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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

So you did not read the sources I cited in my first post and all you want to do is beat up irrelevant strawmen.

As I pointed out the dis-function of a homosexual is that their body and mind are at dis-functional cross purposes. As shown in the facts that gay men have a brain structure more like a straight woman and gay women have a brain structure more like a straight man. MIR study results show this.

And as far as twins go I never said it was genetic but infact epic genetic markers that go array. Epi-markers explain how twings who shair the same genetic makeup can be exposed to different androgens due to their location in the womb.



And you are basing your assumption on.....?

You are also assuming that people WANT to change the sexuality of their babies. Funnily enough I've met lots of mums that wish they'd had a gay son.

Therefore I really do not get the point of your argument. It will not stop homosexuality from being a thing.




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

Then you know when states enacted anti-gay marriage laws they were in direct violation of the Constitution as mentioned several times by Darth_Prime.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I couldn't agree more with this post. I personally believe it is wrong. That it should always be man and woman. not Adam and Steve but Adam and eve.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ItsJoey

Yay Not Adam and Eve but Adam and Steve!..

actually if you agree with the Majority of this post than you agree that Same-Sex Marriage is good so...



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

Ok, so you just don't understand. that's fine don't worry



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

Ok, so you just don't understand. that's fine don't worry


I do understand, it's a complete different view of how laws are passed. The fact that the gay rights activists enabled themselves an actual right under the SC is absurd. I again, can understand if it came from states rights, but it didn't. You are also missing my point and not responding to how the left has used the gay rights movement as a tool to further ridicule Christians and to shut down any voice of dissent in an attempt to try and shut down voices to further their agenda. You also ignored my comment on marijuana and how Colorado and California have curtailed federal law and shown that states rights are more important than federal interference. And the reason you can't answer that is because it proves the hypocrisy of the left wing agenda.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

I don't think the actual point is to do with marriage (each to their own ) but looking at it from a perspective of life itself, if everyone was gay then life would cease to exist.is that not a valid point?



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Lukied

No because there will never be a society full of gay folk.
edit on 7-7-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Lukied

No because there will never be a society full of gay folk.


"the NHIS reported in July 2014 that 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent considered themselves bisexual"

So minuscule that it just further proves that this whole movement was nothing more than a political game to further their agenda in an attempt to ridicule the other political party.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lukied
a reply to: markosity1973

I don't think the actual point is to do with marriage (each to their own ) but looking at it from a perspective of life itself, if everyone was gay then life would cease to exist.is that not a valid point?


...if my grandmother were a bus...

Å99



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.


You are all missing the point that I am trying to make. I DO NOT CARE if you have equal rights, you deserve it, but to say the Constitution protects your right to marriage is a flat out lie. No were in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, it does however say that all issues not related to the Constitution are subject to the 10th amendment and states rights. It has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that you allowed liberals to take over your cause has thrown religion into it and again as a means to dissent their main political party and their largest voting bloc. Wake up, you were used.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.


You are all missing the point that I am trying to make. I DO NOT CARE if you have equal rights, you deserve it, but to say the Constitution protects your right to marriage is a flat out lie. No were in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, it does however say that all issues not related to the Constitution are subject to the 10th amendment and states rights. It has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that you allowed liberals to take over your cause has thrown religion into it and again as a means to dissent their main political party and their largest voting bloc. Wake up, you were used.


"It has nothing to do with religion"

The OP, however, does...and that's what's being discussed...

Å99



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.


You are all missing the point that I am trying to make. I DO NOT CARE if you have equal rights, you deserve it, but to say the Constitution protects your right to marriage is a flat out lie. No were in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, it does however say that all issues not related to the Constitution are subject to the 10th amendment and states rights. It has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that you allowed liberals to take over your cause has thrown religion into it and again as a means to dissent their main political party and their largest voting bloc. Wake up, you were used.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but your sore point is that the SCOTUS ruling was that the bans against gay marriage are illegal and therefore unconstitutional in their eyes whereas there is no such mention of heterosexual marriage anywhere in said constitution?

The ruling is about discrimination not a constitutional right. By denying gay people the same privilege as heterosexuals in marriage there was a breach.

Is this not why and how a couple of states stopped issuing marriage certificates all together? If no marriage is allowed then there is no unfair privilege to anyone. The courts have effectively said it's everyone or nobody when it comes to issuing marriage licenses under the basic assumption that straight people will continue on with the tradition they always have.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.


You are all missing the point that I am trying to make. I DO NOT CARE if you have equal rights, you deserve it, but to say the Constitution protects your right to marriage is a flat out lie. No were in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, it does however say that all issues not related to the Constitution are subject to the 10th amendment and states rights. It has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that you allowed liberals to take over your cause has thrown religion into it and again as a means to dissent their main political party and their largest voting bloc. Wake up, you were used.


I thought you said a page back that we already established in this thread that marriage was a privilege not a right. And that the Constitution specifically protects states from enacting laws that discriminate against part of the population or limit those privileges.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.


You are all missing the point that I am trying to make. I DO NOT CARE if you have equal rights, you deserve it, but to say the Constitution protects your right to marriage is a flat out lie. No were in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, it does however say that all issues not related to the Constitution are subject to the 10th amendment and states rights. It has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that you allowed liberals to take over your cause has thrown religion into it and again as a means to dissent their main political party and their largest voting bloc. Wake up, you were used.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but your sore point is that the SCOTUS ruling was that the bans against gay marriage are illegal and therefore unconstitutional in their eyes whereas there is no such mention of heterosexual marriage anywhere in said constitution?

The ruling is about discrimination not a constitutional right. By denying gay people the same privilege as heterosexuals in marriage there was a breach.

Is this not why and how a couple of states stopped issuing marriage certificates all together? If no marriage is allowed then there is no unfair privilege to anyone. The courts have effectively said it's everyone or nobody when it comes to issuing marriage licenses under the basic assumption that straight people will continue on with the tradition they always have.


No, my point of contention is that it is a states right and Civil Unions are the equivalent to marriage. Marriage was only advanced as a reason for the far left to dissent the voice of the Christian majority in the republican party as bigots and homophobic jerks. The ruling in the SC does allow for more protection under the law of same sex marriage vs traditional marriage and that is undeniable until a court ruling advances traditional marriage as a right as well. While I agree that marriage is a privilege and not a right, someone previously mentioned that the 14th amendment allows for equal protection, but the 10th allows for all issues not instituted in the Constitution to be states rights, so I can see the difference of opinion there. I am not one to bash the other side, but to me...this issue was advanced as a political ploy more-so than anything, It is a way to toss Christians into the same category as racists and to further demean the right. That is exactly how I see it and I see the future as being one of dissenting opposing views, even if they aren't bigots, homophobes or racists. Talk to me in 6 months when an opposing view on gay marriage is the same as being called a racist. If I am wrong, I will never visit this site again. I wont be wrong though.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: AbstractDreamz

No, this is a prime example of what the Constitution was established to protect: the minority from the will of the majority. To not be oppressed or classified as second class citizens. To not become subject to the will or whim of ANY religious faction and their belief systems.


You are all missing the point that I am trying to make. I DO NOT CARE if you have equal rights, you deserve it, but to say the Constitution protects. No were in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage, it does however say that all issues not related to the Constitution are subject to the 10th amendment and states rights. It has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that you allowed liberals to take over your cause has thrown religion into it and again as a means to dissent their main political party and their largest voting bloc. Wake up, you were used.


I thought you said a page back that we already established in this thread that marriage was a privilege not a right. And that the Constitution specifically protects states from enacting laws that discriminate against part of the population or limit those privileges.


your right to marriage is a flat out lie

Finish the sentence.
edit on 7-7-2015 by AbstractDreamz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AbstractDreamz

No, my point of contention is that it is a states right and Civil Unions are the equivalent to marriage. Marriage was only advanced as a reason for the far left to dissent the voice of the Christian majority in the republican party as bigots and homophobic jerks. The ruling in the SC does allow for more protection under the law of same sex marriage vs traditional marriage and that is undeniable until a court ruling advances traditional marriage as a right as well. While I agree that marriage is a privilege and not a right, someone previously mentioned that the 14th amendment allows for equal protection, but the 10th allows for all issues not instituted in the Constitution to be states rights, so I can see the difference of opinion there. I am not one to bash the other side, but to me...this issue was advanced as a political ploy more-so than anything, It is a way to toss Christians into the same category as racists and to further demean the right. That is exactly how I see it and I see the future as being one of dissenting opposing views, even if they aren't bigots, homophobes or racists. Talk to me in 6 months when an opposing view on gay marriage is the same as being called a racist. If I am wrong, I will never visit this site again. I wont be wrong though.


No, it is not a state's right to discriminate against a national privilege. Under this argument you could also re-introduce segragation for coloured people. Which is also BS in the highlest level.

Civil unions are not the same because as I have said over and over it is like saying to people, you can ride on the bus, but only at the back.

There was no agenda to belittle Christians, it was fully expected that they would get up in arms about allowing this. The point I make again and again here is that Christianity can teach what it wants on church property, but Government is secular and therefore should be blind to religion when dealing with matters of state.

I and many others like me have always said live and let live on this issue. It is time however that folks like the OP member stopped opposing marriage with hateful agendas and simply get on with being good Christians and serving the community in the spirit of the likes of Mother Theresa.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   
While all this americana politico is being discussed...the same trash, as in the OP is being regurgitated in parts of the world where it has not become legal (under different political systems)...and some where it already has, and is still rallied against using The little golden book, as reference material...so much for love...

Å99



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: akushla99
While all this americana politico is being discussed...the same trash, as in the OP is being regurgitated in parts of the world where it has not become legal (under different political systems)...and some where it already has, and is still rallied against using The little golden book, as reference material...so much for love...

Å99


And to you I raise a glass and give a standing ovation.


Love is all that this is about. Being able to express it freely and on the same terms as everyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join