Seriously, is there any logical argument against gay marriage?

Originally posted by superdebz
I fully agree with gay marridge.
But one thing I wanna ask people is if anyone thinks that religions have the right to defend their fundemental beliefs?

I fully agree with gay marriage also .. and I might as well say I believe in a man or women having more than one wife or husband .... although only that is legal over in the Middle East .. but not here .. meaning that men can have more than one wife .. this does not include women having more than one husband unfortunately lol

This also means that we can now have a Gay president .. but then why do all the gay politicians resign .. I dont get that.... if it's now considered legal in the Millitary to be gay then whats the big deal if they are married gay men or gay women ?? ..

Originally posted by AndrewSwann
Marriage was designed to be man an woman not any other way. Humans reproduce sexually not asexually so there needs to be two different partners not to partners of the same gender.

Who "designed" it? Can We not make changes to the design? Marriage is not about reproduction - it's about two people wanting to commit to One another. Reproduction takes place whether marriage is included or not.

The legal term is call "Joint Tenancy", which is created by an attorney and if done correctly upon the death of one party the other party inherits 100%, without anything going to heirs or family.

Cost's less than a wedding and marriage.

Originally posted by SophyC76
reply to post by Realtruth

 

your argument is that the property should have been under both names..
in the case of sudden death, the partner is # out of luck?
valid. so valid.

edit on 22-5-2011 by SophyC76 because: (no reason given)

To OP.

You are asking to use receive a logical argument from people with use illogical reasons to believe in fairy tales. Don't you see that this won't go anywhere...

reply to post by goos3


if you really believe your statement, you should leave this website. anyone not enlightened enough to accept a different race or gender, is not capable of any understanding of anything "above top secret". Gay is a gender, a race. Not a creed. It's the same as saying being black or asian is wrong, the only difference is that gay doesn't have a different skin colour.

I could probably research this....but the interactive nature of ATS is rather fun. A troll i am not. This is my belief of gays.

Crossed up hormones. It is what it is. We need not judge.

Now it may be hard on the ego of gay person to admit this, but once they accept themselves as they are.. they will have the power to care not... how others perceive them. There is no control over the system or what others think. So just accept it or arm up and blow up the TPTB.

Once i learned acceptance i became free.

acceptance, Google it people, fighting is useless.

reply to post by goos3


How ignorant is your post? You compare murder, which harms others as wrong. Agree. You compare rape, which harms others, as wrong. Also agree. But then you compare a union between two consenting adults, that is NOT harming anyone, wrong? Where is the logic? Morals are based on a society, whether ignorant or not. They don't just appear out of nowhere. Your morals were based upon your upbringing. Homosexuality is dated back to the earliest China Dynasty. Not until Christianity came along did the sense of "It's Wrong" emerge. And that in and of itself is another topic.

The same silly laws that give you the right to believe in "god" under freedom of religion, also give you same freedom to love who ever you want to love.

Now I ask you this, Does it bother when someone does not believe in the same god as you? It should not as it has no effect on your personal life, Just as who ever someone decides to fall in love with has no direct bearing on you personally so why concern you self with stuff that has no influence on your life or choices you make.

And for those arguing the fact that its all about reproducing let me let in you in on a little fact I personally know several straight couples that DO NOT want to have children or reproduce. Does this mean they are in the wrong and not allow to get married?

Originally posted by JR MacBethI have no problem with your taking it that way, but adding your own sensationalist flair doesn't necessarily help get to the bottom of the matter.

How did what I say have sensationalist flair to it? I basically reiterated what you posted and said I didn't really agree with it.

Originally posted by JR MacBethI certainly stand by my minimalist supposition, that history provides some indications that homosexuality is a risk-factor when it comes to the breakdowns of the societies I mentioned.

From the looks of it, it seemed as if the conclusion you came to was based upon your personal interpretation of historical events. That's why I said your post was anecdotal and full of supposition.

Do you have anything you can cite or do you have actual evidence that you could link me to that supports your claim more objectively?

Originally posted by JR MacBethDoes this really "imply" that homosexuality leads to the destruction of society, through "shifting social norms"? Not necessarily. Which is why I suggested that modern society may find ways of accommodating gays. I guess if I was a religionist, I wouldn't be able to even allow for that, but since I'm not, I'm open to a future that may bring pleasant surprises.

But the way in which you presented your case by saying "history may suggest that society has something to "fear", if a population's homosexual component gets too far out of control," and then posting examples where you claim that homosexuality somehow had a direct hand in negatively impacting places like Greece and Rome, and had a hand in negatively impacting other regions as well certainly seems to imply that in the overall context of your post (which was to point out the deterioration or decay of society/civilization) that homosexuality played an important part in said deterioration/decay.

What evidence is there that homosexuality was the reason for such deterioration/decay?

Originally posted by JR MacBethYou mention that I went to the trouble of citing specific examples (that you apparently did not like). I hope you can see that such a thing is far better than providing NO examples to support your own position.

It wasn't a matter of me liking or disliking your examples or your position, I simply referenced your examples because you were making it seem as if I was making claims about your post that were untrue. Which wasn't the case, I referenced your examples to show that you posted what I said you posted.

I was just taking what you said and putting a different spin on it by saying that maybe it wasn't necessarily the homosexuals who caused the decay or deterioration in the examples you listed. Your examples are my examples in that regard, only I was trying to provide an alternative underlying cause for why homosexuality might have played a hand in the aforementioned decay/deterioration by saying that perhaps the people couldn't adapt to the change, so if they couldn't adapt they couldn't survive. I honestly don't know, I just doubted that homosexuals were the cause.

Originally posted by JR MacBethYes, you may think that the reason societies fall has more to do with people not being able to "work together", but l'm guessing that historians, for example, aren't going to care about individual opinions, when they investigate actual reasons why civilizations fell. They may find that the weather changed, and the corn wouldn't grow, or later, that the oil ran out!

Societies fall for a broad many reasons.

Originally posted by JR MacBethBut OK, by all means let us know why your opinion trumps history.

It doesn't, but neither does your opinion unless you can provide anything concrete to support your claim. That's why I originally said what you provided in your original post was anecdotal and supposition. There wasn't anything concrete other than what appeared like your personal interpretation on historical events.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Nothing about anti gay, but marriage is a precise word meaning "union of a man and a woman, finalized to create a family from which procreate children".
That is the meaning, and nothing else: so is impossible to have a marriage between two men or two women (as it falls out of definition!) and that can´t generate children.

It is just a problem of term: marriage simply is that and homosexual individuals simply can´t pretend to give it other meaning: it would be like asking why I am contrary to fly with boats: until we use the proper meaning of word "flying", we mean to move in the air, thing a boat can´t do: as two men or two women can´t be married. Case closed.

That doesn´t mean two men or two women can´t love each other, live together and eventually bind them in a contract similar to the marriage: but notice: just similar!
I know more than one couple of people of the same sex that form a couple much better than a one called marriage. No problem with that!

That marriage-similar contract (for which should be found a new name) would warranty each of them in their right: that is important, not the name. Is really an important thing to create that new kind of contract as these people can suffer a lot from having their relationship not contemplated by law: for example if one of the is without consciousness in hospital. relatives of him can forbid the visit of his/her lover, etc etc.. that is not worth!

Beside that a marriage is a contract between two people, true, but also with the community: the couple oblige itself to be united and being a constituting unit of the society, trying to provide to it one or more new members: in exchange of that society helps as it can the couple: it is simply a social contract.

For that motive, even if two people of the same sex (and as I am very liberal for me is the same also in case we speak about a man and a goat, a woman and a camel and all the possible combinations) love each other society can´t be obliged to give them assistence, for example providing cheap State-owned homes for young families or family checks to help yung family to start: just because society won´t have nothing back from this couple.

So Gay marriage-like union can´t have the same privilege of a marriage union, but anyhow society must protect the right of them anyhow.

Originally posted by Dezero
Marriage is a religious ceremony whether we like it or not. It was part of Gods law for mankind.
When gays get married it's heresy. These laws were for man and woman. When 2 men get married they are going against what marriage was for in the first place. Using Gods laws against him

Show me where God is mentioned in the Legal Government Marriage License.

A Government Marriage License is about protection of rights and property of those joining together as one.

Can you have a religious ceremony in a church and be married by God? Sure.

Does it give you the Legal Government rights and protection without a Marriage License? NO

Legal Government Rights - - - must be for all citizens. Religious reasoning does not (should not) qualify for denial.

the logical argument is that religion, gay people, heterosexual people, and government will never get along. That's sad part about it

My son said something interesting the other day,

Gays are fighting for the right to marry, while the straight people avoid it,

funny

Originally posted by nuspy
Nothing about anti gay, but marriage is a precise word meaning "union of a man and a woman, finalized to create a family from which procreate children".

Wrong.

Legal marriage is about rights and protection. A government marriage license says nothing about god or procreation.

reply to post by quietlearner


I think what we can agree on is that the definition of marriage and the concept of marriage needs an overall. Because the reality is that marriage isn't really that meaningful when a drunk guy can marry a hooker for a night and divorce her the next day, but a same-sex couple who have a family of adopted children that they love very much cannot get married.

Social Security and pension funds are broke...if you let them marry,with the same rights as a spouse,you add and other 10% of claimants....with this administration trying to break funds left and right,adding another 100 mill claimants is asking for trouble...other than that,let them marry...who cares what they do?

reply to post by technical difficulties


S & F.

There is no rational reason against it. To the contrary, DOMA flys right in the face of the IRS tax code: Taxes are assessed based on marital status by this federal agency, yet DOMA refuses the right of same-sex couples to be recognized.

This is selective taxation, without representation. Seems to me that Americans fought a war or two against this kind of happy horse puckey.

And all the homophobes and bible thumpers can simply plant their lips on my very hetero veteran's rear-end.

If procreation is the reason why homosexuals cant get married, then surely we should ban marriage for women who can't bear children or men that shoot blanks. These people are unable to conceive children and therefore should not get married. That widow who wants to remarry? Sorry grandma...aint happening.

This is absurd.

If you think that two men getting married IN ANY WAY affects YOUR OWN MARRIAGE...then you are secretly homosexual and afraid of the feelings you would have if homosexual lifestyles were considered as legitimate as the lie you have married yourself into.

There I said it. If you are scared of gay people that you will never meet, you are likely gay and hate yourself because of it.

Me? I'm 100% straight...what two gay men are allowed to do doesn't affect me one bit...I simply don't concern myself with their lives.

Agree with previous post. The concept of marriage pre-dates Christianity and in the Greek World this term was strictly husband and wife. Yes there were gay relationships reported in the Greeks stories [most famous - Homer's Iliad - Achilles and Patroklus] and these were written as though they were common place / not unusual. Even in these terms the marriage was a term for man and wife though.

Sorry replying to Nuspy comment