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.

 

Am I a bigot?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Its all about equal rights, pretty simple, its 2015 and people still find issues with a mariage contract.




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My working definition of marriage is a committed bond between a man and a woman that says were going forward with the intention of being a family.

that is my quick working definition of marriage.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Like freedom of speech and religion... So what's your point?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher

Political Correctness is the imposing of a matrix of values (or no values) on everyone under such a regime, willingly or not. You have no position from which to counter that matrix because it has been decreed to be right from start to finish. Disobey and you will be burned at the figurative stake without recourse. Nothing you can say will absolve you of your heretical views. 'Best be done with you so those that enjoy their common values can thrive in your stead.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

In every teaching that refers to marriage, both refer only to man and women. In teaching that refers to sexual sin and perversion, homosexual sex features fairly regularly.

It is therefore, safe to conclude that marriage is for a man and woman and the reason for that is because they were made for each other - man and woman. This is pretty evident throughout nature when it comes to creatures that reproduce sexually.




Women were not allowed to vote, black people were slaves.... the past was awesome huh?
We live in the now, many laws and rights have moved with the times, including marriage (which again, has nothing to do with religion) and I think we should all be glad and thankful for that.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
My working definition of marriage is a committed bond between a man and a woman that says were going forward with the intention of being a family.


Thank you for answering.


That is a fine definition, but it's not my definition. I was unable to have children before I got married. Should I have been disallowed to marry the love of my life (23 years now!) because of YOUR definition of marriage?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see it as marriage as a title. Like I said I want same sex couples to have all the same rights and benefits and all that jazz.


But it's not a title just because you say so.


now are you prepared to have a discussion about a title??


I don't care what you call it. As long as it comes with government benefits, all people need to be included in it. You are just creating semantic word games to justify intolerance. What's so bad about saying that two men or two women are married anyways? It's just a word.


then if so were talking about something that fits the parameters for said title.

I can't title myself as a "girl scout" can I?


First off, girl scouts are an organization not a title. You join the girl scouts not label yourself as one. Second off, girl scouts aren't a government organization. They are a private organization and can be restrictive on their membership. Third, there aren't any special government benefits conferred to girl scouts for joining the organization which are denied to boys who can't join because they are boys.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


So if I'd vote against murder and rape, am I prejudiced against them too?




Why not paedophilia? That usually comes up in discussion on homosexuality?
These threads are full of the lowest common denominator.

Enjoy preachin' & judgin' won't ya!!



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Its different because no matter the background, cultural differences it is a man and a woman just like for an all white couple it is a man and a woman.

were talking about combinations !

and what is the formula for marriage?

there are a lot of science oriented people on ATS whats the formula whats the sequence whats the structure of marriage?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Quite...


& so am I...


Like I said, we are all bigots in some form...

There is no loophole out of that, unless one remains completely neutral in every controversial topic of morality.


Which is why it's a useless term anyways.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

so on accordance of a vote your a bigot? so a vote is going to tell you that I have hate in my heart?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Regardless of the government's original intentions as far as marriage goes this is where we stand now. To be honest, it was Christians themselves who got marriage intertwined with government. Funnily enough it is Christians who are the ones trying to change it when they don't like where government is going with it.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

Marriage is about human breeding like the pride is for lions.

Explain to me again how gay humans marry.

This says nothing about them loving. But by definition two men or two women can't reproduce not without third party intervention.

And I know the popular comeback is that not all straight couples can, but if you lined up straight couples and gay couples and asked anyone to pick out the ones that could have kids ... you which couples would get picked out of the line.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I'd say you are comparing apples to oranges here. You are a person and a union is a labor organization. It falls under different rules and guidelines by the nature of it not being human.


So, AARP should be able to commit acts of violence against opponents of the social security administration?


Again you are talking about organizational rights versus human rights. Marriage is between two people not two organizations. For your comparison, you need to include humans being able to commit acts of violence against other humans.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
In every teaching that refers to marriage, both refer only to man and women. In teaching that refers to sexual sin and perversion, homosexual sex features fairly regularly.


You keep speaking of religious ideals. Marriage is a secular union. A History of Gay Marriage


This is pretty evident throughout nature when it comes to creatures that reproduce sexually.


What is evident is that homosexuality is rampant in the natural world. Homosexuality in Nature



But the fact is that homosexuality is natural. It’s widespread in nature and has been observed in 500 animal species, including all the great apes, of which humans are a part.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Regardless of the government's original intentions as far as marriage goes this is where we stand now. To be honest, it was Christians themselves who got marriage intertwined with government. Funnily enough it is Christians who are the ones trying to change it when they don't like where government is going with it.


Explain to me again how we are not a Christian nation.

If we are going to blame Christians for this, then we can't refuse to say we have a Christian nation.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Then I guess everyone is a bigot in some form.
Especially people who call people bigots.


Paradox.

Very true, though.
Anyone who firmly believe marriage is between a man & a woman puts way too much value on words, definitions, ideologies, other people's business, & everything else probably.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

what does that mean moving with the times?!

if rape was the "in thing" would that be okay??

This is not a fashion trend were speaking of Its a staple of life that's a solidifying factor for us humans.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

Regardless of the government's original intentions as far as marriage goes this is where we stand now. To be honest, it was Christians themselves who got marriage intertwined with government. Funnily enough it is Christians who are the ones trying to change it when they don't like where government is going with it.


Explain to me again how we are not a Christian nation.


Separation of Church and State.


If we are going to blame Christians for this, then we can't refuse to say we have a Christian nation.


Separation of Church and State doesn't prevent Christians from trying to unseparate them. The government can only work within the confines of its checks and balances. If a Christian heavy Congress gets elected and passes a bunch of theocractic laws, those laws can't be overturned until they are challenged by the court system and ruled unconstitutional. That doesn't mean they are good laws though.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: blupblup

Explain to me again how gay humans marry.





Just...honestly...wow.

There is literally no point in having a discussion.
You are a closed minded bigot and your position will not change... 'cause Jebus tells you the truth!!

Enjoy the thread - I'm done.




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join