It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:27 PM
This is the question we should all be asking, instead of this non-issue:

Should government recognise marriage?

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:28 PM
The issue of gay marriage is one that will be of contention till the next generation decides it for once and for all. Marriage by the very historical reference started out as a religious ceremony, done in a church and officiated by a pastor or minister. Over time the government got involved in the legal contract of marriage and that is where we are today.
There have been many reasons as to why 2 people can and can not get married, on both the straight and gay side. Not too long ago, it was forbidden by law for 2 people who were of opposite races to get married, and yet they were eventually allowed to.
What many people, on both sides, from my own observations, have the most trouble on is taking everything out of the original context and putting it down to the most fundamental level. That means take out all labels of sex, orientations, everything and take it down to the most fundamental level of the argument to decide the answer. The first question that many people should be asking, is why would 2 people want to get married? In the past, marriages were arranged, and often the people getting married were pawns in a bigger game and scheme of things. But those days have all but ended, as such is rare and far and few between. So the question would be better phrased: Why today, would 2 people want to get married? The human answer would be love. But with all emotions, there is always a risk of breaking up and separating.
What is the purpose of a marriage? Is it to fulfill a legal aspect of life, or something on the emotional/spiritual side of life? It can not be just for procreation, cause last time I checked, you don’t have to be married to have children. (Many high schools will prove that one these days.) And to use children as an excuse, only shows that there has to be something else, as there are exceptions to every rule, (Say in the care of sterility on one or both couples or the couple not wanting to have children.)
It is wrong to use religion as an excuse, as it means that a group would be forced to accept that which the do not agree with. Nor can it be the sole bases of the argument.
Ultimately to answer the posers question as to what is the valid argument about 2 people of the same sex getting married, is fear. It is the one factor that remains after every other argument has failed, and does not stand up, to either common sense or in court. People are fundamentally afraid of change, and will resist it to the last possible means, and it will be their children that will accept that change in the long run. But, with change of societal norms, it also means that those that are for gay marriage, should not force this change on the people, cause here again that is wrong. Society is not ready for this kind of change, nor will they be. Change takes time and ultimately we should go slowly in a paper skiff on the stream before charging head long into a raging torrent. There are advantages to gay marriage, one being alot closer to most people than they would care to admit, and that would be the bottom line. After all if the average wedding costs 29K, and there are on average 2 million marriages, how much more money would be generated if you allowed for gay people to marry (and divorce?) Do the math, the numbers are staggering.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by templar knight

But what does it matter if consistently throughout history the concept of unity was socially accepted as being between a man and a woman? Throughout history the concept of dominance was that man rules the world... but in some places those times are changing as well. Or would you support a world where women lacked a better form of equality to men?

Also, religion changed throughout history as well. Religion started as the worship of the sun, then from there it became Gods, spirits, etc, then it diverged from there and branched off in some areas to become the worship of only one God.

So... because times changed like I explained, why also can't the definition of marriage change as well? It seems natural and appropriate.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:30 PM
there's animal homosexuality, they can't get married either?

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by templar knight
Agree with previous post. The concept of marriage pre-dates Christianity and in the Greek World this term was strictly husband and wife. Yes there were gay relationships reported in the Greeks stories [most famous - Homer's Iliad - Achilles and Patroklus] and these were written as though they were common place / not unusual. Even in these terms the marriage was a term for man and wife though.

This is 2011 - - - not ancient history.

Anything else you want to suggest that we do today - - - the same as those ancient times?

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Homedawg
Social Security and pension funds are broke...if you let them marry,with the same rights as a spouse,you add and other 10% of claimants....with this administration trying to break funds left and right,adding another 100 mill claimants is asking for trouble...other than that,let them marry...who cares what they do?

So We arbitrarily strip options in life because We can't afford them? Ah. Some Humans We will try to help but We say this group here We won't afford and gee, too bad that it's because They want Human commitment to a cohesive Whole to be recognized between two Whose flesh is configured similarly?

To discriminate in this fashion makes zero sense to Me.

Yes. We have money/power/energy problems that We need to solve, but taking it out on some Humans in this way is NOT a solution.

My goal has been to come up with a solution to the problem of needing money in the first place. I believe I have come up with a solution. I present the solution in two threads here on ATS, if You're interested:

The End of Entropy - the foundation - read first

The Ethical Planetarian Party Platform - the structure

Money We spend (or don't collect) because some committed Humans have declared Their commitment should be spent (not collected) because ANY Humans declare Their commitment. Better yet, Let's get rid of money.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by The Great Day
I could probably research this....but the interactive nature of ATS is rather fun. A troll i am not. This is my belief of gays.

Crossed up hormones. It is what it is. We need not judge.

Now it may be hard on the ego of gay person to admit this, but once they accept themselves as they are.. they will have the power to care not... how others perceive them. There is no control over the system or what others think. So just accept it or arm up and blow up the TPTB.

Once i learned acceptance i became free.

acceptance, Google it people, fighting is useless.

even if it is lame....

i would like to quote myself, and if before this post gets junked....please look up

Acceptance, study it, apply it. The world would be great if we could get all the idiots to just love.


posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:43 PM
I just dont understand why it even matters? If you dont like them dont be around them and i beleive those worried about being around them probably want to try it and they are afraid.

It really is a question of freedom who are you to tell them what to do or not do?

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:49 PM
With all of the grief marriage has caused straight people why in the world would we want to inflict it on the poor gays. Seems like we're doing them a favor with the benefit of our hindsight but if they want to go for it then more power to 'em.

In Old Ireland we used to be entwined together by a hazel branch and the union was marked by the words "as long as the love shall last". I think it's a much more fitting blessing for union between 2 people.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

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 ?

What are you talking about? The topic is to provide a logical reason against gay marriage. You forgot logic in your reply. And gay marriage was forgotten too.

I have some news for you Honey, YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY ON THIS SUBJECT. Other people's answers do NOT have to pass your muster. If someone said that to them it is wrong, they need not further explain their perceptions to you for validation. Give it a rest.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:09 PM

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

Originally posted by JR MacBethI 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.

How did what I say have sensationalist flair to it? I basically reiterated what you posted and said I didn't really agree with it.

Originally posted by JR MacBethI 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.

From the looks of it, it seemed as if the conclusion you came to was based upon your personal interpretation of historical events. That's why I said your post was anecdotal and full of supposition.

Do you have anything you can cite or do you have actual evidence that you could link me to that supports your claim more objectively?

Originally posted by JR MacBethDoes 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 the way in which you presented your case by saying "history may suggest that society has something to "fear", if a population's homosexual component gets too far out of control," and then posting examples where you claim that homosexuality somehow had a direct hand in negatively impacting places like Greece and Rome, and had a hand in negatively impacting other regions as well certainly seems to imply that in the overall context of your post (which was to point out the deterioration or decay of society/civilization) that homosexuality played an important part in said deterioration/decay.

What evidence is there that homosexuality was the reason for such deterioration/decay?

Originally posted by JR MacBethYou 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.

It wasn't a matter of me liking or disliking your examples or your position, I simply referenced your examples because you were making it seem as if I was making claims about your post that were untrue. Which wasn't the case, I referenced your examples to show that you posted what I said you posted.

I was just taking what you said and putting a different spin on it by saying that maybe it wasn't necessarily the homosexuals who caused the decay or deterioration in the examples you listed. Your examples are my examples in that regard, only I was trying to provide an alternative underlying cause for why homosexuality might have played a hand in the aforementioned decay/deterioration by saying that perhaps the people couldn't adapt to the change, so if they couldn't adapt they couldn't survive. I honestly don't know, I just doubted that homosexuals were the cause.

Originally posted by JR MacBethYes, 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!

Societies fall for a broad many reasons.

Originally posted by JR MacBethBut OK, by all means let us know why your opinion trumps history.

It doesn't, but neither does your opinion unless you can provide anything concrete to support your claim. That's why I originally said what you provided in your original post was anecdotal and supposition. There wasn't anything concrete other than what appeared like your personal interpretation on historical events.

I appreciate your response, but I should point out that my examples were fairly specific, and also, that you still have provided none of your own.

Is this more about "interpretation" and opinion? Well of course. That's what civil discourse is about. We may both see a blue car speeding away from the scene, but later will find out that that car had nothing to do with anything, or worse, that it wasn't "blue", because it was too dark to tell, etc. But by discussing the various facts, and sharing our opinions about them, we might come up with points of agreement.

Merely saying I provide nothing "concrete" doesn't mean much in this sense. First, the fact that you provide nothing but your contrary opinion, with the admission that it just happens to be different, is what adds nothing substantial. Hopefully, you can see that, I'm sure I won't be the only one to point that out, if this is the way you typically argue.

The real question is, have I provided something that deserves consideration, and have I provided reasons why this is the case.

I can spell it out. In the case of the Khazars, this is precisely the way history has come down to us. You might want a specific reference, the classic is The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler, a well-known book on the subject. Koestler's considerable research indicates something not terribly controversial, namely, that a Turkic tribe in the seventh century, called the Khazars, practiced the worship of the phallus, and further, that that culture had experienced deterioration. I suppose we could come up with ten different reasons otherwise why their king called for the particular solution he did, but clearly, it would have nothing to do with the weather! So, lets not go there. Or, care to offer anything reasonable to the contrary?

What I see rather clearly, is the typical knee-jerk reaction to anything that might conflict with opinions that are far too settled in most people's minds. Certainly, not just you, but look at the many utterly ridiculous posts on this thread made by religionists, who have no idea how silly they even sound.

Interestingly, it may just be people like me that are the most to "worry" about. Because I don't bring in the usual "God said so!" nonsense, there is in-fact something to consider. Again, specifically, an apparent "judgement" made by history, that homosexuality at least has been, an issue in the past.

I would go a step further. One way to "interpret" history is to realize that much of what we have inherited from our past could be called "tribal wisdom". In other words, the fact that we find homosexuality "condemned" in the bible (for example) could be an indication of a collective pronouncement from our ancestors that they have already discovered problems, and the Bible is one example of a way such knowledge is transmitted to future generations.

Note, I'm not saying the Bible is "special", or right, just that it is part of the inheritance we have received.

Of course, your "opinion", as utterly unsupported as it is (thus far) could be completely correct. Perhaps my daring to even mention that homosexuality could be a societal risk-factor, based on historical examples, is really just too much, and stepping over the line. No doubt, you will soon let everyone know why you have totally ruled it out, and "feel" it could not possibly matter.

I do appreciate that you have actually admitted that you honestly "don't know" why civilizations fall, but you can see that saying simply that you "doubt homosexuals are the cause", really doesn't go too far, especially since you are contradicting my historical examples that seem to indicate a specific connection.

All interpretations aside, wouldn't you agree that it isn't all that radical to perhaps entertain the possibility that certain things present "risks"? This is my position. In this PC age, it seems that too many of us refuse to even accept small possibilities that are at variance with our preconceived notions. No wonder no one ever gets anywhere.


posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:10 PM
well, like I've stated I'm not against gay marriage, just all the rest but it's there life and it's not like I will jump over board to insult them etc. Infact I have a few gay friends women and men but yeah, if they are happy then so be it.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Realtruth
The legal term is call "Joint Tenancy", which is created by an attorney and if done correctly upon the death of one party the other party inherits 100%, without anything going to heirs or family.

It is not 100%.

Probably should be - but it isn't.

Legal documents can be contested. And - especially - if you get a judge who is a "believer" and very anti-gay - - - loopholes will be found. As they were.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:21 PM
Legality of intentions and ceremony will be ONLY when it accommodates profit. period.
if the queers are fighting for gay rights they are not fighting for humankind or power of choice.
it just gives them something besides social advancement to focus on.
its all a smokescreen.

is it the ceremony or the legal binding that is the problem i still dont understand. marriage is a legal bond and expression of the life commitment that you have found your souls counterpoint in another being thats the problem for the drunken senators etc.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by smitts_lgp

No....what is selfish is to marry someone you don't love, then have kids, all because of what you think society (or your family or your church) expects of you. And as far as the poster who said "Why involve the government?". It would be great if we didn't have to. But why involve the government in STRAIGHT marriage then? Have you ever seen what happens gay couples that have been together for 20+ years when one passes away? I have. The estranged family came in and took everything and left the remaining partner NOTHING (good christians that they were). I have seen gay couples denied visitation rights in the hospital. I have seen and experienced violence for nothing more than walking down the street while gay. I could go on and on, there are a LOT of reasons to involve the government.

And there are no good reasons for denying gay marriage except for peoples prejudices and hatefulness. If you don't like it, thats FINE. There are a lot of things I don't like about straight marriage, but its none of MY business so I don't judge it or try to define it in my own terms. And I would certainly never deny straight couples the right to marry. Marriage is nothing but a legal agreement, if you CHOSE to make it a religious one, thats your business.

Anyway, just my two cents...

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by jpmail
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.

It's simple......the puzzle pieces do not fit together correctly and there is no possibility of procreation naturally as nature (for unbelievers) or GOD (for us Christians) has dictated for the proliferation of mankind. Whether you believe in GOD or mother nature....they both agree that homosexuality would make man/woman extinct in no time....were it to be at the top wrung of the evolutionary ladder. Being gay without sex is caring deeply for another. Being gay and having sex is nothing but dirty lust that has no other productive purpose than to self-gratify. Sexual gluttony is bad mmmm - kay?

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

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.

Thanks illusions, appreciate you reading my post.

I read your treatment of the STD issue, good one to bring up. Yet another factor, although I think it would bear more on sexual behavior in general, not just homosexual behavior.

I'm not sure your post is going to please the average religionist out there, but you make a very important point I think. Many of these ancient prescriptions regulating human behavior are contextual, but even more importantly, they are man-made. No doubt they addressed various needs back then, that may no longer be present in our particular circumstances.

While I can completely agree with that, there is a further issue that perhaps sometimes gets clouded-over in the process, as we examine these things from our past. Along with the recognition that these things came down to us for reasons such as you mention, there also might very well be components to this ancient "wisdom" that we receive, that are entirely independent of the context.

What I refer to is a certain "unchangeableness" to human nature. Obviously, it may not be easy to distinguish between the two, but the point is, we should not rule-out the possibility that some of the ancient writings do in fact speak to "timeless" issues. Whether it is the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita, or old Hopi mythology, there are elements to much of this ancient literature that go far beyond their mere original context.

"God" may be for the living and the dead, and perhaps God does change, or maybe not, who knows.

But people, they don't essentially change.

I can read the ancient Greeks, and Romans, and see clearly, they are NO different. This is one of the main reasons I consider history so important. Because people really never change, their experiences will always be very relevant, even if we should go through phases where we (temporarily) are unable to see that.


posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by Helious

Your argument is invalid. Marriage has been around since before recorded history. It pre-dates Christianity and is practiced by all almost all civilizations regardless of religion.

The fact is that same sex marriages have been happening for as long as marriage has existed according to "The Origins and Role of Same-sex Relations in Human Societies" by James Neill.

What makes it wrong to most people is that it's either wrong to their religious teachings, or you can't reproduce because of the pairing. If that was the case, then it should be mandated that you cannot be married unless you can reproduce and your marriage should be legally dissolved if you have not had children in your marriage within a reasonable amount of time. But I don't see anyone championing those tenets.

The bottom line is that if you tell someone how to live and how to enjoy their life, someone can tell YOU how to live and how to enjoy YOUR life. It's not a one way street. You don't get to have it YOUR way at someone else's expense.

And before you say that gays are living at YOUR expense, you'd better be prepared to tell us just how them being married is living at YOUR expense.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by David291
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.

There are always surrogates. Plenty of women want children without having a father present. And given 50 years, we probably won't even have THAT to worry about. The human race isn't going to die out any time soon.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by sam_inc
there's animal homosexuality, they can't get married either?

I like that point, heres a thought, if you had a pack or herd of homosexual animals, how long do you think they could self-sustain? Without recruiting new members from other non-homo-herds, or accepting cast-offs from other non-homo-herds, methinks, NOT TOO LONG...

Obviously NATURE did not intend for homosexuality, just as nature did not intend for albinos to proliferate and be successful. Albinos have a genetic mutation that causes a lack of pigmentation. In the animal world this is very disadvantageous, because the albino has NO ability to camoflauge itself and hide and/or avoid danger other than running or flying away from the danger. Personally, I assume that homosexuality, is akin to a genetic mutation, whereas, the cause for the supposed abbhorrent behavior, mayt be a chemical imbalance which results in attraction to pheromonmes of the same sex rather than attraction to the opposite sex.

Albinos are not numerous in nature. The condition is not extremely rare, however the effects of the condition dictate that the life expectancy, or longevity will be greatly reduced by the inability to survive until adulthood, and possibly pass it's genes on to the next generation, so there is usually no next generation, thus albinos do not flourish. Homosexuals can not procurate. There is NO WAY for two homosexuals to produce offspring unless they have access to a fertility laboratory that specializes in cloning...

Nature does not intend to produce organisms that cannot reproduce and endure, from natures standpoint, it would be utterly pointless, to evolve lifeforms that are fated to death within a single generation...

Marriage is the joining of a Man and a Woman. Gays, go ahead and enjoin in an exalted relationship with each other, just give the relationship a different name. It's ok that the relationship seems the same as "Marriage", it would bem except, that it would be called by a different name. I don't see anything wrong with that solution. If there is commitment, benefits, and everything else similar to "Marriage" except the terminology used in its title, whats the problem? If the issue is about gays being able to call their committed relationship "Marriage" then the entire issue is unreasonable...

top topics

<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in