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: 21
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Marriage was designed to be man an woman not any other way. Humans reproduce sexually not asexually so there needs to be two different partners not to partners of the same gender.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackofBlades


And what, pray tell, is the difference (besides the fact that both parties are of one gender)?



well you just named one obvious difference
as I said before, the potential for procreation is another one
the need for adoption in gay couples to have a "family" is another one
and there are more subtle onces I guess
pls dont come with examples of exceptions



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

But what does creating a life have to do with marriage? People create life and abort life all the time without getting hitched first. People who are married have children and put them up for adoption, people who are married have sex without the intent of producing a child, married couples get abortions because they don't want any kids or don't want anymore kids, married couples who cannot have kids adopt kids, married couples get married for a day in Vegas and get a divorce the next day without even the thought of having a child.

Those are just a few examples where marriage isn't about procreation.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


normally after a couple marriages, having kids is the next logical and expected step. once the kids are born, a real family is created.
imo having kids and marriage are very much related, also the benefits that the government gives like tax breaks were meant to help the family with the burden or raising a kid, they are not just "wedding presents"
and yes people abort baby's and people have sex without the intent to procreate, however I don't see why their actions have anything to do with our discussion. are you saying two wrongs make a right?


Not at all, I'm just trying to understand how marriage is related to procreation when it really isn't/doesn't have to be.

But I do understand that this is just your personal view of what marriage is and should be. And this is where you and I disagree. I believe that marriage is about something more profound than just sex, and that a woman can marry another woman, can start a family, etc, with it being considered marriage.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmrikazNightmar3
I never understood marriage, gay or otherwise. If you love someone, love them, why involve the government?

My 2 pennies.....



Smartest post in the thread.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Not at all, I'm just trying to understand how marriage is related to procreation when it really isn't/doesn't have to be.

But I do understand that this is just your personal view of what marriage is and should be. And this is where you and I disagree. I believe that marriage is about something more profound than just sex, and that a woman can marry another woman, can start a family, etc, with it being considered marriage.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


I never said marriage is just about sex, I don't know were you got that idea from
by "procreation" i didn't mean just sex, I meant having an offspring
as you say marriage is about creating a family, yes I agree
but guess what a normal family has kids
please dont assume that because we disagree your concept of marriage is somehow more profound to mine



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by goos3
 


According to you and your false Bible? or just cause you say so?

You seem so certain.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by No Retreat No Surrender
reply to post by Golithion
 


When you say all the time that does not mean that all of them are at it. Even the other baboons know its wrong otherwise the majority would be gay.


Homosexuality exists in almost every animal species on the planet, a post below yours gives you some links to look up. Are you saying that nature isn't natural or are you saying that every animal species on the planet knowingly violates a moral/conscious code that it's not even possible for them have?

See what happened a long time ago was...this dude was born and said he was the only son of the one true god and then people were like omg no way but he built up a little clique and they had a looong road to go in convincing people that what they said was true so then they got this great idea...it is much easier to instill a belief than to convert one soooo all the followers of the only son of the one true god made it a law among the clique that only a man and woman could get married and they must procreate so a few years later a bunch of little jesus warriors reached adult-hood and taught their children etc etc...and eventually it even became against god to use birth control. Oddly enough the teachers of this religion have a pretty decent percentage of being homo/bi sexual.

You've been hoaxed, no God ever wrote a holy book...every single one of them have been written by men with the express purpose of control. Ultimately you religious type people get so irrationally angry and offended when someone goes against what your god supposedly says that you can't even see straight. You all claim your god is omnipotent, yet you don't trust your god to sort it out. Do you?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Not at all, I'm just trying to understand how marriage is related to procreation when it really isn't/doesn't have to be.

But I do understand that this is just your personal view of what marriage is and should be. And this is where you and I disagree. I believe that marriage is about something more profound than just sex, and that a woman can marry another woman, can start a family, etc, with it being considered marriage.
edit on 22-5-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)


I never said marriage is just about sex, I don't know were you got that idea from
by "procreation" i didn't mean just sex, I meant having an offspring
as you say marriage is about creating a family, yes I agree
but guess what a normal family has kids
please dont assume that because we disagree your concept of marriage is somehow more profound to mine


I didn't say it was more profound than your view of marriage. I just said that marriage is about something more profound than sex.

But everything you're relating to marriage comes from sexual intercourse, which leads me to believe that you're relating marriage to sexual intercourse between a man and woman. A family doesn't need to be composed of biological offspring, and a family can be headed by a same-sex couple.

Heck, a family can be started without the couple even being married. So marriage can be between a same-sex couple who start a loving family with children.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
I've seen the arguments put forth by anti-gay advocates, but they're always something stupid like "Well why don't you just legalize man-animal or man-boy marriages then" or "The Bible Says Homosexality Is An Abomination", or "It will destroy Family Values", and so on. So my question here to ATS is, are there any decent points on the other side that have been overlooked due to being buried underneath the rampant idiocy by the Far-Right/Religious Right/Whatever you want to call them? And if that's not the case, then why hasn't this gay marriage issue ended already? This is the one issue could end so easily, even moreso than DADT, and that got repealed.

Even though I am against the act of homosexuality, I will say the following:
(1) Freewill is much more important than anything else. If there is a law that takes away a person's freewill, I personally think there is something wrong. Should people who live alternative lifestyles be allowed to solidify their union? Yes.

(2) Two different types of marriages exists. Religious and civil marriages. We should allow homosexuals and lesbians to get married through civil systems. When it comes to 'religious sects', we should leave it up to the 'origination' and their 'rules for membership'. Since religious sects are privatized organizations, they have membership criteria for their participants. Religious sects also have rights, for they are a privatized organization.

Here is the catch: (U.S. Constitution)

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Other words, congress cannot make laws forcing people into religion, and they cannot make laws forbidding people from practicing religion.

What does that mean? Its simple.

If someone has a problem with how a religious sect prohibits certain types of marriages, there is absolutely nothing the individual and government can do about the sect's membership rules. Gay marriages should be allowed on a government level, but the government cannot force a religion to perform gay marriages.

Civil Marriages = Yes.
Religious Marriages = Leave it up to the religious sects.
edit on 5/22/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I didn't say it was more profound than your view of marriage. I just said that marriage is about something more profound than sex.

But everything you're relating to marriage comes from sexual intercourse, which leads me to believe that you're relating marriage to sexual intercourse between a man and woman. A family doesn't need to be composed of biological offspring, and a family can be headed by a same-sex couple.

Heck, a family can be started without the couple even being married. So marriage can be between a same-sex couple who start a loving family with children.


ok I admit I misread the part about the profoundness of marriage
I still dont get why you think that for me marriage is about sex.
I said marriage and having kids has a strong connection, and if you want kids then you have to have sex that much is obvious but I never put the emphasis on sex. I was talking about the potential ability of having kids, again not sex.
and yest you can get together with someone else and adopt a kid and it could be considered a family.
the difference here is that to have a kid for gay couples, adoption is a requirement and the inability to have their own offspring is universal.
as opposed to heterosexual couples were adoption would usually be considered a last option and the norm is that they have a potential for their own offspring.
ok I know we are discussing details here, my argument was that a gay couple is just not the same as a heterosexual couple.
two apples is not the same and one apple and one orange



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I'm astounded at how many replies include referece to religion in some way or providing an opinion without reason.


If you have an opinion you should know why do you and how it was formed.

I'm pretty certain the OP requested logical debate with reason and to leave out religion. Religion and logic are like oil and water and if you reply, you should be educated enough to include a logical reason.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by goos3
 


if as you say Jesus came to fulfill the law...shouldn't the Christians be putting ALL homosexuals to death by stoning?

hypocrites...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
This is going to be controversial I sure, but history may suggest that society has something to "fear", if a population's homosexual component gets too far out of control.

In ancient Greece, while homosexuality was very accepted, men generally understood that it was also desirable to have a wife, at least for procreative purposes. This might matter all the more to a person of means, who was charged with continuing the family.

In Rome, the traditional patriarcal family unit was almost enshrined in a religious sense. The culture was very tolerant of course, but in no way was homosexuality to be considered a "norm", as it was beginning to in Greece.

Some may be familiar with the Khazar story of the seventh century. The Khazars main "religion" was apparently phallic centered, and their society experienced such devolution, as to cause their king, Bulan, to search out some way of arresting the corrosive aspects of their phallus-centered culture. This is the story of the genesis of the Ashkenazi Jew, since King Bulan is said to have selected Judaism over other rival religions, seeing that it might have the power to preserve their decaying nation.

The king ordered that everyone convert, and rabbis were imported from Babylon and other centers of the diaspora, to get the Khazar nation some religion. Long story short, it worked, and the Khazars prospered (now as "Jews").

Going back before the above examples, we have the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I realize there are a lot of anti-religionist folks who will automatically reject anything in the Bible, but as a historical document, they may have been reporting something that took place, more or less that we might do well to pay some heed. In the story, it is told that Lot's family were virtually the lone hold-outs in a society that had gone pretty far south in terms of sexual behavior.

The above examples seem to suggest that society should recognize some elements of "risk" in getting too far away from traditional norms.

Does this mean that there is no room in modern society for arrangements that better accomodate gay people? Not at all, but considering the past, this isn't something that should be looked at too simplistically. There could be "unforeseen consequences" of allowing dramatic changes, and all the more so, as we evolve into a global culture.

Bottom line: The healthy preservation of society as a whole seems to be an irrefutable "logical" argument that may be ignored, but we might not be able to ignore it for long. How many generations could it take before serious problems develop that literally threaten the foundations?

I don't wish to disturb the hardcore religionist too much, but perhaps we should ask: Is heterosexuality such a firm, "natural given", that we need not worry? If we need not really worry much, then why do we find historical examples that suggest things can, and do, go off the rails because of this issue? Could this be ultimately why we find that "god" has some of these rules to begin with?

JR



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
BTW using the Bible as a reference to back up your hatred and bigotry is silly. the only evidence that the bible is from an all seeing all knowing god is...the bible...so therefore it is an invalid scrap...it does not count as anything more than an opinion and thus falls short of evidence...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
I'm pretty certain the OP requested logical debate with reason and to leave out religion. Religion and logic are like oil and water and if you reply, you should be educated enough to include a logical reason.

Is not religion at the heart of this issue? Since marriage is closely connected to religion, you could not have a conversion without analytically examining the practice.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
I've seen the arguments put forth by anti-gay advocates, but they're always something stupid like "Well why don't you just legalize man-animal or man-boy marriages then" or "The Bible Says Homosexality Is An Abomination", or "It will destroy Family Values", and so on. So my question here to ATS is, are there any decent points on the other side that have been overlooked due to being buried underneath the rampant idiocy by the Far-Right/Religious Right/Whatever you want to call them? And if that's not the case, then why hasn't this gay marriage issue ended already? This is the one issue could end so easily, even moreso than DADT, and that got repealed.


Originally posted by goos3
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

One reason, its wrong.
So far this is the most logical argument.
edit on 21-5-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)




I can tell by the title that words alone could not convince you, so how about this?
---- / ---- = no fit ---- / O = fit looks like even mother nature tried to make it obvious for ya!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I didn't say it was more profound than your view of marriage. I just said that marriage is about something more profound than sex.

But everything you're relating to marriage comes from sexual intercourse, which leads me to believe that you're relating marriage to sexual intercourse between a man and woman. A family doesn't need to be composed of biological offspring, and a family can be headed by a same-sex couple.

Heck, a family can be started without the couple even being married. So marriage can be between a same-sex couple who start a loving family with children.


ok I admit I misread the part about the profoundness of marriage
I still dont get why you think that for me marriage is about sex.
I said marriage and having kids has a strong connection, and if you want kids then you have to have sex that much is obvious but I never put the emphasis on sex. I was talking about the potential ability of having kids, again not sex.
and yest you can get together with someone else and adopt a kid and it could be considered a family.
the difference here is that to have a kid for gay couples, adoption is a requirement and the inability to have their own offspring is universal.
as opposed to heterosexual couples were adoption would usually be considered a last option and the norm is that they have a potential for their own offspring.
ok I know we are discussing details here, my argument was that a gay couple is just not the same as a heterosexual couple.
two apples is not the same and one apple and one orange


The only difference between a gay couple and a straight couple is the straight couple's ability to conceive a child. But how does the ability to have children make marriage more meaningful? And why does the ability to have children even matter when it involves marriage? I guess those two things are what I don't understand.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
My adult response says good for them.
my childhood says thank goodness my parents were male and female
life is hard enough with out being ashame of our parents
two adults can decide what they want, not the children they have..

I do not agree being an adult, but will respect choice
but when i was a child, being with a normal family was
great thanks mom and dad. because if you were gay i would not be here today.
as most of hus i am sure.
gay scociety makes for poor reproduction. and is against the law of nature.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Garfee
I'm pretty certain the OP requested logical debate with reason and to leave out religion. Religion and logic are like oil and water and if you reply, you should be educated enough to include a logical reason.

Is not religion at the heart of this issue? Since marriage is closely connected to religion, you could not have a conversion without analytically examining the practice.


No. There is a huge difference between a legally recognised partnership between two people that love eachother and wish to spend their lives together and 'holy matrimony'.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mkkkay
 


I would say yes homosexuality is indeed poor for procreation but in fact it is a LAW of nature that homosexuality is part and parcel of life on this planet...also there is homosexuality in all species that have two genders on this planet and it is well documented. Therefore it agrees with the laws of nature just not with you definition of morality...seems most people cant grasp that simple logic.

Don't they teach critical thinking anymore?
edit on 22-5-2011 by CaDreamer because: typo




top topics



 
34
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join