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.
Originally posted by quietlearner
thanks for calling me a bigot,
its very revealing when someone resorts to name calling once they find out an argument that contradicts their beliefs.
one example is:
if you were to take any argument advocation traditional marriage and replace it with gay marriage will they all be standing logical? the answer is no and therefore your example is invalid
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by jfj123
Well, you proved my point with your apparent inability to respond in a logical manner. You also demonstrated again, that you may have reading comprehension issues.
Don't worry, most people have a hard time with logic
If you were bad at math, would you offer to correct someone's math papers? It's "just logic" I'm using here.
But my point is, one person after another bumbled into the trap, and knee-jerk agreed with the essentially preposterous OP question. In other words, the minute a person agreed with it, you would automatically be "wrong", because logic is actually the basis of language itself. You wouldn't be able to argue long, and certainly not for 34 pages (!), if there wasn't substance to deal with.
Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by jfj123
you clearly have no idea what im talking about
I will leave it at that
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by jfj123
you clearly have no idea what im talking about
I will leave it at that
Maybe you should explain yourself a little better.
I'll leave it at that.
You love listening to yourself talk, don't you?
Originally posted by quietlearner
Originally posted by Annee
Stop trying to manipulate.
I don't care - - in regards to the Expectations - - you state a a couple getting married "owes" to the government.
Many Heteros are choosing not to procreate.
Many Gays are choosing to procreate.
Yet - - - you want to place full responsibility on Gays.
Your Logic is flawed by your prejudice.
I never said any one "owes" anything
also I never said there were any "expectations"
I was referring to the expected outcome, there is a slight difference there
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by jfj123
You love listening to yourself talk, don't you?
I've always been long-winded, but we all have our faults, don't we?
You for example, seem to prefer one-liners, that speak so much about you as it is, you need not bother with "too many" words. Besides, don't you get headaches when people use more than one sentence?
Oops! My apologies, too many words again...
JR
...stand by my point. There have been no logical arguments against gay marriage. Sure there have been arguments but none of them have reasonable logic points. The arguments are in reality, excuses to hate a particular group of people.
Originally posted by jfj123
Why waste words on someone who can't understand them?
Oops not enough words...sorry
I stand by my point. There have been no logical arguments against gay marriage. Sure there have been arguments but none of them have reasonable logic points. The arguments are in reality, excuses to hate a particular group of people. These same excuses have been used to prevent women from voting or from blacks from being free citizens.
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Clearly, you don't understand logic, so, like quietlearner, I guess we just have to "leave it at that".
Originally posted by mahoosta
Newish lurker, and just joined yesterday.
This is my first post.
GAY MARRIAGE - People continue to say it's against Christian values. I'm taken back by this, because as ATS members, I assume you are all aware that the bible was not written by god. It was handed down and edited to fit the needs of those in power.
Originally posted by quietlearner
Originally posted by grahag
Surrogates and in vitro fertilization are possibilities for procreation on the same-sex side. It's not a logical argument that if you can't reproduce, you shouldn't be married, because MANY married couples choose not to have kids or can't. Invalidating the marriages based on child-bearing status would be a cruel thing to do to people who already probably feel bad enough.
ok lets use surrogates
example a male/male couple
they have to use the body of a female for 9 months
also only one of them will donate their genes
the kid will not be blood related to one of them at all
can you foresee all the insecurity troubles the social troubles, the mental health troubles?
just because they can, my artificial means, create a life does not make them the same
as a hetero couple with their own child.
you say they feel bad? I'm sure they do
so lets not be cruel and give pamper them?
they feel bad -> lets not be cruel -> lets give them everything they want lol!
it actually makes sense!!
Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by mahoosta
Welcome to a spirited conversation! Glad you decided to post!
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
Clearly, you don't understand logic, so, like quietlearner, I guess we just have to "leave it at that".
You do not present Logic.
You present a rambling mish mash of excuses.
They Hate because they Choose to.
Originally posted by blackrain17
Originally posted by AmrikazNightmar3
I never understood marriage, gay or otherwise. If you love someone, love them, why involve the government?
My 2 pennies.....
Gays don't give a crap about getting married and our government could care less about those fudge packers getting married. It's all about filing of income taxes as married or filing as two single people...