Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

page: 37
34
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Ah, Annee, queen of the rivals, I see you on so many of those lists. Apparently for good reason.


Yes!

Its called a 20+ year interest in Gay rights - - - therefore I educated myself on the subject.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Regarding logic, this isn't something you seem to know much about, so why comment on it? No doubt you have your strengths, for example, you're one of the more "emotional" posters I've noticed on ATS.


Again - - - anyone reading emotions into another person's post - - - is infusing and interpreting from their own emotions.

In other words - - it is your own emotions reflecting back to you.

In my short - statement type posting style - - - I must commend you for your talent of infusing your emotions.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Simple answer, really.

Hetero-pride!

Because... without us, you wouldn't be here



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Regarding logic, this isn't something you seem to know much about, so why comment on it? No doubt you have your strengths, for example, you're one of the more "emotional" posters I've noticed on ATS.


Again - - - anyone reading emotions into another person's post - - - is infusing and interpreting from their own emotions.

In other words - - it is your own emotions reflecting back to you.

In my short - statement type posting style - - - I must commend you for your talent of infusing your emotions.



"Right On!"

"You are Right!"

"That was an awesome post And I want to Thank him right now!"

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

"What country are you from?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well Spock, I only looked back a few pages to come up with the above, and I've got to admit, I am confused with why several people you are debating all seem to agree you are so "emotional." They've got to be kidding! I'm guessing they're either hateful, or prejudiced (or both!).

But I'm glad you explained that it's just their emotions, "reflecting back". You do take the high road, I admire your considerable restraint. (Thanks Annee, for being such an example to the rest of us.)

BTW, I just love your unique "statement type posting style"! It's AWESOME!!




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I think this thread has fallen to the dreaded insult bug. The discussion has been derailed by a few people insulting each other...

At the very least, if you do that, you can include some comments pertaining to the subject.

I have yet to see a logical argument against same-sex marriage. We've covered the definition, procreation, wrongness, and family values of it.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 




At the very least, if you do that, you can include some comments pertaining to the subject. I have yet to see a logical argument against same-sex marriage.


And you are adding exactly what pertinent comment, by repeating the same garbage, that you have "yet to see a logical argument"?

Keep it up. Say it over and over, it will eventually be true.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 


Oh please, no answer will fit your bias, so why bother? You are obviously "for" it, so it seems disingenuous to try to give you a "logical" argument when we all know it will be rejected out of hand.

What you (as in all of you who are for gays pretending to be a "man and wife") all seem to be gunning for is a tacit approval by all of us who disapprove.

Who is married? Husbands and wives. Simple. You want "equal?"

Man + Woman = Marriage. Anything else is a distortion of the word "marriage."

You know, on another note, words like Yahoo, Google, internet and email were not in existence 50 years ago, but if you say them today, everyone knows what you mean. So what I don't understand is why the gays don't just make up their very own word for their partnerships that we can ALL agree on.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Califemme
reply to post by grahag
 


Oh please, no answer will fit your bias, so why bother? You are obviously "for" it, so it seems disingenuous to try to give you a "logical" argument when we all know it will be rejected out of hand.

What you (as in all of you who are for gays pretending to be a "man and wife") all seem to be gunning for is a tacit approval by all of us who disapprove.

Who is married? Husbands and wives. Simple. You want "equal?"

Man + Woman = Marriage. Anything else is a distortion of the word "marriage."

You know, on another note, words like Yahoo, Google, internet and email were not in existence 50 years ago, but if you say them today, everyone knows what you mean. So what I don't understand is why the gays don't just make up their very own word for their partnerships that we can ALL agree on.



I think the majority of us that argue FOR gay marriage is that we want to show that once you take the fear/emotion/panic out of the discussion, there's not really any logical reason it shouldn't be legal everywhere. I'm not gay, so I don't require approval as I don't have a stake in the argument other than people wanting to impose their will on others. I'm not sure if it's a form of punishment for their "immoral" behavior or if a certain clique or class feels the others need to be held below them, but I try to find understanding beyond the emotional reasons. I can tell you logically why all kinds of things are WRONG without going to a moral standpoint, but I can't come up with a reason against gay marriage that makes sense.

The logic part is what makes the argument valid. There are married gay people, so the definition has been changed already in that case, but the argument against the definition isn't really logical because the definition itself has changed and might even change again. I understand and even respect people's fear of gay marriage, and we ALL have our own preferences.

I am absolutely for same sex marriage because it doesn't take anything away from anyone. Am I wrong? If you have any logical reasons that aren't based on emotions, opinions, or dislike of a demographic based on their sexual preference, then I'd love to hear them.
edit on 24-5-2011 by grahag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
I am absolutely for same sex marriage because it doesn't take anything away from anyone. Am I wrong? If you have any logical reasons that aren't based on emotions, opinions, or dislike of a demographic based on their sexual preference, then I'd love to hear them.


I think its always important in this argument/debate to specify LEGAL Marriage.

The #1 reason Gays want Legal Marriage is for the LEGAL benefits such as spousal insurance - - automatic pension benefit - - custody of children - - etc.

Of course gays are just as emotional in love as heteros and want the experience of Marriage - - - but that is not what this is primarily about.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So it IS about money...I thought so 15 pages ago



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I don't get gay marriage.
But I don't get straight marriage either, so ner.

It's all the same, 2 people want to be paired by a document to say they are together, ask me, it's all bogus and a way to control people and get them to conform to the ways of society.

I should get married because it's the done thing, no chance.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chukkles
I don't get gay marriage.
But I don't get straight marriage either, so ner.

It's all the same, 2 people want to be paired by a document to say they are together, ask me, it's all bogus and a way to control people and get them to conform to the ways of society.

I should get married because it's the done thing, no chance.


Its really not about that. Its about LEGAL Rights.

Suppose you had a child with someone through IV and that person died.

If you are not the biological parent of the child - - - a blood relative can "rip" that child away from you.

However - - if you are LEGALLY married - - the child is automatically legally yours.

Gay couples with children live this risk everyday. Only one can put their name on the birth certificate. There is at least one state that now allows both parents to put their name on a birth certificate.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Califemme
 




Oh please, no answer will fit your bias, so why bother? You are obviously "for" it, so it seems disingenuous to try to give you a "logical" argument when we all know it will be rejected out of hand.


You might be a bit late to this party, but you sure nailed it.

It's been interesting to see how emotional people are on this topic. Very few of the pro-gay-marriage folks seem to be able to see any "logic", unless it confirms their bias.

I suppose someone like grahag might get a pass, since he/she didn't even post until page 26 of the thread.

AND THEN, you have to see that on page ONE, even the inflammatory OP manages to point out a logical argument.

AND THEN, someone on page 28 takes the trouble to summarize the logical points made, up to that time. Posters like grahag, well, apparently oblivious! Biased? Indeed.

One of the respected mods on ATS, GetReadyAlready presented a rather unemotional, and very logical argument regarding the interests of the state when it comes to this issue. But page, after page, the pro-gay-marriage crowd makes it a point to congratulate each other on the "fact" that they haven't found any "logical" arguments yet!

My goodness, they are so absurdly emotional, and they don't seem to know it.

Male and female role models, these are apples, those are oranges. On, and on, a debate as you might expect. And yet, CONSISTENTLY, the seemingly brainwashed "pro" crowd can't see the forest, as they stick their silly noses into the tree in front of them. Truly, one of the more pathetic threads I've seen.

Well, glad to see another reasonable person show up. Welcome!

JR



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


So it IS about money...I thought so 15 pages ago


Rolls Eyes
edit on 24-5-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


A minute ago you were saying its about money



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


A minute ago you were saying its about money


That is your interpretation.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by grahag
I am absolutely for same sex marriage because it doesn't take anything away from anyone. Am I wrong? If you have any logical reasons that aren't based on emotions, opinions, or dislike of a demographic based on their sexual preference, then I'd love to hear them.


I think its always important in this argument/debate to specify LEGAL Marriage.

The #1 reason Gays want Legal Marriage is for the LEGAL benefits such as spousal insurance - - automatic pension benefit - - custody of children - - etc.



MY interpertation?...ok..



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
From the oldest literature 'marry' meant to join a male and female...
...by the insertion of a penis into a vagina.

If a man took a woman into his tent and inserted his penis into her vagina...
...they were 'married'...
...the whole religious, civil ceremonial thing came along much later.

When a man 'knew' a woman or 'came into her' he had certain obligations toward her...
...to provide for her and her offspring...
...if a man 'knew' a woman and did not want to have her under his roof/house...
...then he would pay a price in lieu of his obligation...
...this became the basis of prostitution...
...the man was not paying for sex but having 'married' the woman...
...he was meeting his obligation and expecting her to leave.

So biologically two same gender persons can not 'marry'...
...because they don't have the physical equipment...
...two penises can't 'marry'...two vaginas can't 'marry'...
...the most they can do is mutually masterbate or stimulate but not 'marry'.

In ancient times men sometimes kept 'boys' for gratuitous sexual use...
...but entering a boy has never been considered 'marriage'...
...but entering a girl/woman was to 'marry' them.

So if same gender persons want to seal their relationship with some legal or ceremonial rite...
...they can call it 'marriage' but technically and biologically it isn't nor can be.

I am sorry gay people but there is a long history on the side of heterosexuals on this one...
...so go find your own word to describe your relationship.

edit on 24/5/11 by troubleshooter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
MY interpertation?...ok..


Its about protection - - protecting your family.

There are many horror stories about relatives and courts stealing or denying rights to the surviving spouse and taking children away (just two examples). Even though legal paperwork had been drawn up and signed.

There are always loopholes and courts/judges (especially anti-gay ones) have no qualms about using them.

One problem is insurance. Insurance goes through brokers. A gay couple can buy insurance in a state that allows it. But it might be sold to a broker in a state that doesn't allow it. (yes this actually happens).

They pay on it for 20 years - - one spouse dies - - the insurance company refuses to pay to the surviving partner because he is gay.

Another issue is the surviving spouse not having legal custody of a child.

If you want to say that's about money - - that's your prerogative. I say its about LEGAL right to protect your family.



edit on 24-5-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
I am sorry gay people but there is a long history on the side of heterosexuals on this one...
...so go find your own word to describe your relationship.


This is 2011.

I really don't care what ancient history says.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join