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.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 27
45
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
for some reason I just can't see Iran acknowledging two men or two women as being married, regardless of what our legal documents call it....




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko


No judge is going to force a church that doesn't want to perform a marriage if it is against their beliefs. It's not like a church is required to be "married". A gay couple can't say they aren't being treated fairly or their civil rights have been violated when using a church to get married isn't required for marriage in the first place!

I'm sure when interracial marriage was OK'ed by the SCOTUS people were screaming bloody murder and that people were going to marry their pet turtles and horses. I'm sure people went nuts and threw around all kinds of scary possible situations -- none of which came to pass.


OK, so what is your problem with the civil unions for all - gay or straight - compromise? It gets the state out of marriage, and leaves it up to everyone to decide how they, personally, want to define it. It stops the lawsuit before it can even start and protects everyone. No need for a judge to throw it out.


How will that change anything? Religious couples who get a civil union license will go to a church to get the ceremony. According to your logic, what's to stop a gay couple from trying to do the same thing?


Nothing, but there wouldn't be any law backing their attempt to sue the church for telling them no. If the Federal government and state only issued civil unions, then the church can deny as it wishes. And don't cry discrimination. Churches routinely deny people who seek to marry there for various reasons, but then again, no SCOTUS ruling backs our "right" to marriage.


With this ruling, there still is no law backing their attempt to sue the church for telling them no.

The SCOTUS ruling on interracial marriage does NOT guarantee that an interracial couple must be married in the church of their choosing. All it says is that no government can refuse the interracial couple a marriage license.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
ya, I'm so excited, my cat got herself knock-up but now I can go and we can get a civil union together and pretty soon I will have 6 or 7 new dependents to declare on my income tax, and well, think about the wic benefits I will get with six infants!!



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep. It still happens.

Interracial Couple Spurned



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

Why does a word bother you so much? What are you loosing or sacrificing by calling it marriage?


It's not about calling it marriage. I am not so much of a b**** that I wouldn't be polite.

It's about keeping the right to object when asked to participate. That I am not so sure about.

As you said, no one would expect a Satanist to be able to conduct their ritual in a church. It would be sacrilege. Well, similarly, it is sacrilege if you perform a gay marriage. Marriage is a sacrament of God. God himself decreed man/woman and reiterated through Christ. To marry two men or two women is a mockery of God's direct word.

Now, I understand not everyone believes this. Not even all Christians, but for those of us who do, to participate is to take part in sacrilege. And we do not feel the state should force us to choose between the punishment of the law (especially when the 1st Amendment should protect us) and committing sacrilege.

It is not about gays, gays marrying and anything they do. It is about us personally be forced to act counter to God's teaching. With the SCOTUS rulings and similar other court cases, we see that time coming. This is why I would completely burn my marriage license if it meant I could keep that layer of protection.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, it's disgusting, but not against any laws.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep. It still happens.

Interracial Couple Spurned


They could probably sue, too.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think this is a fear that it will somehow destroy religion. I think that's the deeper underlying fear. That this whole thing somehow opens an imaginary door for the crazy-extreme LGBT people that hate religion to deal it a devastating blow.

It won't happen. It didn't happen with black and white people were allowed to marry in all 50 states after a SCOTUS decision. There are passages in the Bible that allude to interracial marriage being sacrilege.

In fact, there are only SIX -- that's right SIX passages in both New and Old Testement that even deal with homosexuality. Three of those are in the OT and should be thrown out since Christ came along and fulfilled the law. The remaining three are pretty short and vague. This tells me that homosexuality wasn't a terribly important topic to the writers of the Bible. If it was a huge deal, they would have written more about it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

I think this is a fear that it will somehow destroy religion. I think that's the deeper underlying fear. That this whole thing somehow opens an imaginary door for the crazy-extreme LGBT people that hate religion to deal it a devastating blow.

It won't happen. It didn't happen with black and white people were allowed to marry in all 50 states after a SCOTUS decision. There are passages in the Bible that allude to interracial marriage being sacrilege.

In fact, there are only SIX -- that's right SIX passages in both New and Old Testement that even deal with homosexuality. Three of those are in the OT and should be thrown out since Christ came along and fulfilled the law. The remaining three are pretty short and vague. This tells me that homosexuality wasn't a terribly important topic to the writers of the Bible. If it was a huge deal, they would have written more about it.


There are only two I'm looking at that define marriage, and both of those come straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

I'm not even talking about homosexuality or references to it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep. It still happens.

Interracial Couple Spurned


They could probably sue, too.


Anybody could hire a lawyer and sue any time for any reason. People are always trying to sue for the dumbest reason. No law or lack of law can stop anyone from starting a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it will go anywhere.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They could try, but I don't think it would go anywhere. That's why we didn't see a lot of coverage on it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
has any women ever sued the catholic church for not ordaining a women priest? if so how did that go? it's been unlawful to discriminate against women in the workforce now for over 40 years, I don't see any women preists....
so I highly doubt if churches are gonna be forced to marry gays in my lifetime!



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Yes. If you're uncomfortable with someone, for any reason, you shouldn't have to hire them. That's a pretty basic human right imo.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep. It still happens.

Interracial Couple Spurned


They could probably sue, too.


Anybody could hire a lawyer and sue any time for any reason. People are always trying to sue for the dumbest reason. No law or lack of law can stop anyone from starting a lawsuit. Doesn't mean it will go anywhere.


Campaigns like the ones to bring about gay marriage are always well organized and orchestrated.

They would likely start with some test cases. They would need some couples to go to churches that are going to refuse them so they can start a lawsuit. They will judge shop to get the right results. Usually, the SCOTUS will hear a case with conflicting results, so they'll need to find the right judges in different Circuit courts, and they'll know which judges are likely to throw a suit out and which ones will adjudicate it.

Then it will almost certainly be back to SCOTUS where we can more or less determine how 8 of the justices are likely to vote, meaning that Justice Kennedy is the man who will determine the fate of the issue.

They may have to try several times to get the right mix of elements.

But social change isn't accomplished anymore through the ballot boxes or real social change. It's accomplished through the judiciary and propaganda.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But there is no precedent for this. The only precedent that we've seen regarding similar issues involves a case where a University had their tax exempt status revoked for not allowing an interracial couple to date 16 years after the Loving v. Virginia ruling; except that ruling only applies to Universities. It has specifically been noted that it doesn't apply to churches. So in order for your scenario to be successful, this effort would have to establish precedent where none has existed before. This would be exceptionally hard in light of the fact that ruling in the gay couple's favor borders on religious discrimination (if it isn't outright religious discrimination).
edit on 30-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The civil rights campaign was well organized and well orchestrated too. Lots of lawsuits too. And yet after 50 years, no church has ever been forced to accept blacks as it's members, nor has any church lost their tax-exempt status for refusing blacks.

You are fear mongering.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

But social change isn't accomplished anymore through the ballot boxes or real social change. It's accomplished through the judiciary and propaganda.


Yes, like all those citizens who voted for the Civil Rights Acts in 64 and 68 ... /eyeroll.

Why do you think we care so much about being married in your churches, Ketsuko?



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Partisans are a cancer.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

calling yourself a libertarian is the same although you always sound far left anyways. I'm talking to you that why i replied and said "you" the most over opinionated ego on ATS



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Isn't your reaction exactly the kind of one would expect when not liking the outcome?

The fMRI scans speak for themselves. People aren't necessarily born liberal or conservative, it appears environment plays a large role, more so than genetics.

Remember, don't meditate if you want to stay conservative!

It's funny, a lot of my Christian friends think mediation is evil and can lead to demons entering your body. I wonder if somehow the church knows it may make people more liberal?


I'm sorry but this is bull. No offense. I consider myself a bit conservative (libertarian) but I used to be very liberal. I used to be atheist as well but I now believe in ID and reincarnation. I also meditate. So this study is what?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join