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.

 

Breaking: NY Passes Gay Marriage

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
Marriage can no longer be the primary tenet of moral reproduction if it no longer has anything to do with reproduction.


So then you are in favor of Gay marriage. Right?

The reality of marriage before reproduction was to keep bloodlines pure. That's really pretty dated today.

In the early days of America - - some women had to prove they could have children before marriage - - because a large family was required for frontier life. If they could not produce children - - they were of no use.

Responsibility is the only criteria I can see for reproducing.




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


If marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, then the logical basis of the moral is rejected. Gays have invalidated the moral basis of family.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So just to be clear, you are saying that having children out of wedlock is a good thing?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Annee
 


I am neither Christian nor Republican.

But hating morality seems to fit with what you support.

I support being married before you have children, but now that does not matter.


Funny. You often accuse people of reading comprehension.

Where did I say I hate Morality? I never said anything of the sort.

I said the word MORAL - - - has lost the value of its meaning because of the hypocrites that "wear it like a beacon".

You don't really have to be Christian or Republican to be of the same mindset.



Stop splitting hairs and derailing. If you are going to get analytical about my use of the word moral, you're gonna get it right back.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
So why is polygamy and incest marriage not allowed?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
If marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, then the logical basis of the moral is rejected.


Dude, that doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry.



Gays have invalidated the moral basis of family.


Damn gays!

Have a nice day.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by CobraCommander
If marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, then the logical basis of the moral is rejected.


Dude, that doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry.



Gays have invalidated the moral basis of family.


Damn gays!

Have a nice day.


Clearly it does not make sense to you, that's the point. You are morally ignorant. I don't mean that as a jab either. You simply don't know any better.
edit on 27-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Annee
 


So just to be clear, you are saying that having children out of wedlock is a good thing?


Why do you keep coming back at me with stuff I don't say? And ignoring what I do say?

#1 Responsibility
#2 Responsibility
#3 Responsibility

Marriage is not a requirement for having children - creating a family - etc.

LEGAL marriage is about the benefits/privileges it affords not given by any other means.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
You are morally ignorant.


You have PROVEN that you know nothing about me, yet you keep coming to these insane conclusions about me, as if you have ANY idea who I am...

Oh, and I'll put my morals up against yours ANY day!


You cannot argue the subject (Gay marriage in New York) with any intelligence, so you resort to personal attacks. It's a sign that your logic and argument have failed.

.
edit on 6/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
If marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, then the logical basis of the moral is rejected. Gays have invalidated the moral basis of family.


I think that is one of the most ridiculous and insulting statements I've ever read.

Interestingly - all the gays I worked with were businessmen and Christian/Catholic.

According to your premise (as I see it) - - - all married straight people who adopted or had IV - - are immoral.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by Annee
 


So just to be clear, you are saying that having children out of wedlock is a good thing?


Why do you keep coming back at me with stuff I don't say? And ignoring what I do say?

#1 Responsibility
#2 Responsibility
#3 Responsibility

Marriage is not a requirement for having children - creating a family - etc.

LEGAL marriage is about the benefits/privileges it affords not given by any other means.



Well, as I said from the beginning, I would not be against civil unions recognized by law. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs now too, but I happen to believe that the meaning of words DOES mean something. And marriage means a union of man and woman, veal and wine, brick and mortar. Not gay on gay, not veal on veal, not brick on brick. You can have a wall of bricks, but there is no marriage without the introduction of the other element, mortar.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by CobraCommander
You are morally ignorant.


You have PROVEN that you know nothing about me, yet you keep coming to these insane conclusions about me, as if you have ANY idea who I am...

Oh, and I'll put my morals up against yours ANY day!


You cannot argue the subject (Gay marriage in New York) with any intelligence, so you resort to personal attacks. It's a sign that your logic and argument have failed.

.
edit on 6/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


I explicitly stated it was not a personal attack, but an observation. Now you're like talking to a child who keeps asking why the sky is blue.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander
If marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, then the logical basis of the moral is rejected. Gays have invalidated the moral basis of family.


I think that is one of the most ridiculous and insulting statements I've ever read.

Interestingly - all the gays I worked with were businessmen and Christian/Catholic.

According to your premise (as I see it) - - - all married straight people who adopted or had IV - - are immoral.


Well, then you see it wrong, because I never said anything about adoption or HIV in that statement.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
So why is polygamy and incest marriage not allowed?


I notice too that the both of you keep dodging this question.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by CobraCommander
So why is polygamy and incest marriage not allowed?


I notice too that the both of you keep dodging this question.


I am ignoring it.

It has nothing to do with being gay or Legal Marriage between 2 consenting adults - - no matter their gender.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by CobraCommander
So why is polygamy and incest marriage not allowed?


I notice too that the both of you keep dodging this question.


I am ignoring it.

It has nothing to do with being gay or Legal Marriage between 2 consenting adults - - no matter their gender.


Why only two consenting adults. Can three people not be committed to eachother? And if it is all about "responsibility" as you said, can three people pooling resources and their rights not in fact be MORE responsible than two?

Are you saying that incest is "irresponsible?"

I think maybe we would have been better off ignoring what the gays wanted too.

Oh, and marriage has nothing to do with being gay either.
edit on 27-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
I would not be against civil unions recognized by law.


Your personal belief may be relevant to you - - but it is not relevant to the whole of Equal Rights.

Marriage is the word used around the world in many countries that have already legalized gay marriage. And several states in the US.

The government license is named: "Marriage License".

Civil Union creates a second class citizen and is not Equal to Legal Marriage that is already in existence. Gender is Zero reason to not be fully equal.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Why only two consenting adults. Can three people not be committed to eachother? And if it is all about "responsibility" as you said, can three people pooling resources and their rights not in fact be MORE responsible than two?


You want to start a new thread addressing that feel free.

I've addressed this issue multiple times. I may even have somewhere in this thread. I am not going to address it.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander
I would not be against civil unions recognized by law.


Your personal belief may be relevant to you - - but it is not relevant to the whole of Equal Rights.

Marriage is the word used around the world in many countries that have already legalized gay marriage. And several states in the US.

The government license is named: "Marriage License".

Civil Union creates a second class citizen and is not Equal to Legal Marriage that is already in existence. Gender is Zero reason to not be fully equal.



Everyone WAS equal. Everyone had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Equality.

But now you are telling me that I am no longer allowed to have pure natural sugar in my coffee because some people choose to go on a diet or are born with diabetes. Now we all have to have the re-constituted fake-sugar so that everyone is equal. Pushing your will on others is NOT equality, nor liberty. I don't care how many states and countries say otherwise.

Other countries also stone women to death for adultery. Hmmm, maybe they're onto something.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Why only two consenting adults. Can three people not be committed to eachother? And if it is all about "responsibility" as you said, can three people pooling resources and their rights not in fact be MORE responsible than two?


You want to start a new thread addressing that feel free.

I've addressed this issue multiple times. I may even have somewhere in this thread. I am not going to address it.


I thought gay marriage was about equality and responsibility, but now you don't want to discuss it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join