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: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by quietlearner
 


It may have been poorly phrased, but it isn't any less arrogant (and actually is even more arrogant) to say that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals do not deserve to be married with the blessing of God.

That kind of mindset is directly taking the supernatural position of God that no human who practices an Abrahamic religion has the right to take.

My philosophy is that everything can be countered.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


well a solution would be to create a new religion were homosexual holy marriage is accepted, you can even make it the norm. but gays wont do that, because its not a holy being's approval they are after but their complete acceptance and integration of their lifestyle in society




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 




I think it can be called selfish to a degree because you want all the benefits of marriages
What are these so called "benefits" you speak of? Marriage is nothing more than a glorified legal contract between two people, and I do not want to get married either. Anyone can have a special ceremony, you don't have to get legally married, and I don't see why gays really care to be honest. But I guess it's just about the principal of the thing, that's why they care, people should be treated equally, and surely not based upon their sexual preference for christ sake.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


If you’re going to call it “marriage” then fair enough, if it does not have a religious component in my mind it is not a true marriage however it is social recognised by it is not recognised in the eyes of the Church.

If this thread is about homosexuals entering into a civil partnership/ union or some other social and legal recognition of their partnership I have no objection.

If this thread is about homosexuals entering into holy matrimony then I have a very big objection.

This is obvious, and comes across in many like minded replies. The problem is it aint logical. Just because your church says so, doesnt mean it is. Christ had nothing to say about homosexuality.
Do unto others as you would be done by!
Remember this?
Akushla





posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


No I am only talking about Christianity and other religions were homosexuality is not compatible with aspects of their religious dogma. If the Hindu faith can facilitate a homosexual marriage within its set of believes then so be it I cannot object.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman. That being said, the government shouldn't be involved in religious ceremonies anyway. I also believe "to each their own". I can care less if the state wants to recognize civil unions. They can have the same tax breaks as a man and a woman. As far as them adopting, I would much rather a child be loved by a same sex couple, than neglected by a irresponsible man and woman. Overall though, I don't know what the big deal is. I've been married twice and its not all its cracked up to be.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


As has been stated many, many, many times. Marriage as an institution is a civil process. It's all well and good saying 'well I was married in a church so its fine,' but as far as the state, the tax man and all the other numerous appendages of the government it means nothing. Married in the eyes of God may be all that matters to you, but your marriage needs to be officially recognised and recorded by the state.

There is no logical argument for gay people not to be allowed to be married. Perhaps you could make an argument against them entering into holy '-matrimony' or whatever, but not for denying them something which is their fundamental right to have.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by quietlearner
 




I think it can be called selfish to a degree because you want all the benefits of marriages
What are these so called "benefits" you speak of? Marriage is nothing more than a glorified legal contract between two people, and I do not want to get married either. Anyone can have a special ceremony, you don't have to get legally married, and I don't see why gays really care to be honest. But I guess it's just about the principal of the thing, that's why they care, people should be treated equally, and surely not based upon their sexual preference for christ sake.


I will appreciate it if you don't cut parts of what I say.
there are many benefits of registering a marriage with the government,
tax breaks, citizenship to name a few.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by quietlearner
 


It may have been poorly phrased, but it isn't any less arrogant (and actually is even more arrogant) to say that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals do not deserve to be married with the blessing of God.

That kind of mindset is directly taking the supernatural position of God that no human who practices an Abrahamic religion has the right to take.

My philosophy is that everything can be countered.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


well a solution would be to create a new religion were homosexual holy marriage is accepted, you can even make it the norm. but gays wont do that, because its not a holy being's approval they are after but their complete acceptance and integration of their lifestyle in society


As homosexuals have a right to try and achieve. And those "new" religions already exist, but they are modified versions of older religions. There are different sects of religions that have a main branch and belief system. Within those different sects exist sects that accept homosexuals and are willing to marry them.

The biggest hurdle? Making gay marriage legal. Which would just make it marriage.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JackofBlades
 


I have no problem with homosexuals entering into a socially and legally recognised partnership.

I only have a problem with people who argue that homosexuals should be married in holy matrimony.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


No I am only talking about Christianity and other religions were homosexuality is not compatible with aspects of their religious dogma. If the Hindu faith can facilitate a homosexual marriage within its set of believes then so be it I cannot object.




That's fair. I really don't see what the big deal is then. There are sects of Christianity, and for all I know sects of other religions that do accept homosexuals and who would recognize homosexual marriages. I take it that you wouldn't object to that?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by quietlearner
 


It may have been poorly phrased, but it isn't any less arrogant (and actually is even more arrogant) to say that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals do not deserve to be married with the blessing of God.

That kind of mindset is directly taking the supernatural position of God that no human who practices an Abrahamic religion has the right to take.

My philosophy is that everything can be countered.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


well a solution would be to create a new religion were homosexual holy marriage is accepted, you can even make it the norm. but gays wont do that, because its not a holy being's approval they are after but their complete acceptance and integration of their lifestyle in society


As homosexuals have a right to try and achieve. And those "new" religions already exist, but they are modified versions of older religions. There are different sects of religions that have a main brand and belief system. Within those different sects exist sects that accept homosexuals and are willing to marry them.

The biggest hurdle? Making gay marriage legal. Which would just make it marriage.


I think it should be legal and they should have all the same rights
but just because its legal does not mean it would be just marriage, it will be a civil union



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by quietlearner
 


It may have been poorly phrased, but it isn't any less arrogant (and actually is even more arrogant) to say that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals do not deserve to be married with the blessing of God.

That kind of mindset is directly taking the supernatural position of God that no human who practices an Abrahamic religion has the right to take.

My philosophy is that everything can be countered.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


well a solution would be to create a new religion were homosexual holy marriage is accepted, you can even make it the norm. but gays wont do that, because its not a holy being's approval they are after but their complete acceptance and integration of their lifestyle in society


As homosexuals have a right to try and achieve. And those "new" religions already exist, but they are modified versions of older religions. There are different sects of religions that have a main brand and belief system. Within those different sects exist sects that accept homosexuals and are willing to marry them.

The biggest hurdle? Making gay marriage legal. Which would just make it marriage.


I think it should be legal and they should have all the same rights
but just because its legal does not mean it would be just marriage, it will be a civil union


Why wouldn't it be marriage?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Finally I am getting through to someone; yes my religion does not believe that homosexuality is compatible with the sacrament of marriage so I cannot condone it within my Church. However I have no objection to other religions that do condone homosexual marriage or homosexuals entering a social and legal recognition of their partnership.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
Yes, there sure is. "Marriage" is a ritual derived from Christian origins between a man and a women. There is no authority derived from the state other than what that religion allows the state to perform in it's stead.

Being that Christian religion negates same sex orientation so does it negate same sex marriage. If gay people want to hook up on the same level legally they are going to have to call it something else because marriage is not a federal government right to be given and thus, not within there authority to grant.

Face it, the religious act you seek is the same religion that casts you out. Seek something else because here, you have no way to win, logic is not on your side.


Actually Marriage is not derived from Christian Origins. It was Jewish before it was Christian. Either way it involves a man and a woman making a covenant to God, that they be bound together for life in the name of God. I 100% agree with the rest of your post. The gays cannot be "married" because marriage is a covenant to God, and God, no matter what religion you go to, rejects homosexuality. Gays will have some type of civil union im sure, they have bribed enough west coast and new england politicians to get them whatever they want through legislation. This in turn is creating a special class of citizen, with privelaged rights over the rest of us folks. They dont want anyone to criticize thier lifestyle, and they are doing their best to make it a hate crime if you do for one example.

As for a few other reasons I dont think Gays should marry or adopt kids : gays have much higher rate of drug use over heterosexuals, gays have a much higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases over heterosexuals, gays typically have many more sexual partners than heterosexuals, gays have much higher rates of mental problems especially depression than heterosexuals even if they are not in a "bully" environment. Much higher suicide rate over heterosexuals, and for male gays - cause of HIV/AIDS , physical problems such as having to keep tampons in thier rectums (this is absolutely true im not trying to be gross) because the muscles in their rear ends have been greatly harmed, ect. The gay lifestyle is not what it is portrayed to be on TV where you have a great job, quirky friends, nice clothes, and a cool well decorated house.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


But you, and a lot of others, are forcing an unnecessary religious aspect to the word marriage. As I said, marriage is a civil institution. I could go and get married tomorrow and not step foot in a church. Sure, it wouldn't be 'real' as far as the church was concerned, but I'd still be legally married and be entitled to whatever pros and cons that entailed.

Marriage is something that every single individual on this planet is perfectly entitled to. There's no question in my mind regarding that. If I can do it, and you can do it, then every single person on the world is entitled to do it too.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Why wouldn't it be marriage?


because its not, the potential for a offspring is not there
the potential for kids and the kids growing to join the workforce is not there
its just not the same



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Christ also said “whatever you hold true on earth I shall hold true in Heaven”. A controversial statement, as it makes the Church’s authority infallible but it is in the bible.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Finally I am getting through to someone; yes my religion does not believe that homosexuality is compatible with the sacrament of marriage so I cannot condone it within my Church. However I have no objection to other religions that do condone homosexual marriage or homosexuals entering a social and legal recognition of their partnership.



I'd have to do some research, but I'm sure there are sects of Christianity as well as Christian groups who would readily recognize and officiate the marriage between two homosexual partners with the blessing of God. It would be Holy Matrimony at that too since it's taking place in a Christian context.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The problem is that marriage never should have become a function of state. The church makes its own moral judgements, many of which have no logical reasoning even if you believe every word of the bible. So I think that Legally binding unions and "Marriages" should be separated. Let the church marry whoever they want, and let alternative lifestyles receive the same benefits(IE tax breaks) via a Legal Union. Additionally, religious marriages should have no legal relevance. To receive the same acknowledgment from the state, they legally agree to a Union in the same way. Hence, religious marriages should have no meaning beyond the religious context.

As far as your question, there is no logical argument that homosexuality is a sin. The only reference used, that I am aware of, is in the bible when the two Angels try to help some guy escape Sodom, and a mob of people try to buttrape them. It is clear in the bible that sex between Angels and humans is a sin, as well as(I think) non consensual gangraping. The "gay" part is really beside the point in the story. Sexual control is one of the most important tools for any Cult to maintain psychological dominance over its following, so my guess is that's the main reason for this specific interpretation. Before this time, homosexual behavior was a more socially accepted cultural phenomenon(Lots of references to it being common in Greek and Roman society anyway).

That being said, the church should have the right to be as illogical and moronic as it wants UNLESS their stupid brainwash the masses into giving them money garbage negatively effects people who choose not to participate in it, which it inevitably does when our laws support it. If you're looking for organized religion to have any logical arguments at all, you're really in for a disappointment.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
because its not, the potential for a offspring is not there
the potential for kids and the kids growing to join the workforce is not there
its just not the same


As has been asked before, sterile heterosexual couples often marry. Should their right to marry be revoked because "the potential for a offspring is not there?" Should all existing marriages involving people who can't have kids be immediately annulled?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join