It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why we should allow same-sex marriage

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
The problem I have for gay marriage is that is is not fair. Im male, im not gay but putting up with women is no picnic. Im sure its the same the other way around. coexisting with the opposite sex is something that just has to happen to procreate.

In my opinion, at least visible where i live in Vancouver B.C where homosexuality is not only tolerated but flaunted, the gay lifestyle seems irresponsible and selfish. Im not talking about aids and all that jazz (no pun intended) but the fact that they were given life through procreation now they wish to live designer lives full of new legislation and medical technology to give them the best of both worlds and if anyone says anything against it then they are bigots or homophobic.

If you want to be gay... be gay. You want to be married... sure, its just a piece of paper. But NO! they want to be considered normal and have normal families. So I don't think it will end there. Next it will be same sex addoption, then same sex gene splicing, and then some new technology that allows men to carry eggs and women have semen. Its a slippery slope, one that could end in bio-shock

Hate me all you want, I hate nobody, not gays not Nazi's not Stephen Harper.

If technology ever comes to the point that people can choose whatever sex they want to be or even hermaphoditism through gene-mods, what then?

People could walk into a doctor's office, get their gene-mod shot and over the course of a few months their body goes through the process of changing sex naturally.
Clownfish do it. Other animals have been known to change sexes.
It can be done and even engineered should we develop the medical techniques in bio-engineering to do it.

In such a way, BOTH partners in any marriage union could then experience pregnancy and birth as natural women, as well as both having opportunity to play the husband roll in producing and delivering sperm naturally.

Gender then becomes a completely natural lifestyle choice that can be changed with a little planning, or changed back, depending preferences.

Terms like "gay" or "homosexual" would also cease to exist or really matter in a world where anyone could choose to be any gender they desired.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by dave_welch

Granted, we don't allow religions to have human sacrifice but, then again there's really no equal to that in this instance.

Your entire argument fails for me here. It is you that can not discern what child sacrifice is. Please tell me how you cannot see a woman handing over her newborn baby to be slaughtered in hopes of a "better harvest" is any different than a woman who slaughters her unborn baby in hopes of "more convenience", an "easier life" or "for advancement in her careeer"? It's the SAME THING, but we cannot see it because of the thousands of man-made excuses given - mass of cells, foetus, unborn v born, etc. those are satans, adversarial doctrines of men, that come in between your God given conscience which knows an unborn baby is a baby and your desires for that easier life, more money and better career options. These are the things that step into between our innate knowledge of God's will and decrees and following what man decrees. Likewise, the only thing that has changed a population from knowing that homosexuality is indicative of God's wrath to a population that supports sodomites and lesbians marrying is - satan's doctrines - men's "equality", "discrimination", "brotherhood of man", "sexual revolution".

The entire government is setting its new morality, it's new religion with its own set of commandments. Just as the leaders in Judea threatened anyone with being kicked out of the synagogues or being hauled before the Sanhedrin for simply being in disagreement to what the rulers decreed, we are there now in the west. If you dare voice a disagreement to sodomite marriage, the beast's millions of minions, even here on this board, do exactly as those in Judea did then - silence dissenters with shouts of homophobe! Racist! intolerant bigot!, the very words that satans have given them. Jesus Christ stood their in Judea, confronting His adversaries - satans. These men argued from human doctrines which blinded them to the Truth standing before them. Every one of those doctrines of men cut them off from even HEARING Him because in their reasoning, the words of man through his doctrines and dogmas were foremost in their thoughts. In the same manner, you cannot hear nor perceive that abortion is legalised child sacrifice in your very own land. Satans, doctrines adversarial to your Creator from His enemies, cause you to err greatly in your reasoning ability. Remove THEM from your mind, and the only conclusion that you can arrive at is it's child sacrifice. Try it - dump every excuse and argument from man in relation to abortion from your mind. Clear it all away, then ask yourself why a woman wanting "more money" isn't sacrificing her baby in hopes of getting it. Your brain will do this..."but but but but but" as it wants to bring in every argument possible, ALL FROM MEN, to justify killing that baby.

It is therefore no different than two men and marriage.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by WhoKnows100

Where in the Op did I mention anything about abortion? This is a thread about same-sex marriage which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I don't have any Idea where your rant even falls in place here. Tell me where Abortion was even mentioned. You went pretty far into left field there.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:53 AM
I think if people can marry their PETS then then same sex marriage should be allowed. (I know, it's not recognized as law but people are doing it anyways...)

Let them marry, I say. What is the harm?
edit on 27-3-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by dave_welch

Well if thats the case then we should allow polygamy, necrophilia, pedaphiles, zoophilia and all the others frowned upon moral issues out there. Whats the difference other than coming out ofthe closet andmake a point in case? Basing your argument on our founding documents then ALL of these things should be okay (with consent) because we are all individuals with "Rights". By the way we forgot to say "God Given rights" a interesting omission when we want to prove a point. God cannot be seperated from our founding documents all the way back to the Mayflower pact.
You have FIVE refrences to God in the Declaration Of Independence and all though there is no reference to God in the Consitituion there is also no proceedural stipulations For Marraige and therefore should NOT be in the Supreme Court, in fact its Laughable. Chances are theyll throw it back to the state and local level where it belongs.
There is no precedence for marraige or marraige "rights" or privliages or anything other than in religion. All this is is an argumant of "what I can Get from the state" and it should stay at that level.
My suggestion is for everyone who wants to "Marry" their "domestic partner" move to the same state, Oregan is nice, take over the legislation and change the laws. But please don't through a fit when a referendum is passed and it doesn't go your way. It makes you look lke a bunch of cry babies and does nothing for your cause.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:23 AM
Firstly, to support what Wrabbit said, it is a state, not federal issue and honestly I prefer to keep big goernment out of most things.

I don't think "gay marriage" should be recognized by the state.

Wait for it...

I don't think the state should be in the marriage business at all. It makes no sense for the state to attribute lifelong financial and other responsabilities based on a 30 minute ceremony.

What should be done, IMHO, if that anyone wants to get married, they can, but the state would only uphold and recognize contractual obligations. If two people want to tie themselves together, they should get a lawyer and set up a civil contract with all of the obligations and duties spelled out in advance from finances to children. Perhaps it would make people think more before getting married.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by NavyDoc

I agree with you Doc, but this isn't about "Union" they all ready live together. This is about what they can "get" from the state and Feds if they are married. Look at it from a military standpoint. Your not getting a dependent ID (maybe your mother if she lives with you full time) base housing and most of the time seperate rats unless your married.

Same thing here. they are cut out and want in on an establishment which has been around for a while. Hard to check the married block on the 1040 till the feds recognize it. And for the rest who are not in for the benefits they are trying to prove a point in which case I got even less sympathy.

But in the end its not a issue except for the fact the states have made a business of marraige, bad on them. Should have left it in the churches where it belonged.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:48 AM
How about we give them the right to get married but not the right to get divorced, see how bad they really want it.

I'm all for gay marriage and honestly it's a travesty that the argument against it has continued for so long.

Whether certain people want to admit it or not, gays are people, too.
edit on 3/27/13 by TokiTheDestroyer because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:50 AM
reply to post by dave_welch

So they can pay more into the US higher taxes, equals more money for our government...thats a darn good reason,oh yeah...and freedom of choice because after all that is what made our country better than most...was the freedom of choice...without freedom of choice we might as well be communist...with no free choice...but hey...those are the breaks

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:01 AM
Same sex marriage isn't even an issue in Canada anymore. Brazil, the Netherlands and Spain are some other countries that allow the very thing Americans are up in arms about these days. If it's true love, how can it be wrong? Who are you to say what others should be able to do with their life?

If people are not married, they can spend a lifetime together and still not be able to have certain rights under law. Disallowing people to marry is not going to make the issue go away. Before the 1960's, it was illegality for a white skinned person to marry a dark skinned person. Today we find couples of all races being able to marry their beloved no matter what skin they're in.

Why should it be different for same sex couples? No one ever wakes up and decides they're suddenly going to be homosexual, they are born that way and usually go against their nature because society frowns upon their orientation.

Live and let live!

Religion has no place in politics.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by Invariance

And Marriage has no place in Government.....Just like religion. You can't have it both ways, thats the problem.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:22 AM
reply to post by IknowJack

Sadly, the government has to be involved for a marriage to be legal...

what would you propose for an alternative?

I was referring to civil ceremonies...
edit on 27-3-2013 by Invariance because: added a line

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:38 AM
All in all I don't have an issue with gay marriage or whatever. We all have civil rights and should be treated equal.. Now on the other hand marriage to me is not the issues, the issue is procreation and keeping our species alive.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by Invariance

Why does the government need to be involved????? FOR BENEFITS only...eleminate all benefitsfor ANY married and it becomes achurch issue. Period

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by dave_welch

Yes, we should allow same-sex marriage so I never have to hear it debated again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is far more important issues to be discussed!

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:51 AM
Why not?

Getting married is no ones business but the people getting married and anyone they feel like they want to share that love with.

To say or think otherwise is a joke. File this subject under "Mind your own business or Get out." People are so damn nosy, makes me sick.

To be honest, there are much...MUCH...greater social issues the world needs to worry about.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by dave_welch

Think about it, If your homosexual neighbors, co-workers, or peers are allowed to join in marriage, how would this affect you? The answer is that it won't.

Ahh but you fail to see the pain and hurt it causes to bigots. I agree wholeheartedly and can't fathom how anyone could read "all men are created equal" and see that applying to anything but all of mankind.

In documents like that, even at a time when women basically had no rights, I can't see that being applied to any group other than the entire human race.

But I guess that's what makes us different than some of those so opposed to it, we understand that while it doesn't affect us at all being straight, it's pure discrimination to deny those gay couples anything that straight couples aren't denied.

It's not changing the "family unit" and it's not changing "the definition of marriage" it's ensuring equal oppurtinity to all americans, regardless of race, religion or creed, not sure where sexuality fits in there, but to me, it doesn't have to, sexuality has nothing to do with anything, a human being is a human being and we are all equals.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:49 AM
A few things. First, most of the founders were hebraists, meaning, they were more interested in the political examples found in the hebrew bible rather then the apolitical new testament. Meaning, undoubtedly, the vast majority of them would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Second, you have to be very ignorant (to put it nicely) to be swept up by the fanfare created by liberals who want to make a nonissue into a watershed cultural 360. Operation dismantle the judeo-christian foundations of American society is underway, motivated less by the pangs of gays who can't legally marry than by a desire to shape public opinion. Honestly, it just smacks of politicization, sanctimony and overall a waste of neurons.

Personally, I think everyone deserves the right to marry, gay or non-gay. A liberal society requires it, whether you agree or disagree. My compunction is with the media's moralization and partiality in its coverage of it. This, instead of stressing the civic need to grant liberty to all, regardless of your opinions, focuses in on the "superior" moral of being blind to sexuality and marriage.

This is more a utilitarian than a moral issue. Morally, I completely disapprove of same sex relationships (although my cousin Is gay, and we're good friends, i overlook my issue with his relationship in order to maintain our relationship); but politically, I see the importance of creating an environment where no one view predominates.
edit on 27-3-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:37 PM
The president of Turkey said one beautiful sentence . King of Jordan said that he said "Democracy is like a bus , you will get off the bus at the right stop".

IMO , Freedom and other rights are the candy on the bus to distract the masses.

Your govt neglects your rights anytime necessary , and yet you discuss the bus you are not on.

After gay marriage , it is turn to free animal sex.

It is not hard to play you people.

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by dave_welch
The reason I have always liked those documents is that for such great works of writing, they are beautifully simple. I think that this is the way we should look at them, that they are not metaphor, but strait forward guidelines.

When it say things like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." That's a pretty strait forward statement. We can debate whether they meant All Men, or All White Men, or however you wish to interpret it. But, I believe that we should take the words at face value. That it means All Men (all people, Mankind) are created equal and are afforded the same rights at birth.

To me, that means all people, no matter race, religion, or creed, share the same rights (under these documents at least). So, If two men, or two women, wish to marry let them. It will hurt nobody if same sex couples are allowed marriage by federal law.

Think about it, If your homosexual neighbors, co-workers, or peers are allowed to join in marriage, how would this affect you? The answer is that it won't.

exactly, couldn't have said it better myself. this should be the end of the argument.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in