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: 29
34
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Avoiding the question?...If a hoMOsexual wants equal rights,then they should not be accepting of special treatment




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


Avoiding the question?...If a hoMOsexual wants equal rights,then they should not be accepting of special treatment


No - - absolutely Not.

Mos - - is not a respectful term. Try again.



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

Originally posted by JR MacBeth


Let's see if this is true... From what I can tell, there have actually been FOUR more or less "logical" arguments proposed so far...




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


This is purely subjective 'logic'. Just because a sect believes it's wrong, doesnt mean it's actually wrong. The people who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up for whatever reason also believe that thosse they kill are wrong. That is, in no way, a direct comparison. Just an analogy,



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".


Sure we could make up a new term for it. Though it wont change the fact that homosexual "elope" is still prohibited. Therefore, whatever it's being called... the issue at hand is not even being addressed.



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.)


More non-reproducing families means more potential able and caring families for the six percent of orphans, in 2004 statistics. If the percentage stays roughly the same 18-19.5 million orphans today. And 94% of these kids will live with at least one caretaker. Some 80% living with two parents.

Then there are all the children around the world who have no parents, who, to tell you the truth, do deserve better.

www.census.gov...



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.


No offence, but there have been gays in America since it's inception. Our economic situation right now has nothing to do with them not procreating.



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.


There

edit on 22-5-2011 by shanerz because: clarity



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


But you ARE avoiding answering...you seize on a slang term to allow you to ignore the fact that homosexuals accept special treatment while asking for equal treatment....you can engage in semantics all you want,you know homosexuals are two faced in their quest...Mo indeed
edit on 5/22/2011 by Homedawg because: sp



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


But you ARE avoiding answering...you seize on a slang term to allow you to ignore the fact that homosexuals accept special treatment while asking for equal treatment....you can engage in semantics all you want,you know homosexuals are two faced in their quest...Mo indeed
edit on 5/22/2011 by Homedawg because: sp
I rest my case...those who claim equality deny equality when it suits them



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Why be respectful and post an articulate and logical argument when you can just call people names?

It's so much easier than thinking



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


But you ARE avoiding answering...you seize on a slang term to allow you to ignore the fact that homosexuals accept special treatment while asking for equal treatment....you can engage in semantics all you want,you know homosexuals are two faced in their quest...Mo indeed
edit on 5/22/2011 by Homedawg because: sp


Why not just ask your question in a respectful manner?
Do you hate gay people so much you can't even be respectful for the 20 seconds it would take to repost ?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
So far nobody has posted any logical argument against gay marriage.

There have been hate filled rants but no logical argument...not one.

So those who are still against marriage must only not want gay marriage because their small minds
can't allow other consenting adults to live as they wish.

sad really.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Dezero
Marriage is a religious ceremony whether we like it or not. It was part of Gods law for mankind.
When gays get married it's heresy. These laws were for man and woman. When 2 men get married they are going against what marriage was for in the first place. Using Gods laws against him


Show me where God is mentioned in the Legal Government Marriage License.

A Government Marriage License is about protection of rights and property of those joining together as one.

Can you have a religious ceremony in a church and be married by God? Sure.

Does it give you the Legal Government rights and protection without a Marriage License? NO

Legal Government Rights - - - must be for all citizens. Religious reasoning does not (should not) qualify for denial.


It definately used to be......it was only after GOD was removed from our system, churches and schools that it no longer exists. In short, when the government established that our country (that was founded under GOD) should evict GOD and let the devil roam freely.......it was then removed. As a result,....America is no longer a member of the high morals club nor even a member of any morals club. The America we once knew is gone and as a result of removing GOD from our country.....America the country will soon be gone and will be owned by an entity that will establish an "under Lucifer" ideology. I think we can all see that one coming. It is being set up and is almost finished. I don't like it, but it's written.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shanerz

Originally posted by JR MacBeth


Let's see if this is true... From what I can tell, there have actually been FOUR more or less "logical" arguments proposed so far...




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


This is purely subjective 'logic'. Just because a sect believes it's wrong, doesnt mean it's actually wrong. The people who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up for whatever reason also believe that thosse they kill are wrong. That is, in no way, a direct comparison. Just an analogy,



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".


Sure we could make up a new term for it. Though it wont change the fact that homosexual "elope" is still prohibited. Therefore, whatever it's being called... the issue at hand is not even being addressed.



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.)


More non-reproducing families means more potential able and caring families for the six percent of orphans, in 2004 statistics. If the percentage stays roughly the same 18-19.5 million orphans today. And 94% of these kids will live with at least one caretaker. Some 80% living with two parents.

Then there are all the children around the world who have no parents, who, to tell you the truth, do deserve better.

www.census.gov...



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.


No offence, but there have been gays in America since it's inception. Our economic situation right now has nothing to do with them not procreating.



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.


There

edit on 22-5-2011 by shanerz because: clarity


Thanks shanerz, appreciate your response.

1. You didn't prove their argument was illogical, you only proved that what each of us considers "wrong" may be subjective. Logically, your use of the term "actually wrong" implies that you might believe in something absolute in this regard. Self defeating.

2. You actually agree with those who hold this view, in your words, "Sure, we could make up a new term for it." Your further point about current prohibitions isn't germane to definitions.

3. I agree with the info you provided, but obviously, you didn't even attempt a logical rebuttal to GetReadyAlready's assertion, probably because it is "logical" after all, making the assumptions that he did.

4. Gays in America? The current economic situation? Procreation??

No offense, but big Fail on that one, sorry. You might read my post a few pages back which reached back thousands of years in history.

America, and Americans, are not the world.


Thanks for your input though.

JR



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So far nobody has posted any logical argument against gay marriage.

There have been hate filled rants but no logical argument...not one.

So those who are still against marriage must only not want gay marriage because their small minds
can't allow other consenting adults to live as they wish.

sad really.



Come on now, you're smarter than that. No logical arguments, eh?

Seems like someone repeats that on every page.

Say it enough, and it will be true!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


But you ARE avoiding answering...you seize on a slang term to allow you to ignore the fact that homosexuals accept special treatment while asking for equal treatment....you can engage in semantics all you want,you know homosexuals are two faced in their quest...Mo indeed


Give it up. I am not avoiding anything.

I asked you to be respectful - - - and said I would respond when you were.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium

Originally posted by Annee

Show me where God is mentioned in the Legal Government Marriage License.


It definately used to be......it was only after GOD was removed from our system, . . .


Really?

I would like to see proof of when God was part of our legal government Marriage License.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium
In short, when the government established that our country (that was founded under GOD) should evict GOD and let the devil roam freely.......it was then removed.


We are a secular government.

And always have been.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The only logical argument I can think of against gay marriage would be an argument against marriage as a whole institution...so...no, there is no logical argument specifically against the marriage of homosexual couples.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


But you ARE avoiding answering...you seize on a slang term to allow you to ignore the fact that homosexuals accept special treatment while asking for equal treatment....you can engage in semantics all you want,you know homosexuals are two faced in their quest...Mo indeed


Give it up. I am not avoiding anything.

I asked you to be respectful - - - and said I would respond when you were.
And where was I being disrespectful in my last posts?..I asked why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?..Homosexual isnt a disrespectful term....as for terms...gays call each other fag and queer all day long....yet when I use the term Mo,a shortened version of homosexual,you seize upon my use of it to deny answering a simple question....so here it is again,in PC terms....why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?..



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
The only logical argument I can think of against gay marriage would be an argument against marriage as a whole institution...so...no, there is no logical argument specifically against the marriage of homosexual couples.


Right! But most people are not going to give up the institution of marriage.

Therefore - - the only argument is Equal Rights.

And since we are (supposed to be) a secular government - - religious beliefs can not (should not) be allowed in any way to interfere.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Here we are again.."give me equal rights while preserving my special status"..hmmmmmm



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
I asked why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?..Homosexual isnt a disrespectful term....as for terms...gays call each other fag and queer all day long....yet when I use the term Mo,a shortened version of homosexual,you seize upon my use of it to deny answering a simple question....so here it is again,in PC terms....why should any group demand equal rights when enjoying special treatment?..


I don't think that is quite true - - - that you just plainly asked a question.

However - - - I am on the phone with the Internet company right now - - because of some issues. (on hold at the moment)

That is FACT why I have not yet responded to your last post.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
Here we are again.."give me equal rights while preserving my special status"..hmmmmmm


Can someone please respond to this - - until I get my internet issues cleared up?

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join