homosexual couples marrying?


Definition of Marriage: "Official Union between a Tree and a Man or Woman".

Definition of Marriage: "Official Union between a Male or Female Dog and a Man or Woman".

Am I predicting the future correctly?


Close... but I don't think a tree and a dog can consent to a relationship like marriage. I was thinking more along the lines of:

Definition of Marriage: "Official Union between incestuous couples and polyamorous couples (which would make the latter polygamy)."



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by confreak

----------------

Why don't they label the official union of the same sex couples something different?

After all, it doesn't fit with the definition of marriage. I just don't get it, maybe some one can help me explain which is more logical, labeling the official union of same sex marriage something other than marriage, or changing the definition of marriage? It is so so

Actually, my partner and I had a Civil Union.
We hold no god high thus we sought no authority from the 'sky faeries'.

This was our choice and ours alone and I would support any others (gay or straight) to do the same.
edit on 22-5-2011 by aorAki because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


The crappy thing about civil unions, and correct me if I'm mistaken, is that civil unions offer less benefits to those of marriages. So in that sense it is as if the government is recognizing homosexuals as second class citizens because they are only being offered a legal service inferior to marriage... yet for most intents and purposes civil unions are a form of marriage... only less than.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The only logical argument against gay marriage is that despite what some people might say, it does open the pathway to other forms of "unique" marriages. Once you unlock the traditional doors of marriage to other forms of marriage, what justification do you have to limit it only to straight couples marrying and homosexual couples marrying?


So gay marriage is a gateway union?


edit on 22-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
The arguments against gay marriage are the same as those against marriage in general - the state should not be involved in the private relationships between people. Churches that wish to make ceremonies and stuff can certainly choose who they do that for, otherwise it is a contract between individuals and really not the business of others.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by aorAki
 


The crappy thing about civil unions, and correct me if I'm mistaken, is that civil unions offer less benefits to those of marriages. So in that sense it is as if the government is recognizing homosexuals as second class citizens because they are only being offered a legal service inferior to marriage... yet for most intents and purposes civil unions are a form of marriage... only less than.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



Fortunately in this country it is legally recognised,with all the benefits of those religiously married.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The only logical argument against gay marriage is that despite what some people might say, it does open the pathway to other forms of "unique" marriages. Once you unlock the traditional doors of marriage to other forms of marriage, what justification do you have to limit it only to straight couples marrying and homosexual couples marrying?


So gay marriage is a gateway union?


edit on 22-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)


Lmao kind of. A person just becomes hard-pressed to say that homosexuals are being discriminated against because they aren't allowed to marry, and then using that as justification to expand marriage to homosexual couples as well. But if that's the case, then this person also has to be accepting of the fact that incestuous and polyamorous couples deserve the right to marry their partner(s) as well, because it is discriminatory not to allow them to marry the one(s) they love.

As it stands, since marriage is a government-sanctioned practice, it is more of a contract than anything else.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Well now that we have a machine which translates between Human and Dolphin language, wouldn't future versions of this machine translate other animal languages like Dogs. We are already familiar that dogs clearly understand humans, their commands etc, so the possibility is 99%, the perception is unknown.

I see your point regarding polygamy.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by aorAki
 


The crappy thing about civil unions, and correct me if I'm mistaken, is that civil unions offer less benefits to those of marriages. So in that sense it is as if the government is recognizing homosexuals as second class citizens because they are only being offered a legal service inferior to marriage... yet for most intents and purposes civil unions are a form of marriage... only less than.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



Fortunately in this country it is legally recognised,with all the benefits of those religiously married.


Do you live in the US by chance? Because I've heard that civil unions offer less benefits than its marriage counterpart, which has been used as a reason to legalize gay marriage.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join