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.

 

lawmakers declare ‘all-out assault’ on marriage for same-sex and atheist couples in Oklahoma

page: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

I did look for a case or cases and found about twenty articles about that one event where the attackers were arrested. Is that the one instance you were talking about?

Funny thing when looking for articles about gays attacking xtains you also find articles of xtains attacking and sometimes killing gays.

I get it you don't want to keep going because I asked for examples with evidence. If you were building a strawman I must have torched it before it was completely built.

Ad Hominem coming in 3,2,1.....



edit on 25-1-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

It is strange you seemed to know what i was saying then you lost it. A civil union would offer the same benefits that a mariage does but it would extend the benefits beyond two people that are in a relationship as lovers. It could be applied to not only marriages but any two people that choose to come together for reasons other than love or sex.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Nyiah

It is strange you seemed to know what i was saying then you lost it. A civil union would offer the same benefits that a mariage does but it would extend the benefits beyond two people that are in a relationship as lovers. It could be applied to not only marriages but any two people that choose to come together for reasons other than love or sex.

Thank you for clarifying what you meant, but you have to admit that that particular post was extremely confusing at best. You truly made it sound like exactly what I pointed out, that presumably, straight people would not have to claim to be gay to get any benefit from it. That is where my "logic origami" comment originated from.
edit on 1/25/2015 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Your anti religion views hurt others.

It is crystal clear is is only about destroying the church and you have alighned your views with lgbt people in order to further your agenda and you really could not give a care for what is best for everyone.


Seems to me every time a Christian gets hit with a dose of rational and reality you guys turn to the go to claim that I am out to destroy your church/religion/beliefs. It is just another form of persecution complex maybe a mental self-defense mechanism because you know your arguments are invalid/ have been thoroughly destroyed by rational.

Here is the thing I believe in equality that is why I argue for them you are arguing against equality. That is a simple fact.

It is true I don't care much for religion but why should I as you have demonstrated you think you all are special and above everyone. If you treated people equally then I wouldn't have much of a reason to be against you.

Also this thread and issue can affect me. Why the eff should I have to go to a religious leader to get married as an atheist? You guys can shove that idea. Marriage does not belong to the religious.


How much of this are you making up and blabbering on about? Our discussion is done I think. If you could be bothered to, you could look for cases of Christians being attacked by Gays because of protesting or simply sharing the Gospel. You can find it, just look. Don't be ignorant.

Your arguments are lacking, but you got spunk, I'll give you that.


Sharing the Gospel? Does that include shouting, "God hates ****!"? Let me shock you by telling you that no one has a right to accost anyone in a public place, threaten them, prevent them from going about their business or proselytize to them against their will. Tell me, what would your response be to a gay person stopping you in public and telling you about the joys of gay sex and telling you that you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't follow him to the local motel? Thought so.

I recommend that everyone carry a compressed air bicycle horn and use it in self-defense when proselytizers accost them against their will. You wouldn't believe how high a proselytizing fundy can jump!


So now I'm an advocate of people who shout obscenities?

You're being idiotic. Please stop.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TechUnique

I did look for a case or cases and found about twenty articles about that one event where the attackers were arrested. Is that the one instance you were talking about?

Funny thing when looking for articles about gays attacking xtains you also find articles of xtains attacking and sometimes killing gays.

I get it you don't want to keep going because I asked for examples with evidence. If you were building a strawman I must have torched it before it was completely built.

Ad Hominem coming in 3,2,1.....




Nice hyperbole. Or is it? Oh wait, is that the Ad Hominem you so wisely predicted?
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick




A civil union would offer the same benefits that a mariage does but it would extend the benefits beyond two people that are in a relationship as lovers. It could be applied to not only marriages but any two people that choose to come together for reasons other than love or sex.



Naaa. Marriage, of all kinds, has been around since the dawn of time. Men have had multiple wives and concubines all over the world. In some societies wives were procured through kidnapping and war. There was never any intrinsic religious ties in the business transaction of marriage.

If Christians want their marital status to be seen as, some how, different than the marital status of people who have no use for religion and didn't marry in a church, then they need to make that distinction themselves. Instead of excluding people, who already have the right to declare their love through marriage, create your own category.

Maybe something like "Sacramental Union" or "Resurrection Partners" would work for you guys?




edit on 25-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

While I would agree that a civil union would be a good idea, however, in the eyes of the law it is neither equal or have the same rights under the law. It is like calling an ox a bull, he is thankful for the compliment, but would like restored to him what was taken away.

The problem is that in all cases, it has been determined that a civil union is not equal to a marriage in the eyes of the law. In all cases where such was brought up, the conclusion by the judges is that it creates a second class citizen.
There are rights that are involved in a marriage that is often all inclusive, that is neither spoken of or mentioned. Some of those very rights are often taken for granted and are never questioned. The first thing is the power of attorney. A wife or a husband can speak for the other in a marriage, and then there is the decisions that can be made, and finally protection under the law. In a civil union, one partner can be compelled to testify against another, without benefit of privacy. IN a marriage a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other. In a civil union, the estate of the surviving partner can be contested, while in a marriage, a surviving spouse has a better chance of winning.

Now if civil union laws were written where it was fully equal, in all aspects to include all of the rights and legal aspects, where there were no difference, I think that many would be behind it. As I have stated from the get go, either make something equal, write the law where it states for all intents and purposes, it is the same and equal to a marriage, or remove all protections, rights and legal aspects of a marriage, thus ending the debate fully and completely.


The question should be asked, would marriage be worth it, knowing that there would be no tax breaks, or legal protection, or even where the other spouse could have no say in anything?



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TechUnique

I did look for a case or cases and found about twenty articles about that one event where the attackers were arrested. Is that the one instance you were talking about?

Funny thing when looking for articles about gays attacking xtains you also find articles of xtains attacking and sometimes killing gays.

I get it you don't want to keep going because I asked for examples with evidence. If you were building a strawman I must have torched it before it was completely built.

Ad Hominem coming in 3,2,1.....




Nice hyperbole. Or is it? Oh wait, is that the Ad Hominem you so wisely predicted?


Hmmmm....dude your outta your league here and it's showing. Nice hyperbole? I don't think you understand the term, as well as, the term ad hominem. For instance, you will consider this post as ad hominem, but people skilled in debate will see it's not.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TechUnique

I did look for a case or cases and found about twenty articles about that one event where the attackers were arrested. Is that the one instance you were talking about?

Funny thing when looking for articles about gays attacking xtains you also find articles of xtains attacking and sometimes killing gays.

I get it you don't want to keep going because I asked for examples with evidence. If you were building a strawman I must have torched it before it was completely built.

Ad Hominem coming in 3,2,1.....




Nice hyperbole. Or is it? Oh wait, is that the Ad Hominem you so wisely predicted?


Hyperbole? Do you know what that word means?

Here is the definition.


exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.


So that definition may fit your claims of Christians being attacked by gays and police taking the side of gays because the only instance I could find showed the police arresting the attackers. You were patting yourself on the back for your hyperbole?

I can back up my claims you seem reluctant to back up yours.


Oh and I never said the ad hominem would be focused towards me. lol my prediction was confirmed by this post towards Tangerine.




So now I'm an advocate of people who shout obscenities?

You're being idiotic. Please stop.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Wise



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connector

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: TechUnique

I did look for a case or cases and found about twenty articles about that one event where the attackers were arrested. Is that the one instance you were talking about?

Funny thing when looking for articles about gays attacking xtains you also find articles of xtains attacking and sometimes killing gays.

I get it you don't want to keep going because I asked for examples with evidence. If you were building a strawman I must have torched it before it was completely built.

Ad Hominem coming in 3,2,1.....




Nice hyperbole. Or is it? Oh wait, is that the Ad Hominem you so wisely predicted?


Hmmmm....dude your outta your league here and it's showing. Nice hyperbole? I don't think you understand the term, as well as, the term ad hominem. For instance, you will consider this post as ad hominem, but people skilled in debate will see it's not.


You just assumed something of me that you have no idea of. I'm out of my league? No, no no. You clearly misunderstood my post when I said 'Or is it'. Yes I do understand my native tongue thank you very much.

I'm not even going to bother participating anymore.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique


You just assumed something of me that you have no idea of. I'm out of my league? No, no no. You clearly misunderstood my post when I said 'Or is it'. Yes I do understand my native tongue thank you very much.

I'm not even going to bother participating anymore.


So you agree with Grim then and were being facetious? Because that is what your above post is inferring. If you don't agree with Grim, means you used the term hyperbole incorrectly in your previous post. Simple, eh?
edit on 25-1-2015 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
That being said...I still reserve the right to find the idea of two men together in a sexual way disgusting.
I agree...cuz I'm not gay. I think it's icky...but that's on me. I'm told gay men feel the same way about hetero sex...ok, I don't take it personally. That doesn't diminish anyone in any way and relationships are more than what people do with their naughty bits. I'll be happy when the whole gay marriage thing is as much of an anachronism as Jim Crow.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Quantum_Squirrel

I really see your point. But "marriage", just like "Last Will and Testament", is a legal institution. If religions want to call their unions something different from the gays and atheists, so they don't get cooties from us, then they can go off and formulate their own word. Matrimony, or Holy Union, whatever.

But for religion to force government to change the name of this institution for everyone that religion doesn't approve of, would be a gross violation of the first amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The religious would still have to get "married" (same as us) to receive government benefits.

If this passes temporarily, it will be found to be unconstitutional. They're just not going to win with this one.
\

I personally disagree with religion, and hate most of the lies they follow.

But you are dead wrong, marriage, last will and testament were ALL founded in religions that WERE the government.

It is difficult for me to understand how people do not see that this is ALL ABOUT RELIGION, which is not, and NEVER WILL BE separated from state.

Look all around the world and ask yourself why all this crazy behavior started and will not stop, someone needs religions to occupy the masses, therefore this issue will NEVER be done with EVER.

No amount of complaining or telling us Anti-Gay movements are insane or anything like that is every going to change how it is.......

The amount of crazy stuff that goes on in the world, ALL of it is from the same dam source, RELIGION, I.E. Controlled Corporate Governmental BELIEF, and how to moderate the world.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Why should it be up to the religions to do that, oh wait they already have.

TAKE IT UP WITH THE GOVERNMENT, oh wait , separation of church and state is a farce and only for show.

This is all a gong show, I cannot believe people think debating over it makes it more clear, being toyed with is the name of the game.



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

What do you mean it's all based in Religion???

Which Religion???

How can everything we do be based on Religion???



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Maybe the only answer for you folks is to elect nothing but atheists and agnostics into public representative positions.

That would be nice. However, I get the feeling some of those "religious" politicians really don't believe in what they say. I think they might be pandering. I think the problem with politics is politicians.

BTW, some of us atheists play agnostic when meaningful coincidences get all freaky. It's an escape.
edit on 26-1-2015 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO
I understand exactly where you are coming from (nice to meet you). However, I hold a bit more optimism, thanks to this here internet.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Connector

originally posted by: TechUnique


You just assumed something of me that you have no idea of. I'm out of my league? No, no no. You clearly misunderstood my post when I said 'Or is it'. Yes I do understand my native tongue thank you very much.

I'm not even going to bother participating anymore.


So you agree with Grim then and were being facetious? Because that is what your above post is inferring. If you don't agree with Grim, means you used the term hyperbole incorrectly in your previous post. Simple, eh?


More like 'This must be hyperbole right?' because it was stupid like this current argument we are having. I'm used to it now though, although I fail to see why I even bother sometimes. I would love to just leave this site and although a lot of members (myself especially) would love me to do that, I don't feel like its the right thing to do.

So I will just put up with the crappy arguments.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TechUnique

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Grimpachi

Your anti religion views hurt others.

It is crystal clear is is only about destroying the church and you have alighned your views with lgbt people in order to further your agenda and you really could not give a care for what is best for everyone.


Seems to me every time a Christian gets hit with a dose of rational and reality you guys turn to the go to claim that I am out to destroy your church/religion/beliefs. It is just another form of persecution complex maybe a mental self-defense mechanism because you know your arguments are invalid/ have been thoroughly destroyed by rational.

Here is the thing I believe in equality that is why I argue for them you are arguing against equality. That is a simple fact.

It is true I don't care much for religion but why should I as you have demonstrated you think you all are special and above everyone. If you treated people equally then I wouldn't have much of a reason to be against you.

Also this thread and issue can affect me. Why the eff should I have to go to a religious leader to get married as an atheist? You guys can shove that idea. Marriage does not belong to the religious.


How much of this are you making up and blabbering on about? Our discussion is done I think. If you could be bothered to, you could look for cases of Christians being attacked by Gays because of protesting or simply sharing the Gospel. You can find it, just look. Don't be ignorant.

Your arguments are lacking, but you got spunk, I'll give you that.


Sharing the Gospel? Does that include shouting, "God hates ****!"? Let me shock you by telling you that no one has a right to accost anyone in a public place, threaten them, prevent them from going about their business or proselytize to them against their will. Tell me, what would your response be to a gay person stopping you in public and telling you about the joys of gay sex and telling you that you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't follow him to the local motel? Thought so.

I recommend that everyone carry a compressed air bicycle horn and use it in self-defense when proselytizers accost them against their will. You wouldn't believe how high a proselytizing fundy can jump!


So now I'm an advocate of people who shout obscenities?

You're being idiotic. Please stop.


It was a question not a statement. Perhaps you should read more carefully.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: deadeyedick




A civil union would offer the same benefits that a mariage does but it would extend the benefits beyond two people that are in a relationship as lovers. It could be applied to not only marriages but any two people that choose to come together for reasons other than love or sex.



Naaa. Marriage, of all kinds, has been around since the dawn of time. Men have had multiple wives and concubines all over the world. In some societies wives were procured through kidnapping and war. There was never any intrinsic religious ties in the business transaction of marriage.

If Christians want their marital status to be seen as, some how, different than the marital status of people who have no use for religion and didn't marry in a church, then they need to make that distinction themselves. Instead of excluding people, who already have the right to declare their love through marriage, create your own category.

Maybe something like "Sacramental Union" or "Resurrection Partners" would work for you guys?





Marriage, in the sense of a formal legal contract, has only existed for 8,000 to 10,000 years. That's hardly since the dawn of time. The universe is billions of years old. Homo sapiens have only existed about 200,000 years. I agree with the rest of your post.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join