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: 8
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Annee
 


Wow! ???? Poor souls pretending to be what there not. Must hurt? ...... Sick!


Since I haven't been following your posts - - - I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

It would be really pathetic if you are.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Aww... I'm not Bobby anymore? Common Shirley! No really a non-issue. Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by AmrikazNightmar3
I never understood marriage, gay or otherwise. If you love someone, love them, why involve the government?

My 2 pennies.....


Gays don't give a crap about getting married and our government could care less about those fudge packers getting married. It's all about filing of income taxes as married or filing as two single people...


Curiously astute.
I would have left out the obviously retarded term, fudge packers tho...kinda revealing
Lol



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by akushla99
 


Aww... I'm not Bobby anymore? Common Shirley! No really a non-issue. Cheers!


Oh my,
Youre still here,
Rambling about a non-issue?!
You can be bobby anytime you like, honey...just say the word...lol



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No, pathetic is insisting two men or women play husband and wife. Actually kind of pitiful. Why would a man subjugate him self to another man. For women I can kind of see the weakness.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I do not believe there is a logical reason against gay marriage.


Marriage is a social construct. As such, no single so-called "religion" (religion, itself, being just another form of social construct) has the right to claim jurisdiction, as arbitrator, over the ultimate definition of marriage. Or who can or cannot be "married" outside of any particular faith.

The authority of a particular religion's right to deem marriage begins and Ends with the adherants within that particular faith.


If a just society is to grant special rights, privlidges, and or status to those of its citizens who elect to join in a legally defined status, to be refered to as marriage, then such a society must make that status available to all its citizens capable of making that election, equally.

Otherwise the society cannot rightfully consider itself Just.


Children do need adult role models.

However, there is no logical reason to preclude gay parents as suitable role models for either their natural children, or adopted children,


To insist that children can only be properly raised in a heterosexually-coupled parental setting is to irrationally cling to a long out-moded, patriarchial social construct.


Quite frankly, I find such beliefs to be insidiously sexist and detrimental to a healthy social fabric.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


No thanks Shirley bob. I think i'm still here to see what makes you all tick. I am more and more convinced it's a mental issue. Cheers!
Do unto others before they do unto you.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by AmrikazNightmar3
I never understood marriage, gay or otherwise. If you love someone, love them, why involve the government?

My 2 pennies.....


Gays don't give a crap about getting married and our government could care less about those fudge packers getting married. It's all about filing of income taxes as married or filing as two single people...


Curiously astute.
I would have left out the obviously retarded term, fudge packers tho...kinda revealing
Lol


Not really.

Most gays want LEGAL marriage for medical - insurance - inheritance - pensions.

Also the Tax breaks - - - which is a point used because all people can understand that point.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Deep down I feel there is nothing wrong with it and I would have no problem supporting gay marriages. I just don't like to see it. I guess I'm a bit homophobic. It disturbs me deep down when I see 2 men kissing. I believe society in general is not ready to see gay couples in public in mass amounts.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
I do not believe there is a logical reason against gay marriage.


Marriage is a social construct. As such, no single so-called "religion" (religion, itself, being just another form of social construct) has the right to claim jurisdiction, as arbitrator, over the ultimate definition of marriage. Or who can or cannot be "married" outside of any particular faith.

The authority of a particular religion's right to deem marriage begins and Ends with the adherants within that particular faith.


If a just society is to grant special rights, privlidges, and or status to those of its citizens who elect to join in a legally defined status, to be refered to as marriage, then such a society must make that status available to all its citizens capable of making that election, equally.

Otherwise the society cannot rightfully consider itself Just.


Children do need adult role models.

However, there is no logical reason to preclude gay parents as suitable role models for either their natural children, or adopted children,


To insist that children can only be properly raised in a heterosexually-coupled parental setting is to irrationally cling to a long out-moded, patriarchial social construct.


Quite frankly, I find such beliefs to be insidiously sexist and detrimental to a healthy social fabric.


Welcome aboard the 'illogical arguments against gay marriage' train
Some things will never make sense.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So if gay marriages qualify for tax breaks and government benefits. We can pretty much assume they will never legalize gay marriage because they would lose out on a mass amount of tax dollars.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by akushla99
 


No thanks Shirley bob. I think i'm still here to see what makes you all tick. I am more and more convinced it's a mental issue. Cheers!
Do unto others before they do unto you.


Be careful you listen for the subharmonic ticks...dont be rash or hasty in your appraisal of 'us all'.
You are made of glass, as am i...
'more and more convinced...'...translates as, maybe delusional!
The quote
Do unto others...is starkly different to the abominant...'before they do unto you'.
People out to get you?
Akushla



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by goos3
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

One reason, its wrong.

How?

According to what?


I think it's as right as heterosexual marriage...it's just another form of ownership,but nothing to get worried about...unless you're homophobic.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by AmrikazNightmar3
I never understood marriage, gay or otherwise. If you love someone, love them, why involve the government?

My 2 pennies.....


Gays don't give a crap about getting married and our government could care less about those fudge packers getting married. It's all about filing of income taxes as married or filing as two single people...


Curiously astute.
I would have left out the obviously retarded term, fudge packers tho...kinda revealing
Lol


Not really.

Most gays want LEGAL marriage for medical - insurance - inheritance - pensions.

Also the Tax breaks - - - which is a point used because all people can understand that point.


Yep.
I just meant that the package this gem came in was, in my opinion, correct, but quite badly worded.
Lol



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by akushla99
 


Shirley, I'm not the one arguing for Equality. Or feel I have to ask a public question about why a same sex couples marriage is wrong. Indeed, I do not feel it necessary to ask for public validation for any of my thoughts or actions. Fact is if you have to ask, it probably is wrong and you need to be convinced otherwise. Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by akushla99
 


Shirley, I'm not the one arguing for Equality. Or feel I have to ask a public question about why a same sex couples marriage is wrong. Indeed, I do not feel it necessary to ask for public validation for any of my thoughts or actions. Fact is if you have to ask, it probably is wrong and you need to be convinced otherwise. Cheers!


Well now...lets pull that apart.

'im not the one arguing for equality'
I agree, you are not arguing for equality!

'or feel...blah, blah, blah'
Youre right...somebody else asked the question!
(and incidentally, the question was...'logical arguments against gay marriage')...somehow you have managed to turn it round!

'public validation...blah, blah, blah'
Nobody twisted your little arms around your back to do so! You are free to leave or stay as you see fit.

'fact is...blah, blah, blah'
I think adolf just likes calling anything he/she likes, a fact...lol
Akushla



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelinside451
reply to post by Annee
 


So if gay marriages qualify for tax breaks and government benefits. We can pretty much assume they will never legalize gay marriage because they would lose out on a mass amount of tax dollars.


Ever heard of the Pink Dollar?
This part of society has oodles of money, which is fed, like everyone elses dollars back into the system.
Akushla



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:00 AM
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.


So, by your logic (which is NEVER on the side of religious nuts like you), Buddhists shouldn't be allowed by law to get married... Marriage is not exclusively Christian. You must be unaware that marriage has been around a lot longer than 2,000 years and existed WAY before the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-death-cult was vomited into existence.

Personally, I find the mannerisms and vocal inflections of "flaming" homosexuals to be rather annoying. I don't like them for that fact. Does that make me a bigot? Probably. Does that make me want to band together with other bigots to suppress these people's liberty and pursuit of happiness? Hell no. There is one big thing that separates bigots like me, from bigots like those who would try to oppress gay people. RELIGION! Their fairy tales make those people way too concerned about what fairies do with their tails.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


From a moral viewpoint, I would personally say no. However, from a logical perspective I would argue that:

Marriage is usually associated with religious institutions, who authorise and confirm the union of husband and wife. There is the legal side of it too, sure, but it seems to me that this is what separates marriage from civil partnership.. Surely a homosexual couple wouldn't be that bothered with the permission of an institution that not only fails to recognise or understand them, but scorns them?

Hey, I may not see the logic in it but I say if you want to marry someone then go for it, it isn't harming anyone. I mean, you hear stories about people who've married a lamp and nonsense like that - yet two people who love each other cannot? Similarly, the state has NO say in the matter, it is never the government's place to intervene in personal relationships.

Edit:

Actually, an interesting subject for debate would be the validity of the concept of marriage in general imo! Why do you need any institution/ritual to confirm your devotion to someone?
edit on 22-5-2011 by arollingstone because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
As long as it's not the churches doing it, I couldn't care less.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join