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: 35
19
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm not a homosexual, but don't be so ignorant. It doesn't have anything to do with religion, it has to do with legal benefits and social equality/acceptance. If you are truly confused about this issue, then you are blind and naive. You speak as if everyone is supposed to understand and subscribe to your dogmatic perspective.

Marriage is not some sacred union anymore, you can thank the millions of people calling themselves religious while cheating on their spouses among a plethora of other immoral things. It wasn't(or isn't) homosexuals that ruined marriage, its the people that call themselves religious when the only thing they subscribe to are the gods of hypocrisy. Marriage amounts to nothing more than a few benefits now, some sleight and some significant such as being able to see your loved one in a hospital bed/jail/military benefits and other little perks like that; of course you are only able to see tax issues because you didn't think too much into it. Since the religious utterly destroyed their own institution, why not allow others the same benefits that a married couple might get? Hell, they might even be a better mated pair than any two religious people.

If it is such a sacred institution, then disallow divorce. That wouldn't happen, why? Because people that call themselves believers in god want the freedom to dismiss their own vows. And then there's the movement to withhold the simple things that are taken for granted and crap all over others... give me a break. Till death do us part my ass, hypocrites. They are in it for the money and the social status and that's a pretty pathetic reason to do anything, there is no ground to stand on there or no room to talk to others about what they should and should not get.


Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Thats just dumb.


Then why are you asking? Seems to me you just wanted to make a troll thread about something that has been beat to death. I'm not going to bother reading 35 pages of it.


edit on 28-7-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I in no way wish to offend anybody. However, I do have a view which I'd like to share on the subject of gay marriage.
Love itself has no rules or law - two people are either in love, or not. It is up to the couple and nobody else.
Marriage is a ceremony that has slowly evolved through time. Perhaps we can consider that today it is not as religiously based as previously. One does not need to be religious to choose to be married.
In it's most simple form, it is an agreement between two people to spend the rest of their lives together. As far as the religious aspect is concerned, this carries no weight anymore anyway. I mean, if you believe in God, and you get married and in the process make a vow to God to remain together until death, then there cannot be a concept of divorce. I don't care what excuse one might have - if you are religious and make this vow, then breaking it and getting a divorce is absolute proof that religion is merely an emotional fashion accessory to improve one's ego and to be used to feel better than others around you. If your love for God is true and final, there is nothing on Earth that would cause you to lie to Him or Her or break a promise. End of story. No excuse.
When it comes to gay marriage, I can't help but feel it's just another way to step onto a soap box to feel proud about being gay. Who you love is up to you and nobody else.
If you are happy in your heart, and your relationship with the world and God, there is no need to be concerned about having others acknowledge your choices in love and romance. Do whatever you want. Marriage as a ceremony and religious agreement is a historical event and one that people choose to use in it's different forms today. Why not create you own bonding ceremony? Why worry about trying to change something that already exists for essentially the union of a man and a woman? Have some pride, and just create a new ceremony for gay couples. Easy. Problem solved.
What you do in the bedroom is your choice. Step into the future and create new things. Don't stroke ego's by taking existing establishments and trying to make them fit things that they weren't designed for. It's just childish and attention seeking.
Life and society is about finding what fits for you as a person, and if you can't find something, then invent it and create it. This is how we move forward as a race. If you are gay and a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, make your peace with your God and proclaim your life long love for your partner to this God. If this is not enough for you, then perhaps it's time to ask some uncomfortable questions about how much control you have given to your ego.
Stomp your feet all you like - deep down we all know the truth is that being gay and wanting to be married is nothing more than believing that what you do in the bedroom means you have some sort of reasoning to want to change an established ceremony. Please, evolve and adapt. Nobody is stopping anybody from being in love. But at the end of the day, you can't complain that the blue team is wrong because they don't let green people join. Just build a green team!



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberdaz
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Marriage is a ceremony that has slowly evolved through time. Perhaps we can consider that today it is not as religiously based as previously. One does not need to be religious to choose to be married.
In it's most simple form, it is an agreement between two people to spend the rest of their lives together.


I totally agree with your opinion here. But you confuse me because you go on to say:


When it comes to gay marriage, I can't help but feel it's just another way to step onto a soap box to feel proud about being gay. Who you love is up to you and nobody else. If you are happy in your heart, and your relationship with the world and God, there is no need to be concerned about having others acknowledge your choices in love and romance. Do whatever you want. Marriage as a ceremony and religious agreement is a historical event and one that people choose to use in it's different forms today. Why not create you own bonding ceremony? Why worry about trying to change something that already exists for essentially the union of a man and a woman? Have some pride, and just create a new ceremony for gay couples. Easy. Problem solved.
What you do in the bedroom is your choice. Step into the future and create new things. Don't stroke ego's by taking existing establishments and trying to make them fit things that they weren't designed for. It's just childish and attention seeking.


I really do not understand how you hold this viewpoint given what you said in the beginning. You maintain that marriage is a ceremony that has evolved through time and is at its core is just two people who want to spend their lives together. If you believe this, why do you think gay people should invent a separate institution? Clearly times have changed, again, wouldn't it be more logical for the concept of marriage to evolve with them? Also I feel the need to point out that gays are not asking for religious marriages, they want governments to recognize their marriage. Whatever religious significance marriage holds for people is irrelevant.

Your problem with gay marriage seems to be the same sex component of it, even though in the beginning you believe at its core marriage is just a bond between two people. I think you feel uncomfortable with the idea of 2 men(or women) being together, since you felt the need to insert "what you do in the bedroom is your choice." You in no way mentioned anything sexual until you arrived at gay marriage. Which means that either you think heterosexuals don't have sex or you just didn't mention it because you feel its "normal." Or maybe you're just a closet case? I dont know you seem overly obsessed with the sexual and forget that its about love. I don't think you have really thought out your viewpoint or if you have, you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. Nobody is asking for special treatment just equality. Separate but equal does not cut it in America.
edit on 28-7-2012 by acmpnsfal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Gays marrying for reasons personal ok. This is one thing. I csn even say I can understand it if not agree with it. But what the poster pointed out was a very serious issue, that no longer effects the two people involved, when she said 'give their children legitimacy'.

The point is, a gay couple cannot have children, so whose children are people wanting any legitimacy to?

In society, yes, there are heterosexual woman who run around having children willy nilly, and do not want them, or refuse to care for them... it is a problem and a burden upon society. I agree with you here, and something society as a whole should be trying to fix, through education, through encouragement of family etc.

In America, there are lots of woman who are barren. The adoption industry due to this is an actual industry, and societal problems have arisen from hetero sexual couples wanting to adopt. Children have been kidnapped, forced adoption has been found etc. This is already a problem, and already there are not enough unwanted children seemingly to go around or these things would not occur.

But now, you are talking about compounding an existing problem, by throwing an additional 10% of the population into the adoption industry. That is a sizeable amount of the population. What kind of problems is this going to have upon society when you compound by that large of a number the existing problem?

Will we see kidnappings, illegal adoptions, forced adoptions rise? Instead of encouraging family, and education, with such a large new market for children will society stop encouraging family and start making children simply a commodoty to be bought and sold?

These are new considerations... and ones that have an impact on every aspect of society. Will the children effected by all this, this new market of children, ever know or have a way of knowing their parentage and will we see problems arise from that in the future?

It just seems, when throwing all these children who do not exist at current time (or the people wanting to adopt would not have years long waiting lists etc) like it is going to create very serious problems.... and these problems wont effect you.... but they will effect children, and society as a whole.

What Neno said is right, if we follow our ways then our children arent the ones effected in some aspects of it, but in others, they may just be the ones having to pay the price....

It becomes then a worry, and a very serious consideration. .. more so than just two people wanting to do what they do in the privacy of their own home.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
This OP is ridiculously confusing. There were times where i she said that she's not against gay marriage, then she said she doesn't care about gay marriage at all and now she has a very anti-gay marriage stance.

"What you do in the bedroom is your choice" was mentioned numerous times as well by her. I was participating in the first ~20 pages of this thread trying to udnerstand her "confusion" about gay marriage.
You can't be neutral about gay marriage and at the same time imply that they should have their own separate ceremony, because they're not good enough to marry the traditional way. Thats straightup discrimination.

You don't have the right do deny them ANYTHING. Not by religious or state law.
Christians, muslinms, hindus, buddhists, jews aren't the only religions. There are religions which have no no name, no holy books. But they can still get married. Because in todays world marriage is not necessarily religious.

Me and my wife are atheists but we still got married without any trouble. We didn't go to a chuch (even though we could've) but we did get married by a christian priest. Which means... that marriage is in no way connected to religion nowadays. If you believe its sacred, good for you. Enjoy your lifelong marriage.
Just because you believe that gay marriage isn't legit and should atleast be called something else, a lot of people believe that they can get married and call that union a proper marriage.

But since we have freedom of religion/beliefs you just don't have the right to deny gays a chance at a marriage.

Stop being such control freaks. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Regarding children its the same. They can get a surrogate mother or adopt a child. There are plently of children to adopt believe me, we're not running short. There are tons of orphans in this world who will never have a family.

Kidnappings, illegal adoptions, forced adoptions...
What the hell are you talking about ? Get your facts straight.

And you finish with this again:
more so than just two people wanting to do what they do in the privacy of their own home.

I DONT CARE WHAT GAYS DO IN THEIR OWN HOME.
And i don't care what YOU do in your home.



edit on 28/7/2012 by Spotless because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Ok so you did not address the post I responded to all that much, but I will take that as you realized where your logic was faulty and now we have jumped to the issue of adoption. The adoption industry did not spring up because women were barren and wanted children. Adoption started because there were orphans and unwanted children who needed homes.

Also, I have never ever heard of forced adoption. That term doesnt even make sense you cannot force someone to adopt a child. Kidnapping is irrelevant to this issue. Because if someone is going to kidnap a child because they are not deemed fit to adopt they are resorting to criminal activity instead of improving their situation.

But even with all the people who do adopt which are both single people and families who are not always barren, there is still a massive overflow of children who need homes. Those children are cared for by our tax dollars. If gay marriage and adoption was allowed these children would have a family.

Would you rather these children not be given homes? Also if you are worried about parenting skills studies have been released proving that gay parents would be more responsible parents than straight parents on average. Why? Because gay people cannot procreate by accident. So any child who comes into their home would have been planned for.

But you are wrong in saying gay people cant have kids. They can and they do. They use surrogates and sperm donors to have children because they cant adopt. So either way these people can have kids. But why force them to go through all the trouble to create new people when we still have ones in the system that need help?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I DID NOT bring up the subject of whether the adoption process needs to be revised.


You asked me if it should be outlawed - is that not the ultimate in revision?




I get that you don't get it. Doesn't matter. They get it. Gays don't care what you think, as long as you don't stand in their way of equality under the law.



Well that's admirable
I think I've been pretty clear on where I stand concerning the legal status of it, and if that's all they want, I suppose we're done here.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Gays marrying for reasons personal ok. This is one thing. I csn even say I can understand it if not agree with it. But what the poster pointed out was a very serious issue, that no longer effects the two people involved, when she said 'give their children legitimacy'.

The point is, a gay couple cannot have children, so whose children are people wanting any legitimacy to?

In society, yes, there are heterosexual woman who run around having children willy nilly, and do not want them, or refuse to care for them... it is a problem and a burden upon society. I agree with you here, and something society as a whole should be trying to fix, through education, through encouragement of family etc.

In America, there are lots of woman who are barren. The adoption industry due to this is an actual industry, and societal problems have arisen from hetero sexual couples wanting to adopt. Children have been kidnapped, forced adoption has been found etc. This is already a problem, and already there are not enough unwanted children seemingly to go around or these things would not occur.

But now, you are talking about compounding an existing problem, by throwing an additional 10% of the population into the adoption industry. That is a sizeable amount of the population. What kind of problems is this going to have upon society when you compound by that large of a number the existing problem?

Will we see kidnappings, illegal adoptions, forced adoptions rise? Instead of encouraging family, and education, with such a large new market for children will society stop encouraging family and start making children simply a commodoty to be bought and sold?

These are new considerations... and ones that have an impact on every aspect of society. Will the children effected by all this, this new market of children, ever know or have a way of knowing their parentage and will we see problems arise from that in the future?

It just seems, when throwing all these children who do not exist at current time (or the people wanting to adopt would not have years long waiting lists etc) like it is going to create very serious problems.... and these problems wont effect you.... but they will effect children, and society as a whole.

What Neno said is right, if we follow our ways then our children arent the ones effected in some aspects of it, but in others, they may just be the ones having to pay the price....

It becomes then a worry, and a very serious consideration. .. more so than just two people wanting to do what they do in the privacy of their own home.


I can't believe the ignorance in this post. You must be intentionally making this up to somehow rationalize your prejudice against gays. You can't possibly believe this drivel.

How about thinking about this for a second. The long waiting lists you speak of are for healthy white babies. Gay couples are more likely to adopt a child with special needs - one with serious disabilities -- or a minority child. These are the children that no one has long waiting lists for. Many of these children spend their lives in the system with no permanent home. These are the "undesirables".


With so many children in the public child welfare system in need of permanent homes, gay parents are sometimes seen as resources for hard-to-place children. Bennett says, "So many gay and lesbian parents are adopting from the child welfare system. They are so interested in becoming parents that they are willing to take children others are not." She says an "unspoken hierarchy" exists in adoption practice, and one of the great ironies of the debate is that gay and lesbian parents often adopt the children with the greatest need.


library.adoption.com...

Yes, your "evil gays" are more likely to adopt these poor children that no one else wants to deal with.

I don't know why I bother to attempt an intelligent conversation with you. Apparently, it's just not possible.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Gays marrying for reasons personal ok. This is one thing. I csn even say I can understand it if not agree with it. But what the poster pointed out was a very serious issue, that no longer effects the two people involved, when she said 'give their children legitimacy'.

The point is, a gay couple cannot have children, so whose children are people wanting any legitimacy to?

In society, yes, there are heterosexual woman who run around having children willy nilly, and do not want them, or refuse to care for them... it is a problem and a burden upon society. I agree with you here, and something society as a whole should be trying to fix, through education, through encouragement of family etc.

In America, there are lots of woman who are barren. The adoption industry due to this is an actual industry, and societal problems have arisen from hetero sexual couples wanting to adopt. Children have been kidnapped, forced adoption has been found etc. This is already a problem, and already there are not enough unwanted children seemingly to go around or these things would not occur.

But now, you are talking about compounding an existing problem, by throwing an additional 10% of the population into the adoption industry. That is a sizeable amount of the population. What kind of problems is this going to have upon society when you compound by that large of a number the existing problem?

Will we see kidnappings, illegal adoptions, forced adoptions rise? Instead of encouraging family, and education, with such a large new market for children will society stop encouraging family and start making children simply a commodoty to be bought and sold?

These are new considerations... and ones that have an impact on every aspect of society. Will the children effected by all this, this new market of children, ever know or have a way of knowing their parentage and will we see problems arise from that in the future?

It just seems, when throwing all these children who do not exist at current time (or the people wanting to adopt would not have years long waiting lists etc) like it is going to create very serious problems.... and these problems wont effect you.... but they will effect children, and society as a whole.

What Neno said is right, if we follow our ways then our children arent the ones effected in some aspects of it, but in others, they may just be the ones having to pay the price....

It becomes then a worry, and a very serious consideration. .. more so than just two people wanting to do what they do in the privacy of their own home.


I can't believe the ignorance in this post. You must be intentionally making this up to somehow rationalize your prejudice against gays. You can't possibly believe this drivel.

How about thinking about this for a second. The long waiting lists you speak of are for healthy white babies. Gay couples are more likely to adopt a child with special needs - one with serious disabilities -- or a minority child. These are the children that no one has long waiting lists for. Many of these children spend their lives in the system with no permanent home. These are the "undesirables".


With so many children in the public child welfare system in need of permanent homes, gay parents are sometimes seen as resources for hard-to-place children. Bennett says, "So many gay and lesbian parents are adopting from the child welfare system. They are so interested in becoming parents that they are willing to take children others are not." She says an "unspoken hierarchy" exists in adoption practice, and one of the great ironies of the debate is that gay and lesbian parents often adopt the children with the greatest need.


library.adoption.com...

Yes, your "evil gays" are more likely to adopt these poor children that no one else wants to deal with.

I don't know why I bother to attempt an intelligent conversation with you. Apparently, it's just not possible.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I'm not a homosexual, but don't be so ignorant. It doesn't have anything to do with religion, it has to do with legal benefits and social equality/acceptance.


See, here we have an opinion on what is wanted that goes beyond the merely legal. It adds in social acceptance, which cannot be legislated.

I've said repeatedly that it ought to be legal, but don't expect me to socially accept it. If that doesn't upset anyone, then we're still good.



Marriage is not some sacred union anymore, you can thank the millions of people calling themselves religious while cheating on their spouses among a plethora of other immoral things. It wasn't(or isn't) homosexuals that ruined marriage, its the people that call themselves religious when the only thing they subscribe to are the gods of hypocrisy.


I get it that you have an animosity for religious folk, but I think you may be over generalizing here. Just because someone self-identifies as "religious" does not make them so, nor does the lack of that public identification make them NOT religious. So, if someone self identifies as being "religious", yet fails to sanctify their religion, it's not the fault of the religion or the other religious folk who may be scrupulously observant. In short, marriage is sacred to those to whom it is sacred, and a public profession of their "religiosity", or the lack thereof, does not affect the sanctity they actually hold the institution in.

You are reading the cover of a book, what you can see on the surface without opening it, and declaring that every page says the same thing, without opening it to check and see.



Marriage amounts to nothing more than a few benefits now, some sleight and some significant such as being able to see your loved one in a hospital bed/jail/military benefits and other little perks like that; of course you are only able to see tax issues because you didn't think too much into it.


Being married facilitated none of those things for me, and not being married has prevented none of those things for me. I've had to handle such things in both conditions, and have found no appreciable difference in any other than the taxes. For example, no one prevented me from visiting my room mate in the hospital, in spite of the lack of a marriage contract. maybe it varies from state to state. All I can say is I've never run into that problem, although I have been in that situation..

That's why I personally prefer to remain not legally married - I've found no benefit at all, but a fair amount of disability, by inviting the state to have it's say in my personal relationships.




edit on 2012/7/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I DID NOT bring up the subject of whether the adoption process needs to be revised.


You asked me if it should be outlawed - is that not the ultimate in revision?



Too bad you can't recognize a sarcastic rhetorical question when you see one.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Originally posted by OpinionatedB
I was doing all right til legitimate children. Now I am wondering how far I can move.


Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse not to accept equal treatment of gay people. That's cool. Religion is a hard mistress. I don't think you'll be able to "move" to acceptance, because there will always be a reason you can find to discount or otherwise look down on gay people and any marriage that doesn't fit into your idea of what marriages should be.

To open up your heart and stop judging people, you have to WANT to. And after what I've read from you, I can see that you really don't. At least not right now. But I'm not giving up on you.


If you don't accept gay marriage, you don't accept my marriage, because it CERTAINLY does not fit into your narrow view of "how things should be". And I have no need or desire to continue to try to pull you out of your position of righteous judgment.

The fact that you don't accept "other" marriage doesn't hurt anyone but you.
It keeps you in that position of judgement. I don't know if your religion teaches you to judge or what. But I find it very sad.

I have enjoyed our discussion. And I wish you love, joy and peace in your life...



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I DID NOT bring up the subject of whether the adoption process needs to be revised.


You asked me if it should be outlawed - is that not the ultimate in revision?



Too bad you can't recognize a sarcastic rhetorical question when you see one.



Is that your way of recanting, and admitting that you DID bring it up?


I note that this was the only thing in that entire post you cared to bring up, so I suppose my post stands.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I DID NOT bring up the subject of whether the adoption process needs to be revised.


You asked me if it should be outlawed - is that not the ultimate in revision?



Too bad you can't recognize a sarcastic rhetorical question when you see one.



Is that your way of recanting, and admitting that you DID bring it up?


I note that this was the only thing in that entire post you cared to bring up, so I suppose my post stands.



Sigh. You're a swell guy. That's sarcasm, by the way. No need to comment on it.

Try to keep up. I did not bring up adoption. Your "honestly confused" friend, OpinionatedB did. Then, you started agreeing with her extremely ignorant post about gays being somehow responsible for adopted children marrying their siblings. All I did was respond, albeit in a sarcastic way, to someone else who was talking about adoption. Got it? Good. Bye.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

True. But a child must be taught the differences between their home and others. As in homes where the parent(s) may be disabled or a sibling(s) is disabled.
Any deviation from the social "norm" will cause internal conflict if the child isn't taught the difference.


edit on 28-7-2012 by beezzer because: edit issues, not enough caffeine


It's this idea of this somehow defined "norm" that screws everyone up to begin with. The fact that people like you define this for other people and believe your own definition and promulgate that definition causes people IN those non "norm" families to feel non normal in some cases.

You assume internal conflict of the child if they are not 'taught the difference." It's this teaching the difference that is defined by you that is the problem. There are a myriad of differences between families. You are making a big deal about THIS particular difference, just as 50 or 100 years ago, people made a big deal about differences that are scarcely relevant today. In all cases, good parents will have the child understand that any difference is no problem and representative of dynamics.

Other differences existing now are: child has two parents, child has divorced parents, child has one parent, child was adopted, child's parents are 40 years older then the child, child's parents are 18 years older than the child, child's parents are inter-racial. These are all huge differences. You are simply singling out this particular difference under discussion because it's significant to you.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Gays marrying for reasons personal ok. This is one thing. I csn even say I can understand it if not agree with it. But what the poster pointed out was a very serious issue, that no longer effects the two people involved, when she said 'give their children legitimacy'.

The point is, a gay couple cannot have children, so whose children are people wanting any legitimacy to?

In society, yes, there are heterosexual woman who run around having children willy nilly, and do not want them, or refuse to care for them... it is a problem and a burden upon society. I agree with you here, and something society as a whole should be trying to fix, through education, through encouragement of family etc.

In America, there are lots of woman who are barren. The adoption industry due to this is an actual industry, and societal problems have arisen from hetero sexual couples wanting to adopt. Children have been kidnapped, forced adoption has been found etc. This is already a problem, and already there are not enough unwanted children seemingly to go around or these things would not occur.

But now, you are talking about compounding an existing problem, by throwing an additional 10% of the population into the adoption industry. That is a sizeable amount of the population. What kind of problems is this going to have upon society when you compound by that large of a number the existing problem?

Will we see kidnappings, illegal adoptions, forced adoptions rise? Instead of encouraging family, and education, with such a large new market for children will society stop encouraging family and start making children simply a commodoty to be bought and sold?

These are new considerations... and ones that have an impact on every aspect of society. Will the children effected by all this, this new market of children, ever know or have a way of knowing their parentage and will we see problems arise from that in the future?

It just seems, when throwing all these children who do not exist at current time (or the people wanting to adopt would not have years long waiting lists etc) like it is going to create very serious problems.... and these problems wont effect you.... but they will effect children, and society as a whole.

What Neno said is right, if we follow our ways then our children arent the ones effected in some aspects of it, but in others, they may just be the ones having to pay the price....

It becomes then a worry, and a very serious consideration. .. more so than just two people wanting to do what they do in the privacy of their own home.


Animals have been on this planet for millions of years, and to them it doesnt matter who the mother or father is, they take care of all children, seems to work just fine for them, and what problems? why would you even say that? how is an adult nurturing a child and loving them as their own a problem?

And are you blaming gays for kidnapping? your going way to far into this, and i dont think those kids came from gay couples did they? two streight couples made children, just like it supposed to be right? and then threw that kid in the gutter, now two perfectly reasonable man/women who are gays are willing to give this kid a life, and your trying to sell us that its a problem?



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by kaylaluv

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)


You're just not comprehending the whole evolution scenario, are you?

Procreators propagate, non-procreators don't. That's the way nature runs. nature doesn't stands around with a black cowl and a huge sickle, and suddenly say "nope, your not of any use any more, so you're done for."

Non-procreators just end, They pass nothing on, and that's a good thing - it's the whole basis for natural selection.Doesn't mean they reach a magic age of execution.



That makes it sound like evolution is only based on certain extremely narrow constraints. While on the outside, it may appear that way, I doubt you or anyone fully appreciates or is capable of telling us what it is nature intends, especially since we are very unlike other animals and manipulate nature. If we didn't manipulate nature, and as a result be living in a society that functions beyond "survival of the fittest," a ton of people would already be dead.


We dont manipulate nature, the way things are set up now society is actually in a constant battle against it. also, humans are made out of every single type of cell that exsists on this planet, we are a lot more like the animals then you may think we are, not all pro creators take care of their children, so couples that cannot pro create come in very handy once you think about it.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberdaz
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


I in no way wish to offend anybody. However, I do have a view which I'd like to share on the subject of gay marriage.
Love itself has no rules or law - two people are either in love, or not. It is up to the couple and nobody else.
Marriage is a ceremony that has slowly evolved through time. Perhaps we can consider that today it is not as religiously based as previously. One does not need to be religious to choose to be married.
In it's most simple form, it is an agreement between two people to spend the rest of their lives together. As far as the religious aspect is concerned, this carries no weight anymore anyway. I mean, if you believe in God, and you get married and in the process make a vow to God to remain together until death, then there cannot be a concept of divorce. I don't care what excuse one might have - if you are religious and make this vow, then breaking it and getting a divorce is absolute proof that religion is merely an emotional fashion accessory to improve one's ego and to be used to feel better than others around you. If your love for God is true and final, there is nothing on Earth that would cause you to lie to Him or Her or break a promise. End of story. No excuse.
When it comes to gay marriage, I can't help but feel it's just another way to step onto a soap box to feel proud about being gay. Who you love is up to you and nobody else.
If you are happy in your heart, and your relationship with the world and God, there is no need to be concerned about having others acknowledge your choices in love and romance. Do whatever you want. Marriage as a ceremony and religious agreement is a historical event and one that people choose to use in it's different forms today. Why not create you own bonding ceremony? Why worry about trying to change something that already exists for essentially the union of a man and a woman? Have some pride, and just create a new ceremony for gay couples. Easy. Problem solved.
What you do in the bedroom is your choice. Step into the future and create new things. Don't stroke ego's by taking existing establishments and trying to make them fit things that they weren't designed for. It's just childish and attention seeking.
Life and society is about finding what fits for you as a person, and if you can't find something, then invent it and create it. This is how we move forward as a race. If you are gay and a Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, make your peace with your God and proclaim your life long love for your partner to this God. If this is not enough for you, then perhaps it's time to ask some uncomfortable questions about how much control you have given to your ego.
Stomp your feet all you like - deep down we all know the truth is that being gay and wanting to be married is nothing more than believing that what you do in the bedroom means you have some sort of reasoning to want to change an established ceremony. Please, evolve and adapt. Nobody is stopping anybody from being in love. But at the end of the day, you can't complain that the blue team is wrong because they don't let green people join. Just build a green team!


Marriage itself has been evolving and adapting ever since its inception, and we are going through a period right now where it's doing the same thing, so your argument I think fails. I mean, I agree on the one hand. Being gay, I have no need whatsoever to be granted the "right" to marry. I care not whatsoever about joining an antiquated tradition that basically fails, not just because I'm gay either. If I were straight, I'd have nothing to do with marriage.

But for the people presently fighting for it - it's not any less of a struggle or adaptation that marriage hasn't gone through in the past. And actually gay people HAVE been married over history, as early as the first millennium.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


In society, yes, there are heterosexual woman who run around having children willy nilly, and do not want them, or refuse to care for them... it is a problem and a burden upon society. I agree with you here, and something society as a whole should be trying to fix, through education, through encouragement of family etc.


Your scope of perception is extremely narrow. You seem to think that just because a woman has a child, it's "willy nilly" and she doesn't want to care for it. Do you realize the amount of married heterosexuals who have children "willy nilly" and barely care for them? Do you realize the amount of single women who have children and provide them with a wonderful childhood? Apparently not!



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by beezzer
 


I am going to be honest.... I do not know.... but I think we have to have something....

I want to protect children from this.... how will they grow? to think it is ok to worry if you will accidently someday marry to your sister?

This makes no sense


Like i said, adam and eve were brother and sister, why is there nothing wrong with that? they bread a whole family that then in turn had brother sister relationships to bring us to 2012.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join