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.

 

Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

page: 18
27
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Why does the word "Marriage" have to used for them all to be Equal though???

If we called all of them "LovePods" instead of "Marriage" what difference does it make??? As long as "LovePods" is applied to everyone the same.

But again, I don't care what you call it. If you want them all to be called "Marriage" fine. Like I said earlier, the actual Word that is used doesn't matter to me anyway. I'm fine calling them all Marriage or whatever word you want. The important thing is that whatever word or words that are used, they must all carry the same Legal applications and protections.

Being Equal really only matters in terms of Legality anyway. Equal under the law only applies to Law. So in other words, saying that all marriages are Equal doesn't mean they are all the same on a personal level. No two marriages are the same from a personal level and you can't control that. People live their lives in different ways and my marriage with my wife will always differ from my neighbor. But as far as the Legal Benefits and Protections that come along with it, those need to apply the same for everyone, that's all.




posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

Why does the word "Marriage" have to used for them all to be Equal though???

If we called all of them "LovePods" instead of "Marriage" what difference does it make??? As long as "LovePods" is applied to everyone the same.



Because it has to be exactly the same for everyone or it won't be Equal.

I worked at a food processing plant. Among other things they made pre-packaged prison meals. Each meal had to be identified. If one meal had only 3 meatballs and the rest had 4 it could cause a riot because someone wasn't treated equal.

Now I know some are going to say that's a ridiculous analogy, but it's not.

Some one will always create a problem if there is the slightest difference.

If the religious have marriage and gays have civil unions --- the kids of the gay civil unions will suffer. They will be bullied. The religious will take a superior attitude and pass that attitude on to their kids, who will in turn treat the kids of a civil union as less then equal.

It has to be marriage because that is the correct and only terminology used by the U.S. government.



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

We're not interested in your opinions.

You claimed to have measurable evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are in some way worse off than children raised by straight parents. All your arguments are based on that claim. It is how you have tried to justify your opinions.

You've been asked many times to post this evidence. You have ignored all such requests, instead offering some gibberish about common sense. Sorry, that won't wash. If your position is truthful and legitimate, it must be based on evidence.

Where's the evidence? There isn't any, is there? Just your opinion.

We're not interested in your opinions.


edit on 21/3/15 by Astyanax because: of low-flying bigots.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
To add to continuing list of sources which many ignore....

The APA has been criticised (what's new there?) for supporting studies which used poor methodologies when researching data to publish in favour of same sex parenting.
www.sciencedirect.com...
What I'm alluding to here is that we are back to the problem that even trusted evidence/sources can not be trusted.
edit on 22-3-2015 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Just thought you may have missed some sources here....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think with evidence available for both sides of argument and the mainstream evidence has been criticised as poor methodologies then none of us in this thread should be blinkered to say "it definitely does" or "it definitely doesn't " .... That's just poor, especially when there are studies posted which can look at the matter objectively . Although the APA isn't objective so how can we expect budding psychologists and debators to be ?!



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Astyanax

none of us in this thread should be blinkered to say "it definitely does" or "it definitely doesn't.....


IMHO those of us that are gay are in a postison to say either way as we are the ones that have or have not made the choice.

Those people that say it's a choice obviously made a decision in their own life's at some point to swing either way in turn makes them bisexual.

Being Bisexual is a choice between which sex to get it on with, a majority of bisexuals probably just make a choice to go with main stream society expectations. Some of these bisexual folks then become homophobic whilst battling their own demons.

Anyone that states being gay is a choice is bisexual as they must have made that choice at some point! I personally never got up one day and thought "you know what, I think I want to be persecuted by my peers and society for the rest of my life, I'm gonna shag guys!". How could a young person in a country where being gay lands you with a death sentence actively choose to be gay? Ludicrous for anyone to state otherwise!

Even if being completely gay was a choice, A person's religion is certainly a choice, yet we firmly protect that as a person's right.


edit on 22.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Sorry. Could you please post specific links if you think I have missed something valid? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
Just a thought I have had, that I figured I may as well make a thread about. People like to turn the whole issue of homosexuality into whether or not it is a choice. The religious saying, 'It's a choice!' as an argument for illegalities and such involving homosexuality. Others saying 'it's not a choice!' as a counter-argument. I don't really see why this is the defining issue of it. Even if it were a choice. If our sexuality were not pre-defined, and one simply became homosexual through a variety of personal interpretations and choices...so? Then prohibitions against it would be legitimate? We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices. Individuals should be free to make whatever choices they want, so long as they're not harming another. So, why is the issue of whether choice is a factor or not so prominent in the debate?


Well, for one, if it's a choice, then insurance companies paying for sex change operations would be ended.

That in and of itself is motivation enough for some.

I personally do not care who one finds love with. Live and let live has always been my motto.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

Why does the word "Marriage" have to used for them all to be Equal though???

If we called all of them "LovePods" instead of "Marriage" what difference does it make??? As long as "LovePods" is applied to everyone the same.

But again, I don't care what you call it. If you want them all to be called "Marriage" fine. Like I said earlier, the actual Word that is used doesn't matter to me anyway. I'm fine calling them all Marriage or whatever word you want. The important thing is that whatever word or words that are used, they must all carry the same Legal applications and protections.

Being Equal really only matters in terms of Legality anyway. Equal under the law only applies to Law. So in other words, saying that all marriages are Equal doesn't mean they are all the same on a personal level. No two marriages are the same from a personal level and you can't control that. People live their lives in different ways and my marriage with my wife will always differ from my neighbor. But as far as the Legal Benefits and Protections that come along with it, those need to apply the same for everyone, that's all.


I just had this discussion with someone the other day. (actually my Mother if you can believe that. LOL)

I said they should take the name "Marriage" away from ALL legal unions. Replace it with "Civil Unions" for EVERYONE. M+M, F+F, M+F...all of them. So in the eyes of the law, you are joined in a legal way.

Now, for those who want to be "Married" go to a church and have an additional ceremony in front of God. If that Church permits same sex ceremonies, so be it. But it is meaningless in the eyes of the law. It's purely a religious thing.

Problem solved.

All they want is equal rights UNDER THE LAW. This accomplishes that, while preserving "Marriage" and taking away the religious people's argument.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

So what is someone going to say about their marital status when they got the civil union license but not the church ceremony? They are going to say that they are married (not "civilly united"), because in their hearts, they are married, regardless of whether they did it in a church or not. You simply cannot stop people from using the word "marriage". And since you can't stop people from using the word marriage, you might as well keep it as a marriage license.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: poncho1982

So what is someone going to say about their marital status when they got the civil union license but not the church ceremony? They are going to say that they are married (not "civilly united"), because in their hearts, they are married, regardless of whether they did it in a church or not. You simply cannot stop people from using the word "marriage". And since you can't stop people from using the word marriage, you might as well keep it as a marriage license.


They can SAY whatever they want. What does that have to do with anything? It's all about the law, getting the "Cvil Union Certificate", filing it with the State, and becoming legal. If they want to claim they are married after that, but didn't go to church for it, what difference does it make?

Seriously. Think about that for a second.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Marriage is a legal contract between two people that carries certain benefits offered at the State government level in the United States.

The restriction of the availability of such a contract based on the sex of the citizens entering into it is inequitable.

The Constitution of the United States, most State Constitutions, et. al. provide for equitable treatment of all citizens before the law.

That really is the beginning and end of the matter. Anything else is personal belief.

A divorce rate of 50% or higher is a much greater threat to traditional marriage than extending it to about 5% of the population.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

Totally agree with your points. Completely separate the state from relgion and in doing so take away all legal rights of a "Marriage" as it would be the same as being "Christened" in a church.




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

Well, the license should be called what everyone calls it - marriage. No reason to have two different names for it, when no one will call it anything other than marriage. The religious people against gays won't win anything, because gays will still say they are married, regardless of whether a church was involved. Non-religious heterosexuals will still say they are married. The word is not going to be taken away from gays or non-religious folk. You just can't do it.

Okay - call it a "civil union/marriage license". That covers both bases. People will still just say they are married. Nothing will change. Marriage is marriage - legally or religiously - it's still marriage.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Marriage is a cornerstone to Christianity because it essentially is the two book ends to human civilization as outlined in the bible. We have the beginning of a "relationship" between man and woman in the Garden of Eden. Then we have the outworking of that relationship on the Earth in a myriad of scenarios. The culmination of which is the "Wedding" of the Lamb in Revelation. At which time ( I have to believe ) male/female energy will enter a new dimension/level of existence together. Homosexuality plays it's own part in the formation of various components to the over all energy database. Whatever parts of the homosexual relationships that manifest constructive/positive frequencies will be utilized in the formation of that database. But it does not nor will it ever constitute the "IDEAL". And anyone that cannot admit that is an irrational and unreasonable person IMO. The word "marriage" is a word with an already established definition and society does not need to change that meaning. If a new type of relationship scenario arises it needs to come up with it's own new word for it. Marriage is already taken. I feel strongly that all of these attacks on the institute of marriage is the battle between Gog and Magog ( Male/Female energy ) on the spiritual/quantum energy level.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy



Marriage is a cornerstone to Christianity because it essentially is the two book ends to human civilization as outlined in the bible. We have the beginning of a "relationship" between man and woman in the Garden of Eden.


Regardless, Christians have never created nor owned the concept of marriage. It is not theirs to define.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Geez, I totally agree, but if you'd posted this years ago, I could have saved myself a lot of long, baffled, incredulous replies in threads and conversations lol. All those times I've thought to myself, "why am I arguing with this person?"... Here's the one-line reply.

Anyone who still feels rights should be limited or actions punished related to being gay, etc., after considering that point will have to admit (if American) that they are a Constitution & Freedom hating anti-American. Unfortunately, those who speak the loudest about freedom & gov't non-interference, are all too often the ones who are zealots in the fight against freedom for gays and the push for big-government control over individual lives. Bizarre.
edit on 3/22/2015 by dogstar23 because: Auto-spell incorrect pulled a fast one on me.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Marriage was around along time before Christanity.

Marriage does not belong to any Religion, however I'd be more than happy to drop the word marriage for civil union if it would mean equal rights under the law. Let the fundemenatlist have their word marriage but give it has much legal recognition as being Christianed in a church.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Marriage for money or status is not "ideal" either, and yet, we still call it a marriage.

Christianity does not own the word. There ARE other religions, you know. Even the Greeks and Romans got married, and they were definitely not Christians.

Historically, in other cultures, there have been same-sex marriages, so heterosexuals don't own the word either.

Attack on the institute of marriage???? Two people who love each other and want to commit themselves to each other, raise a family, etc. is an attack on the institute of marriage??? But people who marry for money or status is not an attack on marriage, as long as they are different sexes? People who divorce and re-marry constantly is not an attack on marriage, as long as they are different sexes? LOL - what are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Why does the word "Marriage" have to used for them all to be Equal though???


For the same reason we use the word "citizen" to describe all persons, born or naturalized in the US.

If we used "gay citizen" and "straight citizen", somewhere, down the line, someone will come in and try to give "straight citizens" some special acknowledgement, legal right, recognition or benefit not afforded to "gay citizens" for some reason that makes sense only to them. This has played out in our history. Why make the same mistake again?

In Plessy vs Ferguson, blacks and whites had "separate but equal" schools. But most of the black schools got the older textbooks, used equipment, and bad teachers.

Blacks also had "separate but equal" voting rights! That's how they were able to demand literacy tests and poll taxes for black people.

And it's also how businesses were able to differentiate between supposedly equal citizens:



Simply, it gives people an excuse to discriminate. Wedding gown shops would differentiate between "married" and "other". We only serve people who are getting "married". In other words, it would change nothing at all.




top topics



 
27
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join