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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

What Is Marriage?

Marriage is a legal status that is given to a couple by a state government. Regardless of where the marriage is issued, and subject to a few exceptions, it should be recognized by every state and nation around the world. Marriage is desirable because it has several unique rights, protections, and obligations at both the state and federal level for both spouses.

What Is a Civil Union?

A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to both same-sex or heterosexual couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. States that have domestic partnership or civil union laws include Colorado, Hawaii, and Illinois.


Marriage Compared to Civil Unions

Why not just expand the benefits of a civil union to the federal level and have them recognized by all 50 states. I'd figure that would satisfy most people. But then again, that probably isn't good enough.

It's all about that title, not the benefits.
edit on 3/2/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: American-philosopher

*Laughing* What a hornets nest you kicked!


Bottom line?

Never be afraid to have your own opinion. You'll never get everyone to agree on everything all the time.

People are gonna hate on you for something. If it isn't this, it'll be something else.

Never be afraid to have your own opinion. Right, wrong, own it.

It's always better to stand for something (even if wrong) than kneel before an overwhelming consensus.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
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?


That's for each couple to decide and define. I define my marriage. Would you want me to define yours?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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

what does that mean moving with the times?!




I gave examples...
So in your opinion (as a bigot) you believe women should still not have the vote and black people should still be slaves?

OK - good for you man!!

Enjoy the thread.




posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have already stated I am for people getting benefits. I can't control what the government is doing (at least not yet) about that.,

its not just words. words are sometimes what define us. words can also be very powerful. so lets not just dismiss words.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Why not stop telling ourselves that the invisible man in the sky invented marriage and let people be its 2015.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Marriage is about human breeding


That's YOUR definition. My marriage is not about breeding. I'll ask you... Should I have been disallowed to marry the love of my life because of YOUR definition of marriage?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

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.


You do understand that most of the instances of sexual behavior in animals that is between animals of the same gender is not because those animals are actually trying to mate with one another as a serious pair-bonding?

Those are mostly instances of dominance and hierarchy. There are also instances of one male confusing another in order to mate with female himself (I have directly observed this with cichlid fish. The sub-dominant male wears female coloration and pretends to be a female in the mating circle. He circles with the male and the real female adopting female mating behavior so that he can also shower sperm over the female eggs. Some of the eggs she then incubates in her buccal cavity will be his.) These are not true homosexuality as humans think of it. The same with ape societies were sex is used to appease and avert violence. So they are being homosexual to avoid getting the crap kicked out of them. Great example!

You take out all those examples .... and you are left with not very many bonified instances of actual attempts of same sex animals trying to pair bond with one another.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Marriage is about human breeding


That's YOUR definition. My marriage is not about breeding. I'll ask you... Should I have been disallowed to marry the love of my life because of YOUR definition of marriage?


Hey blame BlupBlup. He's the one who said it wasn't about religion. And you brought in nature.
edit on 2-3-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: EternalSolace

Why not stop telling ourselves that the invisible man in the sky invented marriage and let people be its 2015.


Why not stop berating those whom believe in a higher power and let all just get along?

Like I said, it's not about the benefits, it's about the title.
edit on 3/2/2015 by EternalSolace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No not at all, in my opinion you still had your family. it doesn't just mean having children.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:57 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.




As long as they don't get 'married' huh? So really, you don't want them to have the same rights and benefits at all and you are hiding your bigotry beneath semantics.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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

I have already stated I am for people getting benefits. I can't control what the government is doing (at least not yet) about that.,


Well I work within the existing framework of how the government works, and the government has decided that marriage isn't just a title.


its not just words. words are sometimes what define us. words can also be very powerful. so lets not just dismiss words.



Words are given the power we give them. Cuss words wouldn't be so sensational if we didn't spend so much time trying not to say them.

You still haven't answered my question. What is so wrong with calling a man and man or a woman and a woman "married"? Why is that reprehensible to you exactly?
edit on 2-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
if rape was the "in thing" would that be okay??


You do know that rape actually hurts someone, right?



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


Is reproduction threatened IN ANY WAY by gay people marrying? Trust me, there will still be people breeding like bunnies, even if their gay neighbor gets married.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Concerning bigotry, racism and social equality issues, the people who are the first to point a finger are almost always the biggest hypocrites. They demand you be tolerant of everything that suits them, but yet they want to kill you if you disagree with them. Disagreeing with them is not allowed.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you would have been down with slavery after the Dred Scott decision then=?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

that's for each couple to decide?? NO. we need something that is set for each type of couple. We do.

So I am saying that the hetrosexual couple should not be able to enter into the same commitment ceremony as the same sex couple.

because there is a difference not saying there is anything less or more about each couple.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ah, yes... the old "separate but equal" trick. We tried that with black people and it was found to be unconstitutional.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: blupblup

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

what does that mean moving with the times?!




I gave examples...
So in your opinion (as a bigot) you believe women should still not have the vote and black people should still be slaves?

OK - good for you man!!

Enjoy the thread.



do I respond to that? what?



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
#1 - separate Equal Rights from personal belief.

YES - everyone is capable of doing that.

Bigot? Or acting on bigoted belief?

Do you actively, through voting or other method, try to deny/prevent Equal Rights or Right of Choice?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join