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: 23
34
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by quietlearner
 


Why does the ability to have children make marriage more meaningful? So what if you're passing your genes on and keeping the family bloodline?

Does this mean that a married couple who can't have children, or a married couple who adopt somehow have a less meaningful marriage and a less meaningful family structure?

Are you saying that adopted children are less meaningful to their parents than a biological child would be? Indeed adopted children are different than biological children only in that one is blood-related, while the other is not. But I do not see how this makes one more meaningful than the other, and I do not see how it can make marriage more meaningful.

And I don't know why adopted children look for their biological parents. Some do. Some don't. But maybe it was because they were abadoned, and that abandonment scarred them, and they want to find out why they were abandoned? Or even simple curiosity alone might warrant an adopted child to seek out their birth parents. But I don't think that means the adopted child loves the birth parents who abandoned them more than the non-biological parents who raised them, nor do I think that a biological family structure are capable of loving each other more than a family comprised of non-biological children. It's just an issue where some people love their family, and some people hate their family, blood related or not.

I don't think that it has much to do with the blood relation at all. I think it has to do with the bonding experience. I mean, if you think that the love between people who are blood-related is more meaningful, then why aren't incestuous relationships and marriages promoted as being more mainstream?

Do you have a study or some sort of evidence to back up any of your claims, or where exactly are you getting your information from?

Like I said, we view marriage in two different ways, and we disagree on this matter. By this point I'm just trying to better understand your view so that I might appreciate it more, because at the moment it is very puzzling to me.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


It's a hypocritical argument. The people who are against the right to marry whoever they want are the same people who want the government out of their lives. Well, which is it?

Oh, and for those who claim that Christians "invented" marriage... what? There are weddings in virtually every faith and they didn't wait for Jesus to give them the green light before they did it.


ps - I wanted to add that there is at least one right-winged person not being a hypocrite on the issue: Ron Paul



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

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.


OK its natural. It is also a psychological disorder. So if they are born with an attraction for the same sex why should they be abused by society and disallowed the right to marriage? Its not there fault let them live. At the same time all the serial killers who are born lusting to cut out someones wind pipe should also be allowed to go into society and commit mass murders. After all they couldn't help it, they were born that way. Its natural. The same psychological disorder happens throughout nature, it doesn't mean that because it occurs naturally that its right.

Truth is when they feel all their emotions boiling up to do something wrong they do it even though they know its wrong. Why?Because lust and endorphins rushing across your synapses is not easy to overcome and its better to give in to it. Try walking away from a naked Megan Fox. Lust is something that overcomes all mental stability and if someone can't get that release, they are going to try every possible way to. Thus we have gay marches and this thread right now. People want something that they know is wrong but their emotions are just too much to overcome. The same applies to naturally born psychopaths they feel the same lust to kill someone and they do it even though its wrong for lust is next to impossible to overcome.

One of the reasons for marriage is you supplementing your partner sexually and thats the main drive for homosexuality. You wouldn't be homosexual if you didn't lust for the same sex. In fact thats how gays find that they are gay . They talk about growing up and finding themselves attracted to the same sex.Gays have sex with the same sex and then confuse their experience with love and opt for marriage . Gay marriages are mostly founded off of infatuations and thats not a reason for marriage is it? The fact that gays become gay by feeling an attraction for the same sex means their marriages are largely based off of this.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and when you ask of a religious institution to accept gay marriage you are asking them to disregard their thousand year old doctrine for few mentally unstable people who have hard-ons for each other. If thats what you are asking, you are being very selfish.

If gay people want to be together let them be together with some other ceremony, but don't go and make it seem like its your right to change someones belief system to suit your feelings and make a farce out of thier traditions.







edit on 22-5-2011 by shikori because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
A marriage done by a Justice of the Peace has the exact same legal recognitions and rights as one done by a Priest. Anyone should be allowed to marry anyone whom they want, man or woman (of legal age of course) for marriage is a state institution and the state cannot discriminate.


I am surprised at how many homophobes there are on ATS, I thought that people here would be a bit more open minded. Don't fear what you do not understand, to do so would be to embrace ignorance.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


It seems I'm late to the party, and I am actually a fan of legal unions for any type of couple, same-sex or otherwise. I don't even think they need to be homosexual. I think two hetero-sexual people be able to form a legal union for benefits and insurance purposes. It is drastically needed in the elderly community where old women live together but can't be legal representatives of one another.

BUT, there is a logical argument against same-sex marriage. Governments have always given benefits to married couples because married couples procreate and make new little soldiers, tax-payers, and child bearers. Governments need breeding couples to keep their empires thriving. Same-sex couples do not provide this procreation benefit, and therefore they have not historically been recognized by governments or allowed any special privileges or benefits.

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.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

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.


They want the right, not so much the acceptance. You can't force someone to accept you, but you can get them to give you your basic rights regardless of whether or not you're accepted.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


It depends on the time and region. Today, there are more than enough human beings on the planet. It makes biological sense to not only allow gay marriage, but to encourage it.

But, in times and places where there are a lot of war, and the number of members of your tribe or group has a direct bearing on the survival of the whole group, it makes sense to strongly encourage heterosexual marriage, and discourage homo sexual activity. The Greeks for instance tolerated "boy love" but there was enormous social pressure to marry and have a family.

In the middle east, not only was hetero sexual marriage strongly encouraged, but homo sexual behavior could lead to your being stoned to death. Why so much more intolerant in the mid east? Well, their customs regarding sex strongly indicate that there were some very nasty STDs going around that region. From the circumcision, to strong emphasis on fidelity, to their ban on homosexual behavior, its pretty clear that STDs were a major issue faced by the Jews and Arabs.

You have to look to the time and place a custom or religious command became a command to find the "logic" of it. You cant look at that command in todays world and expect to automatically see that there was indeed logic and reason in that command at one point.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I think gay people shouldn't be allowed to get their marriage recognised by the government.
I don't think straight people should be allowed to get their marriage recognised by government.
I don't think government should recognise marriage at all..its a religious ceremony..seperation of church and state is a good thing, m-kay.

I think churches should decide what they themselves recognise. if the church of bob marry someone, then they are married in the eyes of bob. whatever.


Explain to me why government is even acknowledging marriage...someone...anyone? Screw it, I will start a thread on that.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
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.


OK, glad you also respect history, yes, we can always learn something, people have often already gone through things, and we can benefit from seeing how it all turned out.

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.

Actually, if you read my post, I even mentioned that modern society might be able to find ways to accommodate gays. Even if I was to interpret history in some radical way, I'm not sure it makes sense to say things can't ever change either. We can learn from history, but it doesn't need to dictate to us of course.

One thing I see on this thread is that people are prone to "extremes", based on their existing positions. The religious crowd seems just as bad as the pro-gay crowd. I never expected to please either side by mentioning history of course.

My question, by bringing up history, isn't all that sensational, IMO. Does homosexuality somehow present a "risk" to society? Further, is heterosexuality something so "natural", that we can depend upon it to always ensure some semblance of societal order? Could there be a dangerous "tipping point" that is not generally taken into account yet, especially knowing the fact that most issues are seldom dealt with considering longer-term, or more comprehensive implications?

Both "sides" may find my historical examples troublesome, but to discard them merely because they don't fit our modern or religious biases is foolish, IMO.

As far as why societies crumble, well, while I like the "ring" of your above quoted statement, I'm not sure it pans out, at least from the historical perspective. Rome rose, and it fell, and there are lots of opinions why it did so. But I don't want to derail the thread, that might be getting off-track too much.

Thanks for reading my post BTW.

JR



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

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


Or you just use screws. You fail. He said LOGICAL arguments.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

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.


Well, I can only speak for myself, but married couples have not always gotten a tax break, and in fact, when I was married, we suffered from the marriage penalty. Meaning together we paid more taxes as a married couple than we did individually before the marriage.

en.wikipedia.org...


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.


But you are correct in that marriage is generally encouraged by governments because of the way our economic system is structured. Its a pyramid shaped structure, that requires an ever increasing base, and so breeding is generally encouraged. Although when breeding alone is insufficient, importing people tends to take its place.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:08 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)



If you have to search so hard for an answer to validate if it's right or not. Chances are it's wrong. That's called trying to justify a wrong into a right. Keep at it, one day you will trip over a twisted reason to validate. Even Hitler found a good justifiable reason to murder millions. Here's the deal. Keep it in your pants like the straight people (the ones not in jail). Keep it in the closet.....like straight people do their sexual desires (the ones who are not freaks or pervs), keep it in the bedroom and stop complaining so much about trying to get married and all that. Either you love someone and live with them or not. If you're gay, it's only a ring anyway..........the only reason people get married in the straight world is to have their marriage "blessed" by GOD. I don't think he is going to bless gay marriages and i don't think gay people want GOD to. So, just live together......have your sex behind closed doors, keep your mouth shut about it to everyone else......dress in slacks or jeans (not so tight that they turn your face blue), wear normal clothes....not multicolored chicken suits and peacock feathers and sequin (it tends to draw attention from people who are not dressed like a chicken). Also, don't go out acting like the world has to divert all of it's attention in your direction just because you're gay.....and then complain about how they treat you. Let's face it......gay people (overall) tend to really get dramatic and do outlandish (in your face) things that irriate those normal people around them. So just live life, keep quiet abut your sexual preference and then everything will be fine, and look on the bright side.........you also have eternal HELL to look forward to, a place where you will get all the attention you can handle, and then some. Don't mention it.....glad to be of assistance.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jrocbaby
 


In nature male animals do it to establish dominance. Thats why they are animals, (beast). They really have no moral compass or reference. Why a self thinking human male would want to be dominated by another is beyond me. Animals were not made in gods image so i'd assume they have leeway. Genisis states, he brought all the animals before Adam (who named the animals) yet there was no helper found for him (Adam). So god made the woman for the man. "You are bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh" And they are one. NOTE: Feminist hate this!

The reason the "gays" are all worked up, as they have been in all civilized cultures, is that there are people that refuse to except it as normal, because it's not. If it was right there would not be such a hard push to change the norm of thousands of years. It is tought in public schools in defiance of parents wishes.. etc. Most parents were not even teaching their children this crap was wrong. So to push their Agenda it's tought. Nothing to do with the "3 Rs" It is merely a sign of the times that it is even a main stream discussion. Along with other silly debates that have no leg to stand on.
edit on 22-5-2011 by murphy22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

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.


At the time these religious prescriptions were made it was a valid argument that homosexuality could "destroy a civilization" depending on the size of the group, and very importantly, how much competitive stress the group was under. (And, the virulence of STDs in the region)

Its just not an equally valid argument in all times, all places, and all circumstances.

The problem with humans is they have forgotten that religion was supposed to change and adapt with a people, and discerning the "will of God" should be an ongoing process, always fitting ourselves to nature in the way that most enhances our long term survival.

Like Jesus said, God is the god of the living, not the dead.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


You post is a perfect example of why people hate religion.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

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.



It's what you implied. You implied that homosexuals can somehow take things too far and cause a divergent shift in social norms that cause societies to fall. You even cited specific examples where the homosexual community even caused the civilization to be destroyed/to fall, and you used those examples to emphasize your point. I didn't pull any of that out of thin air.

So It wasn't a mis-characterization. It is your belief that because people somehow fear a deterioration of social norms, that this belief of the supposed fear is what causes civilizations to fall.

I don't fully agree with that. I think it's the inability of the people to adapt or work together, whether it be homosexuals working with heterosexuals or vice versa, that causes a society to fall. It's like an opposing force meeting head on with another opposing force.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
In a land of 7 Billion people, who's to say Homosexuality isn't God's way of keeping the population under control?

You have someone to love, you just don't breed.

The statistics are that one in every ten people are gay, do you want to explain to the creator of all that you discriminated against 10% of humanity because it made you feel 'icky' to think about what they do in private?

For those of you making the 'they will be the downfall of society' argument, look around. We could use a few more gay people around here.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Their offspring? There is no doubt a parent can love a child that does not share their DNA. But it would not be at least one of their "offspring". OFFSPRING, another word they are trying to change the meaning of.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


Offspring might have been a poor word to use. But I didn't want to say "that child is their child." Maybe I should've said "that child is their loved one, their son/daughter regardless of blood relation."



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join