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.

 

Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

page: 29
19
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So, once again, back to your original question - Gay couples that want to marry, just want to be recognized the same as heterosexual couples that want to marry - again, not rocket science.

I'm guessing that you are homophobic, would that be a correct assumption?




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Yeah, nature doesn't like women past the age of menopause, or men past the age of virility either. But, we've found a way to cheat nature, and live beyond that.


Why would nature not like them? Is their history and contribution to the gene pool suddenly non-existent?



Well, duh - they can't procreate any more. They're useless to nature now. It's all about procreating, right - that's the only reason we're all here. Once you've done your duty, you can go now.


So their contributions to the gene poll just vanishes, because you think that nature doesn't like them any more?



Tell me why nature would want you around if you are not procreating. (hint: you're the one who said nature didn't like non-procreators.)
edit on 27-7-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Their children would not be legitimate though.

One comment made earlier was marriage to make their children legitimate. Well their children are unable to be legitimate. Legitimacy is conception and birth within the confines of a marriage between a man and his wife. That is what decides legitimacy.


For YOU maybe. But if a man and a woman decide to have a child, and they're not married OR religious, and love their child and are happy, I'd say that is pretty legitimate.


Legitimacy is defined through legal parameters - its a legal status, not a "feeling".

Those legal parameters involve being born in wedlock, which is something that will never happen for a same-sex couple. They are not equipped for it - their plumbing is all wrong. in order to get the right plumbing combination, they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex, not the same sex.





I wasn't talking about gays. I was talking about a child being a legitimate child, a real child. No religion or state has to do anything to make that happen. Unwed parents have children and religions call the children illegitimate. I don't. It's not legal, it's opinion. The child is welcome to the planet I live on by me as quite legitimate.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Homosexuals are not allowed marriage because it is against the law.

Not anything to do with procreating, it is an illegal act, God made it so. God says men and woman are the natural state of man, and anything which is harmful to man or against the natural state of man is illegal.
edit on 27-7-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)


It doesnt say anything about a man not being able to marry another man, or women, if either of them decide for a same sex act, then is that not its natural state for those two specific individuals?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Thank you for the informative well thought out contribution to the thread!



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biliverdin

Originally posted by nenothtu
Who said anything about "organized religion"? It wasn't me. You've perhaps confused me with someone else. In religious matters, I'm probably the most DISorganized person you will ever have the misfortune to meet.


Oh I think I'd give you a run for your money on that one...but, the laws of marriage, in your country and mine, are based on those instituted by organised religion, which is why I was much more happy with 'living over the brush'




I think the governmental laws are based more upon culture than religion. For example, there are numerous instances of polygamy in the Abrahamic books, from the Middle Eastern Culture, but our marriage laws do not allow that, which is an old European cultural trait.

Going back to the discussion of concubinage, as far as I know, that is also a European concept, allowing a rich man or king to play the field without having to break the one wife law. For most of it's history, the middle east didn't have a one-wife law, and even now in Islam one is allowed to have up to 4, so long as he is able to support all 4. Going back before Islam, look how many wives many of the Israelites had - Abraham is but one example, Solomon is another.

ETA: "Over the brush" is a Britishism in opposition to "jumping the broom"? I've not heard it before, so I'm unsure. If that's the case, then count me in. In the US, the MAIN purpose of marriage laws, after the tax breaks of course, seem to be to fleece the male in the marriage, and I'm just not down with that!


edit on 2012/7/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beers
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So, once again, back to your original question - Gay couples that want to marry, just want to be recognized the same as heterosexual couples that want to marry - again, not rocket science.

I'm guessing that you are homophobic, would that be a correct assumption?


I think the term homophobic is overused. A lot of people aren't afraid of them, they just dislike them. Oh no wait.... they don't dislike them, they dislike their "lifestyle." So I'd use the word homo-dislikic. That way, people that don't like homosexuals will have something to call themselves.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Homophobic is an insult, spouted by stupid people, who want to sound like they are smart enough to make a psychological assessment of another person.

Look at any of the real phobias out there. Ever seen an arachnophobic person come across a spider? How many people that are labeled as homophobic, scream like a girl and run away everytime they see gay people?
edit on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:51:09 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Why are they automatically disliked? Do you dislike africans and jewish people as well? Just trying to get a perspective....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Homophobic is an insult, spouted by stupid people, who want to sound like they are smart enough to make a psychological assessment of another person.


I kind of agree. Yes, there is a percentage of people that hate homosexuals because it makes them fear any such leanings in themselves. But yes, there are people who are fully secure that they have no such leanings, and so they don't fear homosexuals, they just dislike them for being different, which actually, makes less sense than the people who fear them for their own psychological reasons.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beers
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Why are they automatically disliked? Do you dislike africans and jewish people as well? Just trying to get a perspective....


I AM gay. I'm just saying that it would be refreshing if people who disliked homosexuals were identified as people who disliked them rather than people who were afraid of them. THAT a lot of them might not have as much trouble saying outloud.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Really?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Beers
 


Your handle is beers, are you an alcoholic? Just trying to get perspective

edit on Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:57:56 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Did my screen name give it away?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Marriage is a religious institution.


Ok, I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there...

Marriage was first and foremost, a way to legitimize state authority in property disputes revolving around the legitimacy of one's heirs.

Marriage is in essence a CONTRACT between two people( and the state), in which their mutual property is placed in an actionable position by the state (given permission by the marriage contract) so that the descendants may inherit the property of their parents through state adjudication.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


I do not agree, can never say I do. I have been doing this whole to each his own, and ignoring it all. Been working very nicely then I thought I might try and understand it... so I made this thread. I came to a certain (albeit maybe somewhat shaky) conclusion still on the to each his own, even though you all are doing redefining gymnastics with the english language....

but really it is all this redefining gymnastics that I cant do.... I know what things are and what things mean and we cannot simply sit around and redefine every single word in the damn dictionary to make you all feel like all this is better or different...

hell I have no gosh darn idea why we are having to go through the dictionary and redefine every single word in their

I swear to God I am about to stop speaking english when it comes to terms that mean something....



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Nature DOESN'T like non-procrerators. They are at an end of existence, according to the rules nature itself has set up.


Nature makes gay people.. through straight people procreating. It doesn't matter if gays can reproduce or not, they will still be here, which is why they are here at the moment.


That does seem to be the current theory of things, appearing to be tailor-made to support the gay agenda. I don't happen to subscribe to it, but you are welcome to.




It's hardly a theory. It's a fact. There's no 'subscribing' to it or not. Gay sex in the animal world (yeah, like they really had some sort of different psychological upbringing than the other animals), gay humans = was here, is here, will be here.


Nossir - it's not a "fact".

First off, gay sex is not gay marriage - if it were, we would not be having this discussion. It's existence in the natural world does not automatically make gay marriage a natural thing. Show me same sex mating pairs in the natural world, and then you may have a leg to stand on.

A simple one off and run like hell does not a marriage or mating make.

Now, it could be that you think sex is the only reason for marriage, but if that is so, it seems a terrible waste of time to limit oneself like that, when he could be chasing every skirt walking.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


95% of all homophobic people have had a gay experience...Google it



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


you didnt answer my question, stop taking everything so personnal, if u are trying a whole new thing then try it, no one here is attacking you, they are just questions, as of lately no anwers.
edit on 27-7-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
While he's on google, anybody know any good jokes.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join