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: 28
34
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
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 This is the one issue could end so easily, even moreso than DADT, and that got repealed.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)


None. No reason at all.
Well not unless you're an uptight Ahole who has to control everyone's life around you and push your moral beliefs on everyone else....kinda sounds like terrorists huh?
I'm straight and I could care less if 2 men or 2 women marry. We hetro's have a 50/50 shot of staying married...good luck to them




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by goos3

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


No, there are no logical arguments against gay marriage. There's some contrived nonsense about how somehow other people's families will collapse, or that children will be adversely affected when being raised by gays. This is absurd because single people, male or female, can raise a child... but apparently two females who are in love or two males who are in love shouldn't be able to


There's no logical reason to deny gays the same rights heterosexual people have always enjoyed which is why most of those who are against it are against it for absurd religious reasons. They quote from the same book that says shellfish is an abomination and that a rebellious child who disrespects their parents should be put to death:


9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own ..
Source

Yeah, this looks like the book we should be getting our morals from



edit on 21-5-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: added link


You have to understand that 2-3 thousand years ago was a very different time completely.
The culture was in no way like ours.
Anywho, the new testament abolished all of that.


But not the prohibitions against homosexuality? Either the new testament abolished all the prohibitions or none of them. Murder is ok then? Bestiality? Incest? Or is this more of matter of cherry picking the parts of the olde testament you want to still be in force? "Hmmm we'll let people let pork but not be attracted to people of the same sex."

So here is something I have always wondered about.. Why exactly is sex so sinful since we are wired as sexual creatures at every level. Is this sort of a cosmic gotcha, if you act in the manner god created you to, he tortures you in hell for all eternity?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:34 PM
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.
i can see why the bible is against it but in the modern world i don't see the problem. in the uk its called a civil partnership. if it was called marriage then the church would have no grounds to refuse the service and its totaly against the church to do so.

it needs a different name other than that let people do want thay want, mind your own



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Argument #1- The species needs to reproduce.

Answer - Nobody is disputing this, I don't know why everyone has to state this over and over again.

Also people have been gay forever, and banning marriage is not going to stop anything, and our species is doing just fine at aprox 7 billion, with gay people just not being married since the beginning of civilization.

Who says a man that loves another man, will not cheat on him with a girl because he is bisexual? Just labeling all gay men unable to reproduce is not logical.

With straight marriage, people have tons of unwanted children, so they put them up for adoption, and the clinics are getting full, so with the current situation, is it better to have children, and give them away, or to not have children at all. With 70M children coming into this world every year, no amount of gay marriages is going to slow it down.

Argument #2- It belongs to religion

Answer- I'm not entirely sure if that is true or not, I have not read about the subject much, but I think that if you get into a legal contract with another human being with the government, I don't see how religion would "own" it,

I get that the priest is doing the marriage, but he is not the entire marriage, he is just a guy you hire to work for a day. Correct me if I'm wrong but can you get married without a religious priest?

Argument #3 - It's immoral, wrong, offensive, a sin ect.

Answer- Those are all opinions, to you it may seem wrong, but that does not give you some kind of legit argument.

Argument #4- Our country would crumble or people would riot

Answer- That seems highly unlikely to me, I think the majority do not really care who marries who, just the hardcore religious.

Also churches do not pay taxes, or if they do it is not as much as the normal buildings, which is why I don't understand how they have such a massive political movement with a clear anti gay agenda.

Also gay kids are killing themselves now more then ever because of social stigmas, It is almost like the new common racism that still has not been banned yet, and this is the battle to make it normal, just like normal people had to die to fight radical people to abolish slavery. It is the same fight today, which the reward is the same as before, freedom for the common citizen.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


theres no such thing as rights. rights means you have the courage to take it and defend it.. its not given to you.. even with the US having bill of rights... anyone can take that away if you arent willing to defend it.

this is a stupid arguement. if two people of the same sex want to be married, so be it.. you're married. the benefits aren't major, they are quite minute. so I dont get this long arguement. are you argueing the marriage? or the benefits? or what? the hell is the arguement.. do what you want and don't let others say you are wrong.. plain and simple..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
If it is NOT about money,insurance,or 401(k)'s,riddle me this:If The State (read any government authority)recognized gay marraige for all things except spousal inheriance or coverage,would that satisfy those who demand the recognition of gay marriage ceremonies?...simple question,simply stated....will there be a simple answer?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
this is a stupid arguement. if two people of the same sex want to be married, so be it.. you're married. the benefits aren't major, they are quite minute. so I dont get this long arguement. are you argueing the marriage? or the benefits? or what? the hell is the arguement.. do what you want and don't let others say you are wrong.. plain and simple..


The argument is Equal Rights.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
If it is NOT about money,insurance,or 401(k)'s,riddle me this:If The State (read any government authority)recognized gay marraige for all things except spousal inheriance or coverage,would that satisfy those who demand the recognition of gay marriage ceremonies?...simple question,simply stated....will there be a simple answer?


Equal Rights is the simple answer.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Equal rights to the money?...My question:If thy take money out of the equation,will the gay community accept that marriage?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   


My prediction first page is holding true. No logical opposition in thread.


My congratulations to hotbaked on becoming the defacto thread mod, and for her repeated summarization thus far (quoted above).

Let's see if this is true. The OP was wondering if there was any "logical" argument against gay marriage. From what I can tell, there have actually been FOUR more or less "logical" arguments proposed so far. If there are more, and I missed someone's, sorry, but here's the four I picked up:

1. God said so / It's just wrong. A version of the "unnatural" argument.

2. Definitional argument: The word "marriage" should not be subject to change / a new word needs to be introduced for the new concept of gay "marriage".

3. Society "benefits" (more) from procreating couples, than it does from non-procreating couples, and therefore should confer (more) benefits upon the procreative ones (more people = more soldiers, taxpayers, etc.)

4. Historical argument: Some historical examples may suggest that homosexuality has a corrosive effect on society, and therefore society would need to protect against it. A societal version of a Darwinian perspective, as it relates to anything that could significantly threaten a society.

As hotbaked pointed out in her instructive post on proper debating (which I starred of course), perhaps it would be nice to see "why" people think each of the above examples are "illogical", strictly speaking. Hotbaked certainly thinks they are all illogical, which is no doubt why she has made the blanket statement she made. I'm sure she speaks for many others who have not just stepped up and said so.

OK, so, in other words, instead of just saying you "disagree", say why, even if it seems "repetitive". Say why you think, for example, it's "illogical" to say that a "definition" (for example) should be changed. And using examples by the way might be good too.

I can start with an example: I might say that I think that the word "circle" is not inclusive enough, and that from now on, it should include things (formerly) called "squares". Obviously, an absurd example, but you see what I mean.

Just LOGIC. Let's see what happens...

JR



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Banjamin Jefferson Madiso
 


That's what I was alluding to with that bit of comic relief.

Peer approval and outspoken social conformity. That's all it really is. The proof rests in the fact that many use titles like faget, homo, queer, fairy, tulip, flower, fruit, among many others maliciously to describe others because they've witnessed the 'righteous', self-empowering reaction: I am better than you, ask anyone.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
"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?"

Speaking to fanatics such as yourself no reason will be good enough in your eyes. You claim it is only the religious right that is against this chosen lifestyle. What you seem to overlook is the elections where this very question was placed on the ballot; in the lost liberal state in the union (California) gay marriage was defeated, and I stake my life on the fact that all of them were not from the right. The same results have been brought to bear every time this issue has been given to the electorate to decide. Your baseless claim that only the right is opposed to this issue is a blatant lie. Now before I address why we should not legalize perversion, lets go over some of the "baseless claims" you listed.

1 "Well why don't you just legalize man-animal or man-boy marriages then"
To have equal protection under the law, once one fetish is legalized this opens the door for others to be recognized too, Once this Pandora's box is opened sexual deviates will come out from the woodwork to have their chosen lifestyle recognized to.

2 "The Bible Says Homosexuality Is An Abomination"
Seeing how **SNIP** are wanting a religious rite to be altered due to the lifestyle they have chosen this is a valid point. The Bible does refer to homosexuality as an abomination, which goes against the very foundation of the religions that follow it. This not only makes it wrong to force a religion to perform and honor gay marriage, it is also unconstitutional to dos so. By the way, why would homos want a rite from a religion they claim to despise; unless it is to destroy the religious principles it holds dear..

3. "It will destroy Family Values"
This statement is true; gay marriage will destroy what marriage is intended to do. This is to bring a man and woman together to start a family which ensures the continuation of our species. The family also teaches morals, and gender roles. When I say gender roles I mean if you are born a male or female that is what you are and no amount of cross dressing will change that.

Now to why I am against people of this lifestyle choice being married. We are born with certain reproductive organs, and thanks to nature these body structures perform in a specific way. A male has evolved to couple with a female' and vice versa. An example of what these organs are not designed to do we can look to two gay men. The rectum is for expelling waste only, and not to be used as a reproductive organ. The rectum and intestines also have disease such as e coli and others. Feces impaction and ripping of the skin (in which blood borne pathogens are spread) is also a danger. So according to the laws of nature this lifestyle is wrong.

The second reason, and the one you will not like to hear is the issue of equal rights. As things are homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, which means they have the same marriage rights. Just like me a gay can marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose.This is about a lifestyle wanting special not equal rights.

I have an idea, we need to have a nation wide election on this issue, and when it is defeated again (like it always is) fags can shut the hell up about it once and for all.

Watch this video about this subject to maybe expose some facts. www.battlefield315.com...

edit on Sun May 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


Equal rights to the money?...My question:If thy take money out of the equation,will the gay community accept that marriage?


What does that have to do with anything? I don't know what money you are talking about.

But - - if its a Right Heteros have - - - then removing it wouldn't be Equal - - would it?

Equal Rights. Same Rights as Heteros.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If the Mo's have equal rights,why do they have special laws that give them priviledges that others dont enjoy?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


Government has no right to dictate who can and who can't get married. They should have no say whatsoever. That's the problem IMO. What happens in one's bedroom is no one's business. Two gay people getting married has absolutely no affect on me or my life. They are still going to be doing the dirty regardless.

If people truly believe it's against God's will...then let God judge them. They themselves do not have that right.

just my 2 cents.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
If the Mo's have equal rights,why do they have special laws that give them priviledges that others dont enjoy?


Could you please explain what you are talking about?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by nonapologetic
 


How sad that you have to deal with such personal issues.

Life moves forward.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
If people truly believe it's against God's will...then let God judge them. They themselves do not have that right.



Plus - - we have a Secular Government

Why religion is even a factor - - pisses me off.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Homedawg
If the Mo's have equal rights,why do they have special laws that give them priviledges that others dont enjoy?


Could you please explain what you are talking about?
Hate crimes,discrimination laws,etc...Mos are a special class of people that you dont dare speak against in the workplace or the streets....so they enjoy special status but want equal rights?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Homedawg
If the Mo's have equal rights,why do they have special laws that give them priviledges that others dont enjoy?


Could you please explain what you are talking about?
Hate crimes,discrimination laws,etc...Mos are a special class of people that you dont dare speak against in the workplace or the streets....so they enjoy special status but want equal rights?


First of all - - what is a Mos?

If you can't be respectful - - then I have no response.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join