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: 19
27
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: 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. 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.



I propose "marridge" (oops, pun) That way, the universe's database won't collapse upon itself. Glad to know that I can help to affect the universe's data by changing words around though. Maybe that's why nations have missiles with names like "Peacemaker."

Seriously, if your opinion is correct, what we call it in English shouldn't matter to the database/calculations/whatever of the universe. If it does, then the misnomers of weaponry & military actions are a much bigger conspiracy than simply cognitive dissonance alone.




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

How my brain works.

Children care about love & security. They don't care if their parents are same sex or opposite sex.

Any harm to the children is going to come from judgement of those outside the immediate family --- not within it.

This also applies to children of mixed race and/or mixed religion.

The U.S. is a secular government. A Republic, not a democracy. Majority can not rule over a minority.

A minority has the same Equal Rights as the majority. That is how our constitution works.

What we have today is called Marriage --- "you don't change the game rules in the middle of the game".

The Marriage License is a secular government contact. It is not in any way a religious license/contract.

I expect there will be an Equal Rights Federal Marriage act soon guaranteeing all genders the same right ---- as should be.

Removing government from marriage or changing it to civil union is a completely different issue. There can only be Equality by using the terminology that is in place now during this civil right fight for equality. And that terminology is Marriage.

Religious belief is personal. It has no right to govern those who do not choose it.






Yep, and I agree with everything you said. And repeated all of this in previous posts. And I have reminded posters that there is no need at all to bring in religion into the discussion.

My argument aimed to raise the issues involved with same-sex parenting and homosexual parenting. Which do exist, and pose a serious risk to the development of a child.

I have acknowledged that homosexuals can provide love, and security and all the good things, just as a single parent can as well as different environment where aunties and uncles can exist in the picture too. This doesn't mean that the child grows up without issues or problems with their character.

My argument concerns the children that grow up without the aunties and uncles, without the father or mother role models that will have impacted their lives in a measurable, negative way. These are the children that you are dismissing and casting aside as anomalies or irrelevant. I speak from personal experience on the matter as well.

This impact occur in same-sex parenting household environments and single parenting household environments. The difference between those two environments is choice in the former, and circumstance in the latter.

So to conclude, my argument concerns the limits placed upon on upbringing a child and the EFFECT on child development, not the ABILITY to raise a child.

If you don't see this as an issue, than either:

A. You are ignorant
B. You are being intentionally ignorant.

edit on 22-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: HarryJoy

Marriage was around along time before Christanity.


And it has always been about man and woman. Marriage is like a legacy and it has a reputation, it took ages for man and woman to define everything about it and it would be wrong if same sex couples would inherit this as it's not the way it's intented. The male/female definition of love is handed down each generation, it's very old, now since several decades some individuals want everyone to accept same sex love, as an addition to the 'original' male/female love. Just as marriage should be viewed the same, but obviously it's not. It would somehow be unfair homosexuals would get all the perks without having to put in the hard work like so many before them did. But I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to create their own union which they can then pass down to the next generation and becomes something which will grow.

I'm all for contracts but give it a different name. Ultimately I don't think homosexuality is a choice but something a person can get exposed to and when of a young age might easily interpret 'love' as the new definition of love which includes same sex. It's all about being convincing and someone might start to believe it's true, lateron in life become homosexual or at the least bisexual, so it would be more like nurture but not nature.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

And you cannot conclude or guarantee that a traditional "mommy/daddy" family won't raise a kid with issues. There are bad parents out there in the traditional family set-up. Many of them, in fact. Very many of them. The difference often times is that the homosexual parents desperately want to have and raise children, so they are better prepared - financially, mentally and emotionally - to raise their children in the best homes possible.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: HarryJoy

Marriage was around along time before Christanity.


And it has always been about man and woman.


Wrong..... The Romans, Greeks and Pagans had same sex marriages as did the early Christian church until 364AD (approx).

Even the American Indians had same sex marriage and actually called gay people in their tribes "Two Souls" and they were treated with respect.

This argument used by Relgious folks is misguided and wrong!



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Your argument has been answered on the several previous pages.

Stop having an issue with gay parents when they are vastly outnumbered by single straight parents. Whether one is a chosen choice or choice by circumstance does not mitigate the fact that 20,000,000 kids in the US are in a single parent environment than the 6,000,000 kids in a same Sex parent environment.

If your disdain was equally attributed to both circumstances then so be it but that would still be off topic anyway considering the title of this thread!



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
My argument concerns the children that grow up without the aunties and uncles, without the father or mother role models that will have impacted their lives in a measurable, negative way.


My uncle sexually abused me. So, having an uncle isn't always a good thing. They don't always impact children in a positive way. You are grasping at straws.

Besides, gay people have brothers, sisters and friends, too. A kid of gay parents can be JUST as impacted, negatively OR positively as a kid of opposite sex parents. The gay parents I know have made certain to include friends of the opposite sex in their children's lives, as role models.



This impact occur in same-sex parenting household environments and single parenting household environments. The difference between those two environments is choice in the former, and circumstance in the latter.


You don't think people become single parents by choice??? Single Parent by Choice



So to conclude, my argument concerns the limits placed upon on upbringing a child and the EFFECT on child development, not the ABILITY to raise a child.


EVERY child is exposed to circumstances that have effects on their development. There is no such thing as a "perfect childhood". Most people spend their entire adult life overcoming the mistakes their parents made. The child of a gay couple is no more prone to having difficulties than any other child.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnnyjoe1979


I'm all for contracts but give it a different name.


Hey, let's also give it a different name if a man and woman get together but decide not to have children. And, let's also give it a totally different name if two people marry only for money or status (cus that isn't REALLY a marriage, right?). And, let's also give it yet another different name if someone is marrying for the 2nd time (cuz the Bible doesn't approve of divorce). And of course, we have to have yet another name when it's two people who aren't religious. Heck, we could have a different name for each and every religion, including satanists, and don't forget a separate name for atheists who get together.

OR.... we could just lose the bureaucracy (and the idiocy) and call it one name. Much more efficient.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Agree with your points but I think we should relable the different kinds of marriage just to make a point on how stupid the whole thing is.

It's a word, even though It belongs to no religion, let them have it but make it worthless in the process whereby it's not recognised by the state unless you have a "Civil Union Contract".

"If they can't play with it nicely, then no one gets to have it".
edit on 22.3.2015 by flammadraco because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
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.


All of your sources have been debunked.


In this context, it is of great note that Loren Marks, a Louisiana State University Associate Professor, earlier was disallowed from giving expert testimony in a Proposition 8-related case when, under questioning, he admitted he had cherry-picked information from studies he had not read, and that he knew nothing about same-sex couples. www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com... /politics/2012/06/25/42133






edit on 22-3-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

Well right now the database happens to be using the minds of the people on the earth and how they perceive things to be. If we change the word marriage to mean a union less then the "IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE" relationship. Then we would have to come up with a new one to describe that IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE relationship and since we already have one that works we're not going to....sorry!!!



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

It's not just about getting the Federal Benefits.

It's also about Equaliity in society and all things in life.

The U.S. does not have civil unions, they have Marriage.

Creating a special category, civil union, is discriminatory.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
It is irrelevant. The problem comes from forcing sexual lifestyles down peoples throats. We don't march down the street looking for attention for being heterosexual. Do what you want without the 'look at me' banter. You are your worst spokesman.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Spoken like a true Libertarian (not an insult)

a reply to: TheJourney



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
It is irrelevant. The problem comes from forcing sexual lifestyles down peoples throats. We don't march down the street looking for attention for being heterosexual. Do what you want without the 'look at me' banter. You are your worst spokesman.


Someone has never been to New Orleans I'm guessing?

Or even heard of the place?



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
It is irrelevant. The problem comes from forcing sexual lifestyles down peoples throats. We don't march down the street looking for attention for being heterosexual. Do what you want without the 'look at me' banter. You are your worst spokesman.


We do during Mardi Gras. "Look at my boobs!"

We do during Spring Break. "Look at my junk in my teeny tiny bikini and watch me shake it on the beach!"

There are heterosexual exhibitionists too.

There are plenty of gay people that you probably work with or do business with or shop next to, or voted for, that you don't even know are gay.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Mardi Gras is wrong also. I never went. I'm happy with what I have at home. I don't make it a point to yell that to anyone for attention.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: dogstar23

Well right now the database happens to be using the minds of the people on the earth and how they perceive things to be. If we change the word marriage to mean a union less then the "IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE" relationship. Then we would have to come up with a new one to describe that IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE relationship and since we already have one that works we're not going to....sorry!!!


So do you call a 20-year-old hot babe who marries an 80-year-old millionaire for his money an "IDEAL BASELINE MALE/FEMALE" relationship?



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

The reason straight folk don't have to march down the street is you already have equal rights.

Most "pride" events (Irish, Black, Muslim, Atheist, Gay, Asian, etc.) are descendents of events meant to demonstrate the humanity of a group. In ages past, these specific classes of people were generally oppressed or segregated for some reason by White-Christian-Male-Dominated society.

As despised as you are about folk forcing their sexual identity down your throat, many many more people are disgusted that some Relgious people think they can force their beliefs down the throat of society every day.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Mardi Gras is wrong also. I never went. I'm happy with what I have at home. I don't make it a point to yell that to anyone for attention.


Good for you. And not every gay person participates in gay pride parades. I have several gay friends who have never been to a gay pride parade in their life, and don't plan to. GAYS ARE JUST AS DIVERSE AS STRAIGHTS. THEY DO NOT HAVE A HIVE MIND.




top topics



 
27
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join