It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Originally posted by sam_inc
there's animal homosexuality, they can't get married either?