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.

 

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Condemns SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock


man and woman together in marriage for life


one word : divorce




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

A lot of people are in sin for desecrating that religious decreed. But life goes on.




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Logarock


man and woman together in marriage for life


one word : divorce


Are you really trying to equate to largess granted in divorce with gay marriage as a marital largess?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

And what do either of those posts have to do with the fact that marriage is protected under the 1967 ruling?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Isn't divorce protected under the law also?, under discrimination laws?, even when the is deemed a sin under certain religious believes, I guess it depends from which angle you see the issue.




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Speaking legally these rulings never established that gays could marry. The argument being made with this case is simply a superimposition with no real legal position granted gays. The frame of reference is clearly heterosexual.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

no - stop projecting

i am merely pointing out the flsaws of your religious argument



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I didn't say it DID did I. I pointed out that it protected marriage under the Constitution contrary to the claim being made that traditional marriage wasn't protected.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



So why should one group have a special protection that no one else ever had?

So what is your reason for heterosexuals to have the ability to marry but gays not having that ability?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Nyiah

Hetro marriage between races was allowed except in bigotted US. Moses had a black wife, Ham had a black wife as did Solomon.

But gay marriage never until the modern era existed. Now it has protection hetero marriage does not.

For proof just wait and see what happens in the days to come and you will see there is no equal rights o this issue

You do know Moses was not a white man. All of the people of the old testament were people of color. They were neither black nor white.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If jesus really existed he would be rolling on is cloud, equality and love won today.



Oh wow are you talking about the same guy that said man and woman together in marriage for life was the way the creator intended it? We could all say like Jesus as to gay marriage...."in the beginning it was not so".

Jesus also says if a man is able he should castrate himself for the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
This man says that guys should cut their nuts off so is he really a person to take advice about marriage from?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
"Separation of church and state" should protect churches, so they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Right?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
"Separation of church and state" should protect churches, so they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Right?


Ideally that should be the case. However, religious organizations hire lobbyist to further their agendas.

Does that sound like "separation" to you?

www.pewforum.org...

Should churches that spend tithes to lobbyist have their have their tax exempt status taken away?
edit on 27-6-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

So is there real protection afforded by the Constitution, or is this just a game being played for our amusement?



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

Should churches that spend tithes to lobbyist have their have their tax exempt status taken away?


Yep, eff the churches and religion.

Don't need that pesky 1st Amendment anyways.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: olaru12

So is there real protection afforded by the Constitution, or is this just a game being played for our amusement?


I think GW Bush put it in perspective for us during his tenure....

www.newswithviews.com...

But don't worry lil feller, Jeb will put everything back to the way it's supposed to be, after he is selected. lol....
edit on 27-6-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

I think that he was actually telling priest how to always remain faithful to God by removing that so they would not be tempted to break their vows of celibacy most likely.

Also DIVORCE is acceptable in certain circumstances and negates the living in Sin. If your spouse cheats on you the innocent party is blameless. If the spouse is a danger to your life is another acceptable condition.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Logarock

no - stop projecting

i am merely pointing out the flsaws of your religious argument



Ok dude what I am doing is really not projecting.....but these days any opposition is projecting. And my argument is not really religious its legal. Homosexual marriage rights have simply been affixed to the word marriage with out a running legal established definition but an assumed frame of reference. Why? because for years, centuries heterosexual is what is established in marriage. This frame of reference and generalized other is established as a legal understanding but was taken advantage of by several of no real law ethic or respect. Rather they treated the thing as ambiguity or here like legal butt wipe.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
If jesus really existed he would be rolling on is cloud, equality and love won today.



Oh wow are you talking about the same guy that said man and woman together in marriage for life was the way the creator intended it? We could all say like Jesus as to gay marriage...."in the beginning it was not so".

Jesus also says if a man is able he should castrate himself for the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:12


Well really Buster thats worse for your case. Unusable at best then for this discussion.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Nyiah

Hetro marriage between races was allowed except in bigotted US. Moses had a black wife, Ham had a black wife as did Solomon.

But gay marriage never until the modern era existed. Now it has protection hetero marriage does not.

For proof just wait and see what happens in the days to come and you will see there is no equal rights o this issue

You do know Moses was not a white man. All of the people of the old testament were people of color. They were neither black nor white.



I love the way some downshift this argument into race. Only the very ignorant fall for this tactic.

But while we are here I would like to point out the this famous Virgina decision was about heterosexual marriage. Cant escape that fact. There is no provision for homosexual marriage there at all.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Logarock because: n



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join