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: 24
34
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


Like i was saying earlier a non-issue. Good post!




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 
Is your topic anti gay or anti gay marriage? They are two different subjects, but you seem to lumping them all into one. One more thing, is this a conspiracy theroy site? I sometimes wonder.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jimnuggits
 


I agree. In todays world, they are doing us a favor and enhancing our survival. Again the problem with people is that at some point religion ceased to be a living thing that changed and evolved with a people, into a dead redundant thing, which actually works against us.

Its a shame.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


I'll live with that.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

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.


I have no problem with your taking it that way, but adding your own sensationalist flair doesn't necessarily help get to the bottom of the matter.

I certainly stand by my minimalist supposition, that history provides some indications that homosexuality is a risk-factor when it comes to the breakdowns of the societies I mentioned.

Does this really "imply" that homosexuality leads to the destruction of society, through "shifting social norms"? Not necessarily. Which is why I suggested that modern society may find ways of accommodating gays. I guess if I was a religionist, I wouldn't be able to even allow for that, but since I'm not, I'm open to a future that may bring pleasant surprises.

But even if we remain optimistic about the future, we can't ignore the past.

You mention that I went to the trouble of citing specific examples (that you apparently did not like). I hope you can see that such a thing is far better than providing NO examples to support your own position.

Yes, you may think that the reason societies fall has more to do with people not being able to "work together", but l'm guessing that historians, for example, aren't going to care about individual opinions, when they investigate actual reasons why civilizations fell. They may find that the weather changed, and the corn wouldn't grow, or later, that the oil ran out!

But OK, by all means let us know why your opinion trumps history.

JR



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Tarzan the apeman.
 


There would be no bullets without guns, gas without engines, "gay marriage" question without "gays" Cause and effect. One in the same.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


To drive my point home, parents can love adopted children as if they were their own offspring, or can love them even more than they could love their own offspring. Whether or not their son/daughter is biological isn't really relevant to a good parent.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ossminid
 


Yeah, Bolts and nuts last longer than screws and they are stronger!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


How about this?

No marriage at all.

Why can't people just stay committed, to each other, without the government and religion getting involved?

I would wager it is because the whole marriage thing is about personal, religious, and governmental control and money.

Silly argument either way people look at it.

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



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The most logical argument I've heard from people is this:

IF gay marriage is allowed, humanity will dwindle in size as more and more people "come out of the closet".

Basically, people are scared that we might become diseased and possibly face extinction because of gay marriages.

Even that argument is flawed in multiple ways, which is really saying something.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
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 mail 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.

-------------------------------------------------

(A little long but please read and then you will know truth)

I agree with you totally. Truth be known, who cares what feminists think? We are discussing humans here. Feminists would be categorized in the animal/beast category that you have provided above. It's clear what their mission is at this point....to dominate men with the help of government (because without government help they are nobodies and weak), to destroy men and take our jobs and children and to break up marriages and families...which they (with the help of government)...have done quite well. This is the epitome of having NO MORAL COMPASS, which of course, puts feminists in the "animal" category.

Look it up online and see for yourself the things they have done against men, supposedly in the favor of women. Although they are using women as a shield to batter their way through the men, they claim it is the women they are doing this for. It is, rather, themselves they are doing this for and your average woman is getting ripped off and lied to and losing their very feminine nature to fight a battle against men which they feel like they HAVE TO.....not want to. How do I know? Because I hear women everyday, talking about the "good ol days", when they only had one job as a mother (a job that is tough enough)....now they have two jobs, one as a fighter in the workforce and another as a mother.

Women speak of reveling in their success, yet they have never felt so soulless and stressed out in their lives. All you have to do is stop. Life is too short to work so hard to impress people or to be hell-bent on revenge and getting justice for women in a time in which you did not exist......and for women who are long deceased and cannot appreciate your efforts anyway. It's over! Women are free now. They are not only equal....but are, in fact, more beneficial than men right now. If this is the case (and it is), then why do feminists keep going down the track like a run-a-way train? Because they have an agenda that surpasses freedom of women, that's why.
They want to make sure that women no longer have time for their children because they have to live up to the standards of what feminism demands or be mocked and heckled by women of the "pro-choice" movement, for not participating. Now I ask you women........IS THIS FREEDOM?????

To be essentially forced, by negative peer pressure to think and live a certain way and to betray who you want to be or who you are to be the way feminists want you to be.......just so they can help destroy our nation and the morals and the strong family structure that once made America great?

To all women who are living this way......just know that you are choosing feminism and their ideology over your own children and time with them.You have chosen to relinquish a potentially good man because of an "installed" hatred for men of today, who are taking the blame for the behavior of men of yesterday....who we don't even truly know did anything horrible (other than what has been told of by the feminists. It's their word against the word of dead men who can't defend themselves).

We didn't live in the 20's or before and we should not live it today either. You cannot walk backwards into the future. How will hate and animosity towards today's man.....for the (alleged) sins of yesterdays man,.....bring any true good will or equality between the sexes? It will not. As once said life is like a pendulum, it will swing one way....and then swing harder the other, which means, if feminists keep doing what they are doing.....there will be retribution in the future for all of those involved and it will be delivered by those men who were accosted OR EVEN THEIR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. It is only until someone intervenes and sticks a hand in an stops the pendulum that the cycle will be over. I am trying to beat this message into males and females alike. I am sometimes abrasive and strike a nerve, but we live in a world of shock now and sometimes you have to do this to even be heard.

You women might want to reassess your priorities, because despite what it looks like, ..they (feminists) are after your children and want to hand them over to the state. this is the plan. To split up husband and wife and to send your children into slavery (military/conscription) or prison is their ultimate goal. They are NOT THERE FOR THE FREEDOM OF WOMEN! They are there to destroy relationships, families, to create belligerent children with no futures, essentially to play a big part in the destabilization of America. Once destabilized and chaos has ensued...everyone will beg for the NWO's remedy to fix the problem. The very problem the NWO had planned from the beginning. look it up, it was the Rockefeller's who funded feminism in the U.S. from the beginning and they are the crux of the NWO.
Problem, Reaction, Solution. They create the Problem, (in this case, disruption of the family structure and morals, feminism....taking church out of school, no praying in public, etc.) When you remove GOD from your country...there is fertile ground for nothing but evil, and that is where we are now.

Feminism needs to be stopped. It is nothing more than a "HATE CRIME" against men. If all other hate crimes are criminal behavior that is punishable by law......why is this hate crime called feminism any different? This should definitely be addressed by men AND women who see through this scam...and soon!


This will ultimately end in women looking back in retrospect and realizing all they have lost over a lie......despite how it looks now women....YOU ARE BEING USED FOR A PURPOSE AND WILL BE SACRIFICED ALONG WITH ALL OTHERS ONCE THE NWO IS INSTALLED, ONLY THEN, YOU WILL HAVE MANY ENEMIES BECAUSE OF HOW YOU ASSISTED IN OPPRESSING MEN OUT OF REVENGE TO THE POINT THEY WERE UNABLE TO DEFEND OUR COUNTRY. This will not be forgotten by men NOR sympathetic women who see through the feminists agenda. Feminists truly have no souls, and by all intensive purposes are more animal than human. Just FYI, when I say feminists.....I speak of Feminists, NOT WOMEN IN GENERAL. I love women as long as they are women....not some hot-headed, agenda-filled. opinionated, hate-machine that is funded by the government to destroy men so the government will have no one to oppose them as they rape our country and take her from us.

This is the ultimate goal of the NWO and feminism plays a big part to destroy the moral of men (so they will be weak and effeminate and can't fight back the government), to rob the morals from our families, to break marriages apart and to put women at war with men and then (with government support) crush them in a court of law by robbing the man of things like child support and alimony and most of everything he owns, as it is no longer half that a man loses......these days he loses ALL!!!!! Children and everything. This is just a design to crush the spirit of man so the NWO will have no one left to battle them. Women won't do it. Feminists are not going to do it. Only men, would have fought to save our country from outsiders planning to take her from us. Now, because of feminism, all we have are beaten, trodden down men......many who have fallen for the media agenda of such things as "metro-sexual-ism" and sensitivity. These are things foreign to a man that would defend his country. Who says, that it has to be a bad thing to be a real man? Why do women these days claim they want a "real man" and then when they marry you or date you......they try to change you into a weakling or an over sensitive pansy?

Why must we, as men, sacrifice who we are to become what a woman wants us to be....just so they can get bored with what they have created and just divorce you and rip you off in court of everything...including your soul? WE DON'T!!!!! Stop doing this men. Be men, be proud and stop trying to change yourself for women......they are flesh and blood like you and I. They do all of the disgusting things men do and all of the good things men do. They are no better and no worse. Why is it then, that we automatically put them up on a pedestal as if they are goddesses....simply for standing there? They stand there and men cower all around them. Don't you think they use and abuse this power? They don't have to work for their power.......only men do. So get to work men and realize we are being had. Read the books on how women think and their "tricks and manipulations" and realize what is truly going on. There is a reason feminists use women......and not men. Women have an innate sexual power that is unseen and unchecked.....but can make a man kill another man or even take his own life. This is a power that needs to be controlled.

For all of you men out there listening. if you want to turn the tables on women and have full control over your lives and be able to withstand their onslaughts and break the trance....... I will leave a list of "books/videos" at the end post for you to go and buy. BTW, a little off topic, but what is a torrent file? Oh well, never mind.
just go "get" the books and read them and you will be amazed at how successfully we are being used, unknowingly and manipulated on a daily basis without even realizing it. Once you have attained the knowledge of how women think and operate and their "tricks and manipulations against men"......YOU WILL HOLD THE POWER!

You see, their power is visual. It is not worked for nor earned. Therefore, they abuse it constantly and daily with generations of success and they expect it to continue as such. We are smarter now, and with the knowledge that we "earn"........our control over them will be that of the soul.....as they are not visual. Conquer and control your visual impulses and study the books on women and you will either be able to make her the most happy woman in the world or you will be able to destroy her from the inside out.....kind of like they just did America's government.

Here are but just a few of the books I spoke of before. *Do NOT look these up on a torrent and download for free, that is very wrong!* there are many more out there, just look for them.

1) Sex - Seduction - How To hypnotise A Woman

2) Psychic Seduction 5 (Joseph R Plazo)

3) Joseph R Plazo - Mastering the art of persuasion

4) Communication Skills - J.D. Fuentes

5) The secret language of women

6) Conversational hypnosis - Ken Ward

7) Pandora's Box (Demonoid) - Vin diCarlo

8) "The Girl Code"

9) "The Woman's' Code - The secret rules that women live by!" - Cheyrl lavin

10) Women manipulation tactics on men (a freebie on me)

11) Forum where manipulation tactics of women against men are discussed.

12) Last one, then I hope you get the idea, that all you have to do is search the Internet for so much information of women manipulating men that you'll never be able to read it all in your lifetime.

Here is the last link I will leave you with. A woman who actually "teaches" women via online video on the
"TOP TEN WAYS TO MANIPULATE A MAN"......AND THEY SAY IT'S NOT A CONSPIRACY AGAINST MEN. If you want to truly know if there is or isn't a conspiracy against men, certainly don;t take a woman's' word for it....what do you think she will say? Look around for yourself.....and you can start right here.
In this first video she just tells women how to get the look to basically "trap" a man in their web visually. the second video, she admits she gets "controversial", I believe was the term she used.

(Part 1)



(Part 2 - or the self-professed, controversial one)



Good luck gents......and let's see if we can sway this back into our favor or at least to what was supposed to be "true equality".

P.S. If you are a man who supports feminists in their endeavor. Just don't speak,.....you have embarrassed yourself enough by acting like a metro-sexual WO-"man". The real men in this world don't want to hear from you and think (rightly so) that you are no more than a woman yourself. You are a traitor to men and therefore are not one. In this particular case you either support women and become one.......or support men....and remain one. There is no empathy for the support of women's rights...they are managers, they are doctors, they are scientists, they are in our white house side by side with a man, they are sequentially placed in positions of power in our government like, for instance, Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton (both of these gentlemen were and are Secretaries of State). So, if you are a feminist.....and you are a man....you are a joke to the women you support AND the guys. I have heard the women speak and all they are doing is using you and laughing at you at the same time. So, no one wants to hear from a MAN who betrays his own, to support a WOMANS' agenda for supremacy, in the hopes that he will finally score by showing women that he is sensitive to their cause. You, of whom I speak, are an idiot if you think you are going to get laid by a feminist who hates you anyway. YOU ARE A MAN! Feminists hate you, but will use you if you will help support them to destroy ......men. If you consider yourself a man, stop helping them to destroy YOURSELF! We real men would rather you not help anyone at all than to be a destroyer of your own kind.

I'm outta here. Wake up and all that jazz.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Phenomium because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
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.


we obviously have different opinions and I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the issue of marriage and biological kids.
I wont argue with any more and will try to explain my point of view since you asked for it
basically my stand is that experiences and how much time you live together sure have a big impact on how much you care for someone. I'm not saying I would love more a biological son that grew up his entire life in another home than an adopted son that grew up with me. However sharing a common blood does have its impact too. for example if I saw two kids both at the age of 18 and I learn that one of them is my kid then I would instantly start caring about him, i can't say the same about the other random kid. I'm just saying that bloodline is important and its effect is real. its not something you can just dismiss as nothing
I think the difference with having your own kid and adopting one is that when a couple has their own kid then the kid is their own flesh and blood, the parental love is already there before the baby is even born. The commitment of marriage is no longer a commitment of contracts and promises, its about raising your own flesh and blood that you have personally brought to this world. In the other hand, adopting a kid is just like an extension of the marriage contract, you sign some papers and you bring a little baby that would not have anything in common with you otherwise and start caring for the baby.
I'm trying to describe my own personal opinion and its obviously not an easy task to do if I want to keep objectivity that kind of describes it
bottom line is that if you dont see a difference between your own child and an adopted child then you just don't
also you asked me for specific studies but i didnt post any statistics so I dont know what would i post studies for.
About the incestuous relationships, a blood relation does bring a connection but why should it lead to incestious relationships? there is more that one type of love and it doesnt always have to end with sex.
since it looks like you would like to see some objective difference between biological kids and adopted kids
here www.newser.com...
also I would like you to consider why most married couples try to have their own kids when they could easily adopt a healthy one and safe themselves the risks and pains of labor? by adopting a needed baby they would be helping the baby and potentially saving a life so why is not everyone doing it? my answer is that they want their own biological baby and there is obviously many important reasons they it is like that
I feel like i have gone completely out of topic I will stop talking about this
if you want to continue talking about this you are free to message me



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I don't see it as wrong at all, why should 2 gay men or women not be able to marry for legal and personal reasons?

Seems to me most if not all of the so called reasons not to allow it are religious. It is entierly natural for there to be gay men and women just as some animals are the same. I can't see any reason why they should be treated differently in the respect of marrage.

Now the question of kids is a tricky one for me, having 2 dads or 2 mums when your at school is garunteed to get the kids picked on, bullied, harrased and hurt both emotionaly and physicaly. I think gay people that want kids really should bare in mind that there way of living is going to affect the children greatly.

That being said everyones way of living affects there kids in different ways which is why I cannot say I am against of for it.

No matter what though gay people are just that "people" so I see no reason to treat them any different.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I fully agree with gay marridge.
But one thing I wanna ask people is if anyone thinks that religions have the right to defend their fundemental beliefs?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack

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.


Not really.

We live by laws. Society lives by laws. LEGAL Marriage is about laws - - protective laws.

FACT: 2 gay men lived as a couple for 60 years - on a farm they owned. When one died - a judge rejected the paperwork they had drawn up to give ownership of the property to the surviving man. A distant aunt of the dead man sued and won - - taking away the property from the surviving partner who had built and shared this home for 60 years.

If these 2 men had been Legally married - - - the property would have legally and automatically gone to the surviving partner.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Annee because: spacing



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
People act like "the reason for our existence is to reproduce" is a valid argument.
You guys act like human will go extinct if we allow gay marriage. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. We are worse than cockroaches. If anything there are TOO many of us. There will never be a lack of mating causing extinction, if you are worried about this maybe try to rid the world of nuclear weapons. And seriously, if we allow gay marriage and human population drop then you are basically saying you don't trust your own sexuality and will turn homosexual as soon as it isn't taboo. Can you say repressed homosexual?

And to the people who say they believe children in a gay family should have a mother and a father.. well my question is would you rather have the child have two fathers/two mothers than no one to love them at all?

Since same sex couples cannot have their own children (or the method is too expensive) they usually adopt. Yeah they adopt the kids you heterosexual couples have abandoned and you have a problem with that? Wow.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If the property had been in both of their names and a proper legal trust drawn up, then marriage wouldn't have been an issue one way or the other.

This was a legal issue rather than a marriage issue.




Originally posted by Annee

If these 2 men had been Legally married - - - the property would have legally and automatically gone to the surviving partner.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Annee because: spacing



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:48 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.


Marriage is a word, which takes its origins from the latin word "maritatus" (meaning "To Wed), which is not a Christian Originating Concept, so your entire argument is moot since you base your claim on the evolution of slang. Language meaning is ubiquitous and free for everyone to use, otherwise you wouldn't be able to call ground Hamburger "meat", since the origin of the word "meat" means "the largest portion of a meal", and when the term was first established, the largest portion of an early european meal was usually bread or potatoes.
The original latin word "maritatus" also wasn't married (no pun intended) to the definition we have today. The original meaning was "the permanent joining of two things", whether they be people, ingredients in food, or the materials of building a structure. A marriage between a man & a man, and a woman & a woman is still a marriage. A permanent union.

Christians love to preach... none of them practice what they say. This is evident in their constant desire to Judge their fellow man, and condemn them accordingly.



Originally posted by superdebz
I fully agree with gay marridge.
But one thing I wanna ask people is if anyone thinks that religions have the right to defend their fundemental beliefs?


Not at the expense of the freedoms of others.

[2nd Line]
edit on 22-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


Plane and simple its to do with religious beliefs.

What I fail to comprehend is how that is justified since the United States is a Secular nation, yea, we're a secular nation unless your talking about any social issues. It doesnt make sense to me.

I used to be very devout and strictly against gay marriage, but when you realize that 'god' is a misconstrued concept and men in power exploit that to gain power over the masses, you start changing your way of thinking about everything the church has brainwashed you with since you first went to sunday school.

Thats my 2 cents.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


your argument is that the property should have been under both names..
in the case of sudden death, the partner is # out of luck?
valid. so valid.

edit on 22-5-2011 by SophyC76 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join