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: 35
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
A few pages ago a guy bared his soul on this thread and was ignored. By everyone. No one thanked him for his story or acknowleged it, or showed any gratitude for his courage.

All anyone is doing is arguing and you can't argue this topic because people are so divided on it.

Surely it's best to just shake on it and agree to disagree, because I'm sure many posting negatively are good people.

Let me just say this - Learn for yourself how the world works, don't rely on a book to tell you how life should be lived. See it, experiece it, because that's the only way you'll ever know it.

Why is this thread so off topic?




posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
I would also like to clarify whats the difference between a hetero couple that wont/can't have children with a gay couple. There are alot of differences but I would just like to point out the one thats related to the procreation argument.
hetero couples have the possibility of procreation, if they are unfertile then maybe some treatment will make them fertile. in the other hand, gay couples are intrinsically just not capable of procreation.
the big difference is therefore the existence of the possibility


Not all hetero couples are capable of reproduction. My wife and myself can't have kids. Nothing can be done to fix the problem. So where does that leave your argument since this hetero couple and many other do not have the possibility of procreation?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Using your logic, we should stop all traditional marriages because that could lead to gay marriage.
It's funny when people like you try to hide their bigotry


thanks for calling me a bigot, its very revealing when someone resorts to name calling once they find out an argument that contradicts their beliefs.
not everyone that does not share your opinion has some emotional problem
your counter is just very superficial and if we were to discuss it in debt it would fall apart very fast
one example is:
if you were to take any argument advocation traditional marriage and replace it with gay marriage will they all be standing logical? the answer is no and therefore your example is invalid



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Helious
You don't care where I "think" it came from because you refuse to believe the truth.


Truth? As in God?

That is your choice - - if you want to believe that.

However - - - what you choose to believe - - - will not deny Equal Rights to others.

There will be NO "Separate but Equal". There will only be Equal.


There is no argument about religion here. It is a matter of you trying to brand a word and a tradition with something it simply is not.


FACT: There are LEGAL gay Marriages all over the world.

New tradition I guess.

Those who are Married own the word.



Your sexual preference is of no concern to the rest of civilized society and your force feeding of what you prefer in the bedroom will never be accepted in the main stream because sexual preference has no relevance in the real world outside of your longing to be accepted as normal.



That can only be the case when the rest of civilized society stops force feeding sexuality. Sexuality is more relevant in the real world than you realize. Just because it's not YOUR sexuality does it mean that it's not relevant to someone else. If you don't like gay marriage, then I would wholeheartedly suggest that you don't participate in a gay marriage. I'm certain that given time, the definitions will change (again) and that marriage will be determined as between two people regardless of gender. Will your opinion change if that's the case? Will you be more accepting of it then? I doubt it. The definition is just a hurdle, which has already been traversed by gay couples already being married.

I'll admit that the ideas of two guys kissing kinda makes me squirm, but there's no reason that these people should be denied the right that others have because it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Kids make me uncomfortable. Should I be against children because of that? I limit my contact with children as much as I can and the problem is solved. Accordion music also makes me uncomfortable, but I'm not rallying against it. I just don't listen to it. I suggest you do the same. Your life will probably better because of it, not to mention, others.


And for you folks fond of the bible, try to be more Christ-like...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Not all hetero couples are capable of reproduction. My wife and myself can't have kids. Nothing can be done to fix the problem. So where does that leave your argument since this hetero couple and many other do not have the possibility of procreation?


so are you asking why the government hasn't voided you marriage contract?
there are many reasons they the government would not go in great lengths to correctly identify couples that can't have children. one of them is money, time and resources.
Its more efficient to led the "exceptions" to pass by than to try to take them out
with gay couples, its an intrinsic quality that they can't reproduce
for example lets say you have a shipment of broccoli. the government has some safety standards and those safety standards, it is a given that a small amount of insects will always be present in broccoli. its too costly and just unfeasible to try to get rid of 100% of all insects in broccoli. does it mean we should go ahead and dump in more insects in broccoli? by your logic, theres already insects in broccoli so why not knowingly dump more insects in a shipment of broccoli?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Like you said, legal marriage is a contract, but i think you don't understand what a contract means.

In a contract, all parties involved in it make agreements and set responsibilities.

In a traditional marriage it is expected that a couple will form a new family and procreate children.

In return the government responds and grants the marriage some rights meant to ease the burden to raising children.

Then what does the government get in return?


First off - - - what country are you from?

I'm actually very familiar with everything you listed. And I don't care.

Do hetero couples have to sign a contract that says they will procreate? NO - they don't. And many - - especially now - - choose not to have children.

On the other hand gay couples/families have had to struggle for acceptance. They (many) take Marriage and Family very seriously.

I'm sorry - - - but your prejudice against Gays - - - weakens your argument.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


You keep referring to nobody in your arguments. Maybe you should just try speaking for yourself. There may be people that want to see what you're talking about and to include them invalidates your argument.

The second you use absolutes in an argument, you've lost. There are many who would not prefer to see that behavior, but there are many that do. So... keep your team to one person when you're arguing YOUR opinion and you'll probably have a chance at making your point hold water...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Well, you proved my point with your apparent inability to respond in a logical manner. You also demonstrated again, that you may have reading comprehension issues.

Don't worry, most people have a hard time with logic after all, but if you're one of them, perhaps you should refrain from announcing, as you barge into a thread, that there's "no logical argument"!

If you were bad at math, would you offer to correct someone's math papers? It's "just logic" I'm using here.

Anyway, all that being said, clearly you were not the only one stopping in to say that you couldn't possibly imagine a logical argument against gay marriage, a lot of people did it.

For me, I actually first clicked on the thread because I saw the title as an interesting "set up" for a socio-political experiment. Not that this was the OP's intention, but who knows?

Here's what I'm getting at. Obviously, the sheer lack of imagination, the apparent inability of one side of the spectrum to even come up with "one" lousy logical argument, is pretty pathetic (and these folks might as well forget the debate team, because you would utterly fail if you were assigned anything you didn't agree with).

BUT, mere lack of imagination is not the biggest problem! Actually, the manner in which the OP's question was phrased was a pure "bait", and appealed to the classic polarized mindset. Pretty interesting!

You see, in virtually ANY debate / discussion, especially concerning more or less social and / or political issues, there are easily very "logical" arguments that will be seen on both sides. You hardly have to try, it's not math after all.

But my point is, one person after another bumbled into the trap, and knee-jerk agreed with the essentially preposterous OP question. In other words, the minute a person agreed with it, you would automatically be "wrong", because logic is actually the basis of language itself. You wouldn't be able to argue long, and certainly not for 34 pages (!), if there wasn't substance to deal with.

And honestly, think about it, we will seldom find that there are "no" logical arguments to be found. The OP set a fairly high bar, wouldn't you say?

Here's my simple "interpretation" of this phenomenon: This issue is so emotionally charged, that much like "religion", people shut their brains off, so eager are they to unload how they "feel" about it.

Not to put this on you of course, I just thought it was time for someone to finally point out the absurdity going on, ad nauseum (at this point).

Is the OP screwing with us? I really don't know, but I certainly gave him/her a S & F for providing the amusement!

JR



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

First off - - - what country are you from?

I'm actually very familiar with everything you listed. And I don't care.

Do hetero couples have to sign a contract that says they will procreate? NO - they don't. And many - - especially now - - choose not to have children.

On the other hand gay couples/families have had to struggle for acceptance. They (many) take Marriage and Family very seriously.

I'm sorry - - - but your prejudice against Gays - - - weakens your argument.



I see that you are reading my posts with some thick goggles
I clearly stated that there is not legal laws that dictates couples should have children
I said that couples getting children is a expected outcome, the predicted next step
like i said to the other poster, not everyone that disagrees with you has some emotional motive



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
A few pages ago a guy bared his soul on this thread and was ignored. By everyone. No one thanked him for his story or acknowledged it, or showed any gratitude for his courage.


You are right! That was an awesome post. And I want to Thank Him right now!

Sorry - - still having internet issues. It goes out sporadically - - for up to 40 minutes. Its been difficult to keep up at all.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by grahag
 


Yes,but if they are given equal rights,will they give up special treatment...theanswer,is,of course not....they got it they will keep it and ride it to the hilt....and thats wrong....equal rights should call for equal treatment...if they put a proposal on a ballot tomorrow granting equal rights,then Id be the first to vote for it...provided that same bill repealed special status for the same group....and we all know that will never happen


Why wouldn't they? What would be the requirement of them to keep "special treatment" (which really just affords them some equitable rights when being discriminated against). People don't seem to understand that until you're discriminated against, it's always "the other guy" that's doing the bitching about it.

I'd think in a country where freedom and liberty is so treasured that as a country we'd stand up for any group that is being discriminated against, even those that we disagree with.

I think once you see them getting equal rights, there won't be any special rights anymore. The civil rights movement in the 60's has come a long way since and the quality of life has gotten better for everyone because of it. I suspect the same will happen for this situation as well.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

I see that you are reading my posts with some thick goggles
I clearly stated that there is not legal laws that dictates couples should have children
I said that couples getting children is a expected outcome, the predicted next step
like i said to the other poster, not everyone that disagrees with you has some emotional motive


I did not miss what you said. I just made a point - - - to make it stand out that there is NO signed contract requiring procreation for Heteros.

Expectations!!!! Again - - I don't care.

What country are you from?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
And now we are back to the basic question I asked back on page 29(and no one actually answered)...Why should someone who enjoys special staus(protection under the law,being prosecuted for a hate rime for useof offensive language)when others dont have that priviledge be given equal rights?...WIll they give up the special protections and status if granted equal rights?


It's a silly question really because it's a straw man argument. The special status you state is NOT equality.

Hate crime prosecution can go both ways btw. If a gay man commits a crime against a straight man BECAUSE he is straight, that would still be a hate crime and YOU (if you're straight) are protected by it. To most people that's ridiculous because it happens so rarely that you never hear about it. I'm sure it's happened, but I'm also sure it's much less likely to be reported. It's not special treatment because everyone is protected by it.

I'm curious what other "special treatment" you're talking about?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I agree with everything you said, I came here because I found it hard to belief that there is no logical argument against gay marriage. The title was interesting and I wanted to engage in a logic based discussion.
yet every time I presented a logical argument two or tree people will respond with one liners on how they disagree personally without trying to invalidate the logic,or at least trying but failing because of their own logical flaws
and then I have to spend more time trying to argue why their counter argument is not logical
at the same time the subsequent responses also are heavily opinionated and logically weak
to people that called me prejudiced and bigot etc. I'm not, plus I hardly care about gay marriage
this is the first time in my life trying to take part in a gay marriage debate
therefore is my first time thinking about this subject they way I did while taking part in this thread
and obviously is my first time trying to argue against pro gay marriage advocates
I have to tell you, they say first impressions are very important.
my first impression is that pro gay marriage advocates are not good at logic but emotion driven
I'm not saying all gay marriage advocates are illogical. I'm pretty sure there must be pro gay marriage advocates that are highly logical but this is just that impression I got from the couple of people in this thread.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I did not miss what you said. I just made a point - - - to make it stand out that there is NO signed contract requiring procreation for Heteros.

Expectations!!!! Again - - I don't care.

What country are you from?



ok you made it clear that you don't care about anything I say
and why would my country be relevant?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
ok you made it clear that you don't care about anything I say
and why would my country be relevant?


Stop trying to manipulate.

I don't care - - in regards to the Expectations - - you state a a couple getting married "owes" to the government.

Many Heteros are choosing not to procreate.

Many Gays are choosing to procreate.

Yet - - - you want to place full responsibility on Gays.

Your Logic is flawed by your prejudice.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner
I would also like to clarify whats the difference between a hetero couple that wont/can't have children with a gay couple. There are alot of differences but I would just like to point out the one thats related to the procreation argument.
hetero couples have the possibility of procreation, if they are unfertile then maybe some treatment will make them fertile. in the other hand, gay couples are intrinsically just not capable of procreation.
the big difference is therefore the existence of the possibility


Surrogates and in vitro fertilization are possibilities for procreation on the same-sex side. It's not a logical argument that if you can't reproduce, you shouldn't be married, because MANY married couples choose not to have kids or can't. Invalidating the marriages based on child-bearing status would be a cruel thing to do to people who already probably feel bad enough.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Stop trying to manipulate.

I don't care - - in regards to the Expectations - - you state a a couple getting married "owes" to the government.

Many Heteros are choosing not to procreate.

Many Gays are choosing to procreate.

Yet - - - you want to place full responsibility on Gays.

Your Logic is flawed by your prejudice.


I never said any one "owes" anything
also I never said there were any "expectations"
I was referring to the expected outcome, there is a slight difference there
"Many Gays are choosing to procreate." ---- this doesnt even make sense
and I'm not trying to manipulate anyone
maybe you feel like that because my arguments actually make sense?
like I said I dont have prejudices



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by quietlearner

Originally posted by jfj123
Not all hetero couples are capable of reproduction. My wife and myself can't have kids. Nothing can be done to fix the problem. So where does that leave your argument since this hetero couple and many other do not have the possibility of procreation?


so are you asking why the government hasn't voided you marriage contract?
there are many reasons they the government would not go in great lengths to correctly identify couples that can't have children. one of them is money, time and resources.
Its more efficient to led the "exceptions" to pass by than to try to take them out
with gay couples, its an intrinsic quality that they can't reproduce
for example lets say you have a shipment of broccoli. the government has some safety standards and those safety standards, it is a given that a small amount of insects will always be present in broccoli. its too costly and just unfeasible to try to get rid of 100% of all insects in broccoli. does it mean we should go ahead and dump in more insects in broccoli? by your logic, theres already insects in broccoli so why not knowingly dump more insects in a shipment of broccoli?


Actually, the government is there to protect the life liberty and pursuit of happiness. And given a bit of time, this broccoli will be able to get a gay marriage and that will be protected just as the straight broccoli is.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

Surrogates and in vitro fertilization are possibilities for procreation on the same-sex side. It's not a logical argument that if you can't reproduce, you shouldn't be married, because MANY married couples choose not to have kids or can't. Invalidating the marriages based on child-bearing status would be a cruel thing to do to people who already probably feel bad enough.


ok lets use surrogates
example a male/male couple
they have to use the body of a female for 9 months
also only one of them will donate their genes
the kid will not be blood related to one of them at all
can you foresee all the insecurity troubles the social troubles, the mental health troubles?
just because they can, my artificial means, create a life does not make them the same
as a hetero couple with their own child.
you say they feel bad? I'm sure they do
so lets not be cruel and give pamper them?
they feel bad -> lets not be cruel -> lets give them everything they want lol!
it actually makes sense!!



new topics




 
34
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join