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.

 

Non-emotional argument against Gay Marriage...

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Annee
So - are you implying gays are immoral?


They are in my book.

Anyone whom does stuff I like or will do is fun and kinky, anyone whom does anything else is clearly immoral.

Perspectives are great.

Like the definition of a nymphomaniac...is anyone whom wants it one time more than you do.


Your personal opinion of what is moral or immoral between consenting adults - - - needs to stay in your own "house".

If it affected my - rights - sexual orientation - life and choices - - - I would not be amused.

You can have all the thoughts you want. But you can't deny Equal Rights.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.


Yeah, and all those stupid people having sex just for fun, using condoms and stuff. I even heard some couples of different gendre have sex but don't procreate! Talk about war on nature!

I mean if you feel like having sex with someone of the same gendre, you should just deny those feelings, it would be the most natural thing to do...

Oh wait, I was sleep-sarcasm-ing again.

On GM: The only problem I have with GM is that so many people make it a problem... The sole fact that people can be EMOTIONALLY against it is straight up ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctornamtab

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.



Annnnnnnd your misinformed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Logic (and science) also say that sexuality is a spectrum, not a simple, black and white division between homo and hetero



To get back to animal homosexuality for a moment. It's not the same because animals don't have families or the same social structure as the human race does so we should not compare them and us.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
From what I've read your basically stating where do we draw the line. Perhaps there should be no line and frankly I believe that the government should not be involved in marriage in the first place. I've been married for almost 6 years to a man and I wish I never made it "legal" because it's none of yours, mine or anybodies elses who I decide to commit myself to. Marriage is not a christian concept to be backed by morality. It's a concept that is practiced by many cultures and creeds. In egypt the pharoahs married their sisters to keep the blood line pure and genetically speaking inbreeding doesn't not actually produce mentally disabled or disfigured babies. Otherwise,according to christian mythology we'd all be completely imcopetent,buck tooth 3 armed freaks. Also King David himself had hundreds of wives if I remember correctly.In France about600 hundred years ago their was union between two men refered to as brotherment. Until recently,historically speaking, has marriage been defined as a union between one man and one woman in legal terms.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.


This isn't a logical response at all - if this is your measure - then we should legalize insestual marriage asap right? I mean, as long as it's a man and a woman.

These are the posts I was looking to avoid.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by gncnew
 


So there's your thread - just like all the others.

Equal Rights vs Religious based ideology.

Sanctity of marriage? What a load of _______. Seen the divorced rates lately?

Traditional marriage? You mean woman as property - bought - sold - married off for political stability - etc.

Just Excuses. That is all they are.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctornamtab
Well to me, who cares about the definition of marriage? Why is it even an issue? This "slippery slope" argument is pretty pointless. To me, what you're saying is "If we let two gay people marry, whats to stop someone from marrying a horse?"

Is hetero sexual marriage some levee that will stop the floodwaters and there will be NO rules if we allow gay marriage? Do you think we'll be screwing in the streets like some animalistic orgy?

You may spend too much time in one paradigm, one viewpoint of the world, that is the Christian conservative viewpoint. If you step outside yourself (and your community) you'll see that people are perfectly happy living alongside gay married couples and it has NOTHING to do with YOUR marriage. If you're not gay, why does it even matter if gay people get married? Whats in it for YOU to stop gay marriage? Superiority?


Again, another illogical and emotion filled response.

I don't care what the happiness factor is of neighbors to gay couples. I care about the way this WILL effect our laws by setting precedent.

You're missing the ENTIRE point because of your emotional feeling of what's right and just.

I never even mentioned animals - don't be ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew
Why do we stop even at the actual sex or relationship of the people involved? Why is marriage limited to only two people? Polygamy becomes in play as well if we're reconstructing what defines a legal "marriage".


Why is marriage limited to only two people? I see nothing wrong with "unforced/consent" Polygamy (or any group marriage for that matter).

However - LEGAL government marriage benefits and tax structures - etc - are set up for two people. What gender they are changes nothing in any structure already existing.

Therefore - denying same gender marriage is an Equal Rights issue.



Do insest is equal rights too?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I just don't understand how my partner and I getting married is going to affect anyone but us.

We have been together since out early twenties..and have remained loving and loyal to each other for over 12 years.

Over the past 12 years both of us have been in the hospital a few times and it was a nightmare trying to get in to stay with each other.

I run my own little business and he is a big wig at a communication company that offers great benefits..but it cost us a fortune for me to be covered..if we were married the price would be cut in half.

we are both non-theist, why should we have to be forced to live under what we consider a made-up religion.

We are great neighbors, active in the community, and do volunteer and charity work.

We pay ALOT of taxes each year and are upstanding members of our community.

Why should we not get full and equal rights under the law?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
oh, and one complaint about your thread

the whole underage thing is nonsense...a child cannot enter into a contract, they are not responsible for themselves until 18 (or 16 in some states, depending)...

question though, do you think a 16 year old girl (with legal consent) should be able to marry a 70 year old man? thats perfectly legal in regards to marriage and morality from a religious standpoint...


I actually have no issue with it from a legal standpoint. While I would probably poopoo them in a social sense, there simply is no place of government in that decision.

As to the child thing - it's not nonsense. We don't allow children to enter into contract because they cannot be responsible for their decisions by definition.

But a marriage isn't a legally binding contract like a credit card or mortgage. You can have a marriage annulled and/or divorced without anything more than legal fees.

We don't allow children to marry because we consider that immoral. Thus there is a law against it.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew
Usually this is broken down upon morality issues of those against it versus the lack of morality issues of those for it.


So - are you implying gays are immoral?

Who are you or anyone else to define what is moral for anyone besides yourself?

Here's an immoral for you: children who need a loving home - - being denied that by the "moral" religious - - because the adopting parents might be same gender.


NOT EVEN CLOSE

Again, you're all wrapped up in emotion and that huge chip on your shoulder.

I am saying that those against it are usually against it for moral reason, where as those for it usually have no moral qualms with it...

Quit looking for a way to derail the tone please.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by davidchin
One problem is that the homosexual activist community has taken upon itself to destroy the institution of marriage, so it's not just a matter of dealing from a logical perspective.

Destroy the institution of marriage?
naa
They are attempting to destroy governments pushing of religious institutions...gov should have never been in this to begin with



From your argument, as long as all parties involved are legally able to consent, then any such union would be potentially allowable. Fortunately, for now, such a picture precludes such a union between jumans and non-humans -- until animal rights activists and Earth-rights activists get their way.



I fully encourage inter-species unions...the second a horse can clearly show they can enter into a union willingly and of adult mind, and then clearly accept the full impact, then yep...so be it.

aka, they can't...they are animals...however, there may be a day when aliens arrive and want to hook up...and they should be allowed also




Ding Ding Ding..

Finally someone here is trying to actually TALK about it without getting all ridiculous.

Animal union isn't even on the table - for way more than the obvious reasons as Saturn has already pointed out.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Annee
So - are you implying gays are immoral?


They are in my book.

Anyone whom does stuff I like or will do is fun and kinky, anyone whom does anything else is clearly immoral.

Perspectives are great.

Like the definition of a nymphomaniac...is anyone whom wants it one time more than you do.


Does that make me a nypho?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyman03
I don't think you should put GM and polygamy with underage marriage and brother/sister or brother/brother marriage. They just are not the same. Underage marriage should stay illegal because a young boy/girl can be influence more easily then an adult. And brother/sister marriage is just wrong, who in their right mind would want to mary his sister or brother after living with them for a big part of your life.

And I say if someone is against gay marriage don't mary a another man or an another woman.


Why is insest "just wrong" in your book? If you can decide that's just wrong - why are those who say GM is "just wrong" being bigoted?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
Let me ask this question.

How does GM affect you directly?

If government allowed GM I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be affected.
It wouldn't change my mortgage payment.
I wouldn't see the price of gas go up.
My light, water, sewer, phone, etc bill wouldn't change.
Cost of food wouldn't change either.

So what's my personal impact if the government allowed 2 people of the same sex to get married?

0



The personal impact is nil on most civil law issues.

What's the impact if I smoke Marijuana? What's the impact if I snort some coke? What's the impact if I keep my kids out of school?

What's the impact if walk around naked? What's the impact of porno on the TV?

We have all kinds of laws around this stuff.... that's not the point.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by j-man

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.


Yeah, and all those stupid people having sex just for fun, using condoms and stuff. I even heard some couples of different gendre have sex but don't procreate! Talk about war on nature!

I mean if you feel like having sex with someone of the same gendre, you should just deny those feelings, it would be the most natural thing to do...

Oh wait, I was sleep-sarcasm-ing again.

On GM: The only problem I have with GM is that so many people make it a problem... The sole fact that people can be EMOTIONALLY against it is straight up ridiculous.


Wait wait wait... people have sex for fun?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeyman03

Originally posted by doctornamtab

Originally posted by SadButTrue
I don't care what people want to do in their bedroom.

But, it's just not natural. All livings things on earth procreate, and same sex can't procreate(don't get into artificial ways). Therefore, if same sex were "the way things were," the human race would have been dead thousand of years ago.

I prefer to look at things logically, not from an emotional standpoint. Logic suggests that this is not natural.



Annnnnnnd your misinformed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Logic (and science) also say that sexuality is a spectrum, not a simple, black and white division between homo and hetero



To get back to animal homosexuality for a moment. It's not the same because animals don't have families or the same social structure as the human race does so we should not compare them and us.


Don't bite - this is derailing the thread... just let it slide.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by stinavamp
From what I've read your basically stating where do we draw the line. Perhaps there should be no line and frankly I believe that the government should not be involved in marriage in the first place. I've been married for almost 6 years to a man and I wish I never made it "legal" because it's none of yours, mine or anybodies elses who I decide to commit myself to. Marriage is not a christian concept to be backed by morality. It's a concept that is practiced by many cultures and creeds. In egypt the pharoahs married their sisters to keep the blood line pure and genetically speaking inbreeding doesn't not actually produce mentally disabled or disfigured babies. Otherwise,according to christian mythology we'd all be completely imcopetent,buck tooth 3 armed freaks. Also King David himself had hundreds of wives if I remember correctly.In France about600 hundred years ago their was union between two men refered to as brotherment. Until recently,historically speaking, has marriage been defined as a union between one man and one woman in legal terms.


Ahhhh, now we're getting somewhere.

So if we push the government out of marriage - what else do they not belong in?

This conversation could use GM as a HUGE launch pad...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by grey580
Let me ask this question.

How does GM affect you directly?

If government allowed GM I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be affected.
It wouldn't change my mortgage payment.
I wouldn't see the price of gas go up.
My light, water, sewer, phone, etc bill wouldn't change.
Cost of food wouldn't change either.

So what's my personal impact if the government allowed 2 people of the same sex to get married?

0



The personal impact is nil on most civil law issues.

What's the impact if I smoke Marijuana? What's the impact if I snort some coke? What's the impact if I keep my kids out of school?

What's the impact if walk around naked? What's the impact of porno on the TV?

We have all kinds of laws around this stuff.... that's not the point.


I think you should be allowed to do all of those things..it's not the governments role to tell you how to live your life..only if it hurts someone else..then the government should step in..GM hurts no one.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I see GM as something the government should not ever regulate. It does not affect me one bit if two guys or two girls want to be as miserable as a man and a woman do.

Other then religious beliefs, how does gay marriage affect anybody? Why are religious beliefs even closely related to anything legal? What is good for one couple may not be good for another. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, nothing more, nothing less. And lets be honest, the heterosexual crowd doesnt exactly give a stirling example of how it should be either.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join