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.

 

Why is same-sex marriage wrong?

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I remember in an English class a professor writing a quote by King James II when describing a newly renovated cathedral.

"The cathedral is amusing, awful and artificial."

She asked the class what we thought he meant by that. The replies were about the same across the board; He didn't like it, thought it was terrible, etc etc. She then told us all of us were wrong.

In 17th Century English amusing meant riveting (muse being the core part of the word); awful meant awesome or full of awe, and artificial meant progressive and artistic (especially in the time it was written, on the verge of the industrial revolution).

So, as you can see, the English language is ever changing. If every word kept its original definition, you wouldn't have people out there with English degrees that specialized in Olde English because it takes more than 4 years to learn to read Chaucer unabridged.




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

Let me try a different example... are you Ok with a State not allowing you to practice a Religion or Not Practice a Religion?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101

It is not wrong, it is a Mutation maybe, or a diversion in Genes whatever you want to call it, but it's not "Wrong"..

you want to play ""God"" and start altering cells and creating the Baby you want?


If the basic methods that cure birthdefects such as cleft pallet, ambiguous genitals, ect also cure homosexuality I does not calls that playing god. After all I does not believe in and all powerful being creating humans in his image. I think chemicals in the womb can go astray causing defects.

If nothing else it should be up to the parents to screen for and prevent birthdefects if they so decide did to.

It is simply wrong, mean and harmful to deny such things to parents.

Should we hide from such facts based on hurting the LGBT communitys feelings?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
If the basic methods that cure birthdefects such as cleft pallet, ambiguous genitals, ect also cure homosexuality I does not calls that playing god. After all I does not believe in and all powerful being creating humans in his image. I think chemicals in the womb can go astray causing defects.

If nothing else it should be up to the parents to screen for and prevent birthdefects if they so decide did to.

It is simply wrong, mean and harmful to deny such things to parents.

Should we hide from such facts based on hurting the LGBT communitys feelings?


Well based upon the hypothesis you present, it would also possible to be able to replicate the same conditions in the womb that causes homosexuality. Playing God with your foetus can go both ways you know.

Homosexuality is nothing more than a harmless standard deviation in the realm of sexuality. You talk as if parents 'own' the foetus like it is a posession. They are simply guardians of the child until he / she flies the coop so to speak.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

Are you seriously equating GLBTQ+ people to a cleft pallet?

I feel like when they created a cure from Leech in X-men
edit on 6-7-2015 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ultralight




Sharia law is not YET accepted in the US, but neither was GAY anything 15 years ago.


LOL! 15 years ago..........

Will & Grace (1998–2006)
Ellen Degeneres Comes Out on Oprah 1997







Come out from under your rock and join us in the real world!


edit on 6-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

So basically you want to see another infanticide like the one seen in China after the one-child law was established?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101

Are you seriously equating GLBTQ+ people to a cleft pallet?

I feel like when they created a cure from Leech in X-men


The biggest birth defect I notice here on ATS is stupidity. Seriously, how do some of these people get by in every day life? Why have they not cured that one yet?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
It should be called "Why is same-sex marriage wrong according to the Bible", not why its just
"wrong".



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973



Sometimes i think it's only on the internet... and then you encounter them in real life!!!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

As I commented in and older post, dr. maria new and others are currently conducting long term testing with chemicals such as "dex" to prevent ambiguous genitalia, ect. It just turns out that the results are showing that curing such birthdefects subsequently cure homosexuality. And the same things that cause birthdefects cause homosexuality.

But I am guessing you are anti-abortion?
If you are LGBT you maybe want to join the anti-choice movement because if the screen for homosexuality comes out before the prevention I predict increases in abortions.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: alphastrike101

So basically you want to see another infanticide like the one seen in China after the one-child law was established?


Non sequitur.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Excellent points, Klass!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Gurl, you get like +1000000 Stars for this post alone



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

As I commented in and older post, dr. maria new and others are currently conducting long term testing with chemicals such as "dex" to prevent ambiguous genitalia, ect. It just turns out that the results are showing that curing such birthdefects subsequently cure homosexuality. And the same things that cause birthdefects cause homosexuality.

But I am guessing you are anti-abortion?
If you are LGBT you maybe want to join the anti-choice movement because if the screen for homosexuality comes out before the prevention I predict increases in abortions.


No, I am pro choice actually.

How do you 'know' it is curing homosexuality anyways? There is actually no such thing as a 'gayby' I hope you realise. This is a pretty big claim to make when one has to wait for the child to become sexually active (i.e. a teenager) and then the sample would have to be cross referenced with the general population.

I call BS on this because you would need a very large test group before you could draw any conclusions. You also preclude the nurture argument in this, to promote the nature aspect.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101

Are you seriously equating GLBTQ+ people to a cleft pallet?

I feel like when they created a cure from Leech in X-men


I am simply pointing out that parental androgens can go array in the womb and cause erroneous fetal developments.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Don't forget 21 years ago (1994)


And my personal favourite from 20 years ago (1995)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: windword

And my personal favourite from 20 years ago (1995)


OMG! I can't believe that I missed this one! It looks hilarious!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I remember in an English class a professor writing a quote by King James II when describing a newly renovated cathedral.

"The cathedral is amusing, awful and artificial."

She asked the class what we thought he meant by that. The replies were about the same across the board; He didn't like it, thought it was terrible, etc etc. She then told us all of us were wrong.

In 17th Century English amusing meant riveting (muse being the core part of the word); awful meant awesome or full of awe, and artificial meant progressive and artistic (especially in the time it was written, on the verge of the industrial revolution).

So, as you can see, the English language is ever changing. If every word kept its original definition, you wouldn't have people out there with English degrees that specialized in Olde English because it takes more than 4 years to learn to read Chaucer unabridged.



That's all well and good, gave you star as brought interesting information, but has marriage or it's definition changed, from even long before then? Not that I am aware of.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/6.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

As I commented in and older post, dr. maria new and others are currently conducting long term testing with chemicals such as "dex" to prevent ambiguous genitalia, ect. It just turns out that the results are showing that curing such birthdefects subsequently cure homosexuality. And the same things that cause birthdefects cause homosexuality.

But I am guessing you are anti-abortion?
If you are LGBT you maybe want to join the anti-choice movement because if the screen for homosexuality comes out before the prevention I predict increases in abortions.


No, I am pro choice actually.

How do you 'know' it is curing homosexuality anyways? There is actually no such thing as a 'gayby' I hope you realise. This is a pretty big claim to make when one has to wait for the child to become sexually active (i.e. a teenager) and then the sample would have to be cross referenced with the general population.

I call BS on this because you would need a very large test group before you could draw any conclusions. You also preclude the nurture argument in this, to promote the nature aspect.


Did you read any of the sources I cited in my first post? They have already moved on to actively preventing such defects from occuring.

I do not understand what you are talking about nature. I simply stated that it should be up to the parents to decide what birthdefects risks they are willing to take. By leveling out gestational chemicals to prevent ambiguous genitalia research and mathamatical models show subsequently homosexuality will also be prevented.




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join