Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FailedProphet
 


I agree with you but not only that, same sex relationships also go against the building blocks of life, no way to procreate and pass on their genes etc

opinion ofcourse.




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Its as legit as opposing fat people marriage.
Tee
Hee



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

Ask yourself this, why arent gays content with some form of civil union that recognises legalities pertaining to a formal partnership? This isnt about recognition of a partnership or equal rights because a marriage is a union not only between a man and woman but also god and their is no god in homosexuality.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Opinions are not reasons. Since when did marriage mean people were doing it to have kids? Does that mean people who do not want kids should not be married? And if people are unable to have kids yet seek an artificial means of birth, does that equate to having been abandoned by their so called G-d?
Reasons by bigots always presents as flawed logic
edit on 21-5-2011 by LexiconV because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I mean marriage has been defined for so long as between a man and a woman. I mean if we wanna start changing definitions on things okay lets say that.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:41 PM
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.


Ok no more atheist marriages cause they aren't Christians. No more native and aboriginal marriages cause they don't read the bible and attend mass either. Since when did Christianity have the monopoly on marriage? People were getting hitched way before the Christians showed up on the bloody planet.
Only Christians can marry...? Your logic and belief is discriminatory and flawed not just towards gay people... However it does present as short sighted bigotry on your part.
edit on 21-5-2011 by LexiconV because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by goos3

One reason, its wrong.



That's not a reason.

It's an opinion.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


the concept of marriage predates christianity in all cultures , heck read the dammed old testement if you wish to be insular



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


I am not against Civil unions in the slightest and I know it may sound strange and all, but I am a very logical person and I'm sorry Marriage is between a man and a woman according to the definition. Now Definition's can change with time and I am not against rewriting the dictionary in the slightest. Besides to me it is unfair to with hold certain rights from anybody, and when someone wants to get "married" I do not see why we have to take away health care benefits and the like from them just because they are a same sex couple. Like I said complex position and won't be popular just how I think sorry. www.merriam-webster.com... the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

Never mind



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LexiconV
reply to post by Helious
 


Ok no more atheist marriages cause they aren't Christians. No more native and aboriginal marriages cause they don't read the bible and attend mass either.
Only Christians can marry...? Your logic and belief is discriminatory and flawed not just towards gay people... However it does present as short sighted bigotry on your part.


What exactly are you on about? Native and aboriginal people don't have marriages. They have unions or other unifications that don't fall under the same traditional sense of the Christian term. Like it or not, it still says, in God we trust on that dollar bill you use to pay for your hot sauce.

"Marriage" is a religious union of a Christian origin, this is not debatable because it is proven fact. Now, do I have a problem with gay people being in a union or having the same rights under such as those who are married? ABSOLUTELY NOT! In fact, I implore society to grant them that because free people should be able to choose there own lifestyle and there own partner.

That being said..... Should they be allowed to call it marriage? Absolutely not because it that definition does not fit within the religion that the ritual was derived from. Demanding that is to ask the state to abolish the beliefs of millions of people world wide and is just plain ignorant when you consider all of the facts....... Please.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Helious
 


the concept of marriage predates christianity in all cultures , heck read the dammed old testement if you wish to be insular


No, it does not. Please provide a link that says it does so I can get a good laugh and prove it wrong.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


please describe the relationship between mary and joseph - as relayed though the 1st 4 books of the new testement



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 

Ask yourself this, why arent gays content with some form of civil union that recognises legalities pertaining to a formal partnership? This isnt about recognition of a partnership or equal rights because a marriage is a union not only between a man and woman but also god and their is no god in homosexuality.


How about this.

While we're at it, why stop at calling their "union" something else. Why not make all gay people wear some visible mark just so we know that they're different? In fact, why don't we make everybody that agrees that gays should have the same rights wear a distinctive mark of their own. I guess people in other religions will have the nomenclature and marks designated to them as well. And don;t get me started on people that don't even believe in god.

Hell, why don't we just be good believers and round them up into camps and gas them all? Or would a stoning be more appropriate?

edit on 21-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-5-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by LexiconV
reply to post by Helious
 


Ok no more atheist marriages cause they aren't Christians. No more native and aboriginal marriages cause they don't read the bible and attend mass either.
Only Christians can marry...? Your logic and belief is discriminatory and flawed not just towards gay people... However it does present as short sighted bigotry on your part.


What exactly are you on about? Native and aboriginal people don't have marriages. They have unions or other unifications that don't fall under the same traditional sense of the Christian term. Like it or not, it still says, in God we trust on that dollar bill you use to pay for your hot sauce.

"Marriage" is a religious union of a Christian origin, this is not debatable because it is proven fact. Now, do I have a problem with gay people being in a union or having the same rights under such as those who are married? ABSOLUTELY NOT! In fact, I implore society to grant them that because free people should be able to choose there own lifestyle and there own partner.

That being said..... Should they be allowed to call it marriage? Absolutely not because it that definition does not fit within the religion that the ritual was derived from. Demanding that is to ask the state to abolish the beliefs of millions of people world wide and is just plain ignorant when you consider all of the facts....... Please.


Mate... Get with the times... I saw two aboriginals in church getting married last weekend. I'm sure it wasn't a world first.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Helious
 


please describe the relationship between mary and joseph - as relayed though the 1st 4 books of the new testement


Um, what exactly about it do you not understand? It was a Betrothal which is very much like marriage and is exclusively between a man and a women.

Traditional marriage is achieved through vows which have been developed over time to reflect the values of the religion that the ceremony is supposed to envelop. I fail to see any argument here. Are you saying Betrothal is different than marriage and allows gays to be married under the Cristian umbrella?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


cannot be bothered with links , but

cains wife ?

noahs wife ?

going outside the bible :

hindu marriage

roman marriage

greek marriage

i am now bored - i could go on all day just posting the 1st link of google search for every single anchent culture + marriage



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LexiconV
 


Well then, I can only summarize you live in a country that does not understand the difference between a religious act and an institution of law from the state.

GAY PEOPLE CAN NOT BE MARRIED, they ask for permission to perform a religious act from the same religion that condemns them. Can you possible be any more ignorant or obtuse?

Call it something else or stop the crusade because it is lunacy.
edit on 21-5-2011 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Definition of Marriage :- The end of a wonderful friendship !







Peace



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Exactly right and people forget heterosexual couples get Civil Unions all the time, hence why they go to a judge, and or other means. It is just another way of getting hitched up with chains and rings.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

GAY PEOPLE CAN NOT BE MARRIED, they ask for permission to perform a religious act from the same religion that condemns them. Can you possible be any more ignorant or obtuse?



Marriage is conducted by the state. Therefore it must be indiscriminate.

Marriage can be conducted by a religious institution, but it is not legal without state approval.

Implying that one must "ask permission" from a religion to get married is fallacious. I know several friends who have had entirely secular marriages, completely devoid of any religious institution.









 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join