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.

 

Presbyterian Church (USA) Amends Constitution to Allow Gay Marriage

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: windword

Marriage is NOT a "religious" institution. This is another misconception creating new generation of misconceptions for you.

Marriage is a ceremony to celebrate the promise between one's self and one's creator to have faith in who that creator has put before them. Having faith in your creator would mean, you trust in that partner because of your relationship with your creator. People make the mistake of thinking this is a commitment to the PERSON and not our creator.

This is the misconception of marriage.


^^^^THIS....is a religious construct, by definition!




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Either way you want to show your opinion, you are still unable to post something that refutes me.

Define lesbian.
edit on 23-3-2015 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

Marriage is not a ceremony. A wedding is a ceremony. Marriage is when two consenting adults formally register their cohabitation. And no, there doesn't have to be a "creator" involved in a marriage. Many marriages do just fine without one.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

How is it a religious construct? Again you post but do not refute.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You are correct, i misused marriage/wedding.

Marriage is the commitment. Wedding is the ceremony.

"Many do fine" is your relative opinion. There is a 'better' way of doing everything, and that better way is the way in which I am showing you.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: windword

Either way you want to show your opinion, you are still unable to post something that refutes me.

Define lesbian.


Actually, I think you've been refuted again and again by many poster, including myself, throughout this thread. You're delusional if you think you've won over the hearts and minds of anyone with your dogma or contrived logic.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I will take that as your white flag of surrender. PM me if you wish to make personal attacks, it does not help others who will read this thread.

What you see as "refuting" is the learning process taking place. It has been your turn for awhile and you are not moving.
edit on 23-3-2015 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson




What you see as "refuting" is the learning process taking place. It has been your turn for awhile and you are not moving.


There's no need to keep repeating what's already been established. YOU have failed to prove your point. Countless examples have been presented that refute your stance, that's based in pseudo science, which has also already been pointed out to ad nauseam.

You are beating a dead horse!



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Attempts to refute what I have said have come with many holes in their arguments and it has been pointed out and left for them to respond. Respond. Taking things further off topic is not where we want to go here.

As i said before, you have nothing left so you wander off topic. Just walk away man...



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The children of the homosexuals that choose to adopt or even impregnate without love, are beginning to come of age and express how they themselves feel about it. Please check out this article posted by the daughter of a gay couple.

Coming of age


This woman's issue is not because she has 2 moms.

I've been reading comments on several sites about this article.

Her issue is her loser dad.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This young woman went so far as to send a letter of support to Dolce & Gabanna AGREEING with their stance that homosexual couples should not raise kids.

This young woman's argument is that she NEEDED a father but was deprived of it by having two females for parents. She is yearning for the MALE influence. This is innate for every child, they need a FEMALE and MALE influence raising them for optimal growth.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

Look, you've asserted that marriage is a commitment between and individual and their "creator". This is your OPINION, and has NOT been proven to any satisfaction to anyone but yourself.

You've claimed that homosexuals CANNOT procreate. This HAS been proven false, again and again.

You've cited studies that relate to "single parenting", as evidence against same sex parenting, that hold no water under scrutiny.

You have created your own definition of "love", excluding the many aspects of love that are expressed by gay and hetero couples and families everyday, in favor of some idealistic vision that simply only exists in fairy tales.

All your so called "evidence" is nothing more than biased self validation that exists in your mind, and your mind only. You haven't convinced anyone that your logical outlook of what love and marriage should be, makes more sense than those opinions of your opposition.

You've presented no scientific or medical data to prove your hypothesis as to why marriage should be denied to same sex couples. Everything that you've presented so far has been poked full of holes by posters more scientifically minded that myself. There's no need for me to repeat what's already need established as fact, simply because you refuse to accept those facts.



edit on 23-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

My evidence has existed for thousands of years in eastern philosophies alone. The concept of love being a pervasive force that has the ability to affect.. or DEFECT many things, has been known since antiquity.

A true homosexual does not procreate. I am not wrong. If a homosexual has procreated, either they are not truly a homosexual or they did so by conceiving in a test tube which hurts the offspring. Please prove me wrong.




edit on 23-3-2015 by chadderson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson




A true homosexual does not procreate. I am not wrong. If a homosexual has procreated, either they are not truly a homosexual or they did so by conceiving in a test tube which hurts the offspring. Please prove me wrong.


Says you. Many homosexuals prove you wrong. So does science. You ARE wrong.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
How is a homosexual woman pregant? She must have had sex with someone that she was not naturally attracted to and thus made a movement out of a selfish nature, without love.


You are aware that a women can conceive without resorting to sexual intercourse, right?


What were her motives? Does she believe she 'deserves' kids?


I would assume the same 'motive' that any other women that opts to get pregnant has, to raise a child.


When i speak of creator there is no "religious" ties whatsoever. You were created. Your earthly creators were created. Your earthly creators creators were created.


Yeah, and? So are all the children of gay couples. If the child grows up in a loving home then who I am to advocate that a stance against this?



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Define homosexual.
Define lesbian.

These are questions that have been asked of you PAGES ago, but you would rather veer off topic.

"many homosexuals prove you wrong"

No they dont. They only show me that they are not truly homosexuals if they have children.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes i am aware women can conceive without sexual intercourse. Children can be conceived in a test tube, this is another issue altogether, but it is a detriment to the child.

You have validated that we are all created, please give credit to the creator that stands outside of creation. The creator of the duality you witness.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chadderson

Tell you what, since you seem to have your own definition, you define homosexual and lesbian for me to understand. Mine is the conventional definition. Through my definition, a lesbian can be impregnated.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
Yes i am aware women can conceive without sexual intercourse. Children can be conceived in a test tube, this is another issue altogether, but it is a detriment to the child.


A detriment how? Some psuedo science mumbo jumbo?


You have validated that we are all created, please give credit to the creator that stands outside of creation. The creator of the duality you witness.


Belief or recognition of a creator is not an indicator of who will or will not be loving and responsible parents.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Please dude. Define the word yourself so we can continue this discussion.

Enough with the feet dragging and off topic dashes.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join