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 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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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?
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)
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)
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.