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 LexiconV
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.
I love the 'not natural' argument. Please research homosexuality, hermaphrodites and transsexualism in nature.
Eg.. all natural.
news.softpedia.com...
conservationreport.com...
www.nature.com...
Please refrain from ignorance... as it confirms an opinion not just within yourself but also within others.
Originally posted by Myendica
why do gays need acceptance from straights to acknowledge their love for each other? this is like the arguement, that I'm better than you, and I need your approval for me to feel better about that assesment. could you please say I'm the smartest? cause my ability to think means nothing unless you acknowledge it...
thats what this arguement is like,
feel oppressed if you wish... if you cant get others to acknowledge your love, it must be the end of the world.
History means a lot to me. I think that humans could take a lesson from history. But do I agree that homosexuality destroys societies and civilizations? Not in a million years. That claim sounds preposterous to me. I think societies crumble and fall because people can't work together to find a common ground.
Originally posted by ProRipp
If your building something, you use nuts and bolts ?
If you try to build something with bolts and bolts, or nuts and nuts, everything falls apart !
A bit like SOCIETY really ?
Peace
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I don't know if those things are important in today's world or not, but that has been the underlying reason for giving married couples tax breaks and special privileges throughout history.
The marriage penalty in the United States refers to the higher taxes required from some married couples, where spouses are making approximately the same taxable income, filing one tax return ("married filing jointly") than for the same two people filing two separate tax returns if they were unmarried (i.e. filing as "single", not "married filing separately"). The percentage of couples affected has varied over the years, depending on shifts in tax rates.
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.
So far this is the most logical argument.
Originally posted by goos3
reply to post by technical difficulties
One reason, its wrong.edit on 21-5-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
As for your grand (mis)characterization about homosexuality "destroying civilization"? Perhaps that straw man is a bit "preposterous", but that's not what I said of course.
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
History means a lot to me. I think that humans could take a lesson from history. But do I agree that homosexuality destroys societies and civilizations? Not in a million years. That claim sounds preposterous to me. I think societies crumble and fall because people can't work together to find a common ground.
As for your grand (mis)characterization about homosexuality "destroying civilization"? Perhaps that straw man is a bit "preposterous", but that's not what I said of course.