Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

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

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Not all gay people want to be married. Many gay people that want to be legally joined don't want to call it marriage.

What I'd like to see is the removal of religion and the dogmatic social conditioning from the debate, though I am aware that many societies and individuals have vastly different views and that religion etc plays a large part of how they think and see the world.

I know that many heterosexuals are intimidated by the concept because they do not understand and how could they unless they are gay themselves or are directly affected families of gay people, with concern for their loved one's happiness and future? There should be no fear or intimidation because gay people aren't the boogeyman. Most are unrecognizable as what is generally accepted to be gay, they're just normal citizens getting on with their day to day business and if you happen to know they're gay it's because they care enough about you for you to know them better.
edit on 24-5-2011 by Garfee because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 

My business partner of ten years is gay and considered family.

Call it 'bonding' or 'coupling' or some other creative term...
...but it can never be marriage.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
Not all gay people want to be married. Many gay people that want to be legally joined don't want to call it marriage.


The thing is though - - you can not go backwards - - you can only go forward.

The Government used the word Marriage in a document "Marriage License". Our Government is secular. Religion can not be attached to this document.

The Government took the word Marriage from religion. You can still get married in a church - - - but you can only be Legally Married by the government.

Marriage is also a global term. Other parts of the world have Gay Marriage. It can not be taken away.

Besides all that - Separate But Equal - - - should never be allowed.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


What's wrong with sideways? I have just as many rights as everyone else and I see no reason to push for a marriage. If it's the word that people are concerned about - have the thing because I don't want it. If you push too much you only incite the fear of those who wouldn't understand and that's exactly what is going on.

My mother is a civil union and marriage celebrant and has legally joined many same sex partners. It's not marriage but a civil union with all the same legal rights as marriage, allowing those gay couples who choose to be joined, the exact legal rights as heterosexual couples who wish to be joined in marriage.

There are also many heterosexual couples who choose civil union. It's the same thing in the eyes of the law.

Let those who wish to argue keep the word 'marriage', it's not needed and would end the debate.

edit on 24-5-2011 by Garfee because: sp



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Annee
 


What's wrong with sideways?


I do not and will never support "Separate But Equal"

Marriage is not just a word in the fight for Equality.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
If you push too much you only incite the fear of those who wouldn't understand and that's exactly what is going on.



And that makes it even more important to fight/push for FULL equality.

Marriage Only.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Helious
 


Why do you think they want more rights? They want to only have the same right as we heterosexuals already have - possibility to have a partnership with those who we are sexually attracted to registered by the state. So it depends on how do you formulate it.

Now I dont agree wit the state regulating marriage at all (only parenthood), but if it does it, then it should not discriminate.

Even if we agreed they want to have more rights, I cant see why do you have problem with it, since they are different. Its like saying disabled people should not demand the state to accomodate for their disability (barrier free buildings, assistance, benefits etc.). Should disabled people also be treated as fully normal people?

edit on 22/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
edit on 22/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Umm, please educate me if i am wrong, but you already have the same rights as every other American. So, what is your basis for additional rights? Since you are already afforded the same rights as everyone else. Oh, I remember, you seek rights because you like to do different things in the bedroom and that opposes mainstream views.

So, to recount the situation as I understand it; You and your group are not a minority, come from all facets, religions and races and have zero religious constitutional basis to your argument?

Should this in fact be correct (Which it is) what exactly do you lay your claim on "rights"? Sexual preference? By that line of thinking I could start an occult of men who only like to knock on there significant others back door and then start of movement of only people who enjoy that and force it on society because I call anyone who says keep it behind closed doors and live your life "racists".

It's not about what you do in public, I and many, many others could care less, really, I do. I don't care if you get the same rights as married people have...... The fact you even think that is a victory is hilarious to me personally.

It is the simple idea your sexual preference makes any difference in your every day life. For all of the rest of us it does not, regardless of the sick stuff we may like, everyone keeps it private, except for on group of people....... Guess who?

Your internal struggle to figure out who you are implores you to seek acceptance and demand approval from people who couldn't care less other than you just flat our irritating them with complete nonsense. Stop trying to call it marriage, stop acting completely flaming when it's a 100% act, stop trying to cry persecution when you blatantly ask for the attention just to dissent from it. Stop the agenda pushing, stop the whining, act like normal people and keep your sex life to yourself and you find.......... It's the same world we all share.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Garfee
If you push too much you only incite the fear of those who wouldn't understand and that's exactly what is going on.



And that makes it even more important to fight/push for FULL equality.

Marriage Only.


You won't get it. Not that way and I think you know it. I'm not saying it's compromise but it's realistic. The people who fear it or have the ear of politicians, will, are and will always react negatively to such views.

There is no point debating this with you because you are as set in stone as those who are so vehemently opposed to the concept but marriage is just a word. A legal union is a legal union, exactly the same as marriage only a different word.

Why would you push for gay marriage when you know you're only further polarizing the opposition to it?



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Is this idiocy still going on? You see, if the bible all the "thumpers" believe in is real, and its THAT God that rules everything, your gonna be in Hell with every gay person in the world. To have the audacity to speak for God would be one of the worst sins you can do. Its like claiming to be God, or a spokesman for God. And no human brain is capable of understanding God, the concept of God, any understanding of the afterlife, and/or the universe and its "Spiritual Laws"...so that in itself would piss him off. And your hell ain't too pretty. The bible is a morality pamphlet for an antique, out of date, out of time world. Get with the times.

and to Helious,
I generally hate public displays of affection, and to be honest, alot of gay people ARE annoying. And so is everyone else in the world, lol. I think its a reaction to oppression/repression. I dunno, think of the white public's reaction to the introduction of Black music....back in the day that was the devil's tunes....it all goes to show you that humans are still scared little creatures, and they take a long time to accept harmless diversity.
edit on 24-5-2011 by jetflock because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by grahag

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...


There is no such thing as "gay marriage" do you know how to read? Do you know how to comprehend words? What rights are being denied exactly? Sexuality is defined by nature, not by man. We don't get to deny the propagation of species because we have intellect.

Homosexuality is not a right, it is an imbalance of chemicals in the human brain and in fact is no different than bi polar disorder. Granted, I personal see nothing wrong with it, and I really don't care about a persons sexual preference, it should NOT take face in a public light. For Gods sake, if every deviant sexual bastard went out and declared there sick form of sex a revolution we would have an epidemic on our hands of biblical proportions

Being sexually attracted to the same sex is not abnormal, in fact, it quite the norm, that being said, the urge to being with only your own sex and then making a crusade to try to transform the world to make it fit your own views is not only irresponsible but kind of disgusting. At the end of the day, it comes down to fetish sex, not a movement, not a revolution, just plain old sexual preference, mis guided self importance, preposterous narcissistic views on your general group and finally, some self indulged right to seek to hijack religious and social words and ceremony's with there own rhetoric to achieve an agenda of laughable equality.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jetflock
 


Bro, I'm not thumping any bibles. I don't care about public displays of affection and I am COMPLETELY FOR equal rights when it comes to gay "unions" under the state.

I personally have 2 dozen gay friends I have made working at different bars through the years and I tell them the same thing as I am saying here.

No hate, none at all. You just can't make an argument about some things. You can't expect gay "marriage" it's not ok and will never be accepted. You can expect and demand "civil unions" which will afford all of the same things under state and legal law........... Thing is, they don't want that. they could care less about rights, they want to be treated the same as everyone else because they enjoy a different kind of sex than everyone else.

They take the argument to a level that is just plain silly and infuriates people on purpose then call them "bigots" It has in fact become reverse racism to it's most ugly form.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
You won't get it. Not that way and I think you know it. I'm not saying it's compromise but it's realistic. The people who fear it or have the ear of politicians, will, are and will always react negatively to such views.

There is no point debating this with you because you are as set in stone as those who are so vehemently opposed to the concept but marriage is just a word. A legal union is a legal union, exactly the same as marriage only a different word.

Why would you push for gay marriage when you know you're only further polarizing the opposition to it?


It will happen. Even the head of the Family Values group has admitted defeat.

I'm well aware that many in the gay community fear losing what they have now - - if they push too hard.

It is not a good reason to settle for less then Full Equality.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Garfee
You won't get it. Not that way and I think you know it. I'm not saying it's compromise but it's realistic. The people who fear it or have the ear of politicians, will, are and will always react negatively to such views.

There is no point debating this with you because you are as set in stone as those who are so vehemently opposed to the concept but marriage is just a word. A legal union is a legal union, exactly the same as marriage only a different word.

Why would you push for gay marriage when you know you're only further polarizing the opposition to it?


It will happen. Even the head of the Family Values group has admitted defeat.

I'm well aware that many in the gay community fear losing what they have now - - if they push too hard.

It is not a good reason to settle for less then Full Equality.


The fact that you don't actually care about equality but only the prevision of a word you have no right too only puts the last nail in this pathetic coffin you call a thread.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 




Umm, please educate me if i am wrong, but you already have the same rights as every other American.


Do they have a right to have a partnership with those who they are sexually attracted to registered by the state, just as heterosexuals do?



By that line of thinking I could start an occult of men who only like to knock on there significant others back door and then start of movement of only people who enjoy that and force it on society because I call anyone who says keep it behind closed doors and live your life "racists".


No you cant. There is a difference between biological sexual orientation and fetish.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:04 AM
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.

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.



I would hope that people here aren't being falsely obtuse about assuming that we're talking about anything OTHER than legal marriage. That's really the issue. There are churches that perform gay marriages, and a legal marriage anywhere would be the only barrier once you found someone to perform it. You can even get a judge to perform a legal gay marriage with no religious overtones at all.

Anyone requiring specification of legal vs ritual hasn't been paying attention.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
reply to post by Annee
 


A minute ago you were saying its about money


Even if it was about money, why should they be denied those rights that heterosexuals have? I'm not following your insinuation of the reason. Is it that because it's money related, that it's an invalid argument?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by grahag
I would hope that people here aren't being falsely obtuse about assuming that we're talking about anything OTHER than legal marriage. That's really the issue. There are churches that perform gay marriages, and a legal marriage anywhere would be the only barrier once you found someone to perform it. You can even get a judge to perform a legal gay marriage with no religious overtones at all.

Anyone requiring specification of legal vs ritual hasn't been paying attention.


I certainly keep trying to emphasize it.

If they haven't got it by now - - don't know what else to say.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Care to cite your statements? I'm pretty sure I can find a wiki entry that says otherwise.

After a quick search, this wiki article has TONS of information regarding marriage.

en.wikipedia.org...

Super easy.

The etymology is iffy, but it does look like the word marriage might have come from the latin word marius, which meant husband. Again, it's kind of iffy and the exact etymology isn't known for a fact.

In any case, it's an argument which is just bickering over the definition of a word. And as we've all agreed, definitions change. Merriam Webster (of the Webster's Dictionary) now includes gay marriages as a definition. So lets dispense with that definition argument because we can now find "official" definitions that include same sex marriage.

This HAS been enlightening because I didn't realize that official dictionary references had changed yet again, and that article about marriage on Wikipedia was an eye opener.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


It seems low to call me out for being "late to the party" as something that might make my response less valid. The thread was quite vigorous and I tend not to read replies before I get my original response out. I'd be fine with calling myself out as it'd be my choice, but I see nothing wrong with posting late as long as followups are done.

You're obviously well-read and your spelling and grammar are impeccable, so attempting to bash people with your intellect would only be a good idea when someone can't defend themselves against it. I recommend sticking to the argument instead of trying to dismantle the thread and go off topic. I try not to reply to trolling but in this case, you warranted a reply because you do make some points in your post.

I had to search through the forum to find GetReadyAlready's post and it is definitely a legitimate argument against same sex marriage IF there's no way for that couple to have children AND you discount all the other heterosexual couples out there that can't have children, yet still decide to get married. There is, and the tax benefit can apply to them the same as it does for heterosexual couples with children. It's really more of a reason for couples who don't have children to have their marriage annulled because they don't produce a tax base. And I covered it already in a previous post.

Regarding the man/animal and man/boy legalization issues, I believe that there are some supporters of those, but they're definitely minor and then you have to deal with consent issues and the who rights over minors/animals to contend with. But comparing legal consenting behavior between two adult people and those of an animal or minor is disingenuous at best and very similar in strategy to comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or Stalin to garner that emotional association before the discussion even starts.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


But a civil union is NOT marriage. Just like it was fine for black people to be on a bus as long as they gave their seats up to whites when they wanted it. They could stand and be ON the bus, but no, they can't sit in THAT seat, because THAT seat is for a white person.

Who cares? As long as you get to ride on the bus, right?

All you have to do to make sense of any civil rights argument is to put YOUR group, whatever it is, in the position of the person with the complaint. If gays found an ancient scroll that predated all existing documents and defined marriage as between 2 men, would heterosexuals freak out because homosexuals said that they can't use that word anymore? You bet they would. But I think it'd be a tiny minority of homosexuals who would even think of denying that to heterosexuals.

It's a glass house and we all have stones. Who wants to throw them? Not me, I hate the sound of breaking glass.






top topics



 
34
<< 35  36  37    39  40 >>

log in

join