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.

 

That old guy from Vatican city says gay marraige is evil.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFanYou seem to think that I'm argueing against gay marriage or something.
You are or you would not find it necessary to present an untrue qualification of marriage being a religious creation.


- the point you made here about men taking 'wives' and 'wives'
being given to them or sold ... that's just a business agreement switching
property. MARRIAGE is known as a bond blessed by God.
You do not pay attention as I have descrbed marriage to you in parts of the world who knew nothing about your God. Therefore any attempt to call it a blessing by God is to close your eyes to everything outside the world you wish to believe is all that existed.


What I'm saying is that it would be easier for gay people to get laws passed saying 'civil union'. That way there is no religion issues to have to deal with for now.
It is high time for people to stop hiding their prejudices behind religion is what I say, and start acting as though every man, woman and child is equal.


spousal rights' ... put the word civil union on it and it will be much
easier for them.
So words make the difference do they? they get the same "spousal rights" but because they are of the same sex you feel better calling it civil union rights? That is akin to the days of old where black people won the right to be considered equal too, but the adjective juts made the white man feel oh so much more superior.


I favor states rights. Let states decide if gay civil unions are acceptable in each state. Those that don't want it ... don't get it. Those that do want it .. do get it.
I don't care what your states classification is, this is a world issue.




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Flyersfan,

You have no anthropological evidence to suggest that homosexualty was spurred by religious ceremonies and is considered a blessing by God, if anything, you just propounded some subjective dogma.

The Pope seems to be making haste with this words of wisdom, for his health is failing and he must propogate more ignorance and indonctrination before rationality supersedes this outdated moral.

Deep



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
"spousal rights' ... put the word civil union on it and it will be much
easier for them."


okay, from what I am getting is that some feel that since marriage is a "religous" or "christian" institution, then it should be those institutions that define and perform the marriages....

and those that chose to stray from that religous defination (gay marriages), should be allowed "civil unions".......

I am wondering though.....
there are many people who chose to be married without all the religous fanfare.....common law, justice of the peace, ect.....
There are churches, and maybe even some states still that fail to recognize a common law marriage...are you saying that those who are not wed in a religous ceremony, under a religous doctrine (gays included but not exclusive to gays) shouldn't be considered "married"?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

I am wondering though.....
there are many people who chose to be married without all the religous fanfare.....common law, justice of the peace, ect.....
There are churches, and maybe even some states still that fail to recognize a common law marriage...are you saying that those who are not wed in a religous ceremony, under a religous doctrine (gays included but not exclusive to gays) shouldn't be considered "married"?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by dawnstar]


Yes the ones that are married like that are not really considered married in the eyes of the church



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
So words make the difference do they?

Words ALWAYS make a difference. Always.
The way something is said, and the words that are
being used are VERY important. So religious people
want the word 'marriage' protected to mean something
special and religious. So what? Use civil unions and
have them 'blessed' in churches that accept gay unions.
It's no different and no big deal ... and you get around
the relgious block.

Unless the pope is right ... then people should be taking
heed about homosexual marriage being evil.

[edit on 2/25/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
You have no anthropological evidence to suggest that
homosexualty was spurred by religious ceremonies and
is considered a blessing by God.


You have confused me. When did I say that homosexuality
is a blessing by God? I don't think I did. If something
sounded that way, it wasn't ment to. Where did I say that?

However, since you brought it up... some native American
indian tribes did consider homosexuals to have been specially
touched by God and it was considered a blessing and goodluck
to have both a female wife and a homosexual 'wife'. But that
was a long time ago.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Therefore any attempt to call it a blessing by God is
to close your eyes to everything outside the world
you wish to believe is all that existed.


Perhaps it's you that is closing your eyes? Perhaps the pope
is correct even though many in the world wish he weren't? So
what if there are people around the world who accept it? There
are people around the world who accept evil all the time, it doesn't
make it right. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other about
this, but you can't use the excuse 'everyone does it so it must be
alright with God'.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by dawnstar

I am wondering though.....
there are many people who chose to be married without all the religous fanfare.....common law, justice of the peace, ect.....
There are churches, and maybe even some states still that fail to recognize a common law marriage...are you saying that those who are not wed in a religous ceremony, under a religous doctrine (gays included but not exclusive to gays) shouldn't be considered "married"?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by dawnstar]


Yes the ones that are married like that are not really considered married in the eyes of the church


so, should they be considered "married" in the eyes of law?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFanWords ALWAYS make a difference. Always.
The way something is said, and the words that are
being used are VERY important. So religious people
want the word 'marriage' protected to mean something
special and religious. So what?
Because then all it is is a word, and if civil union is placed in that category, then so too is the word marriage, it is just a word that the morality claiming crowd want to abduct. People use words to hurt, criticize, condemn, bless, in love etc. They are just words so why should religion care and want to invent new terms? Do you think God gives a care what words we assign to anything?


Use civil unions and have them 'blessed' in churches that accept gay unions. It's no different and no big deal ... and you get around
the relgious block.
The only people who care about the religious block are those who claim to be religious, pious God loving people. Yet they are full of sin by definition, themselves


Unless the pope is right ... then people should be taking
heed about homosexual marriage being evil.
I think you're a bit confused here with your statement, or maybe your subconscious is trying to tell you something. As for the Pope? Well he/they might comes across holy, but in my opinion there is nothing holy about the doctrine followed.



[edit on 2/25/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by Croat56

Originally posted by dawnstar

I am wondering though.....
there are many people who chose to be married without all the religous fanfare.....common law, justice of the peace, ect.....
There are churches, and maybe even some states still that fail to recognize a common law marriage...are you saying that those who are not wed in a religous ceremony, under a religous doctrine (gays included but not exclusive to gays) shouldn't be considered "married"?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by dawnstar]


Yes the ones that are married like that are not really considered married in the eyes of the church


so, should they be considered "married" in the eyes of law?


I dunno Im not a politition

[edit on 25/2/05 by Croat56]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Homosexual marriage as a law formality: in the eyes of human law it will be all right to an atheist. But what stops law to marry more than one person at the time? Every man knows in his hart what is right and what is wrong. So do homosexuals. Have you ever tried to point or warn someone on the consequences of his/her mistakes. Probably the person would have told you to bud out. It’s none of your business. This behaviour indicates that this person does not feel happy about the situation but can’t stop himself. As Christian I believe that condemning is not the right thing to do. But I will not keep my trap shut. I must warn them about the consequences of their acts.


Ezekiel 33
When the watchman sees the enemy coming, he blows the alarm to warn the people. Then if those who hear the alarm refuse to take action--well, it is their own fault if they die. They heard the warning but wouldn't listen, so the responsibility is theirs. If they had listened to the warning, they could have saved their lives. But if the watchman sees the enemy coming and doesn't sound the alarm to warn the people, he is responsible for their deaths. They will die in their sins, but I will hold the watchman accountable.


My God (not the God of 67% of world population) is saying that you will hurt yourself or other man, and especially God, if you aim away from His rightful path. It’s the free choice He gave to every human being. He did not want to create robots. We have our own free will and are allowed to use it. This sounds good, but we will always being kept responsible for our personal actions during the period we are allowed to proof our self here on earth. If we can’t deal with the responsibility, given to us, here on earth why would He give us bigger duties in His plan after our earthly life? Each of us have to battle our personal sins. So why does homosexuals think they can get a free off?

My belief, and 33% of world population, says that it’s the best thing to follow his commands. Aiming away is always a lack of respect towards our creator.


Proverbs chapter 14
Foolish people don't care if they sin, but good people want to be forgiven.


[edit on 25-2-2005 by voorwaarts]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Of course the Vatican isn't going to condone gay marriage. They don't even believe in birth control as a solution to third world starvation. Their beliefs are totally archaic and I feel sorry for the desperate masses holding on to this religion because it is all they have.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

some native American
indian tribes did consider homosexuals to have been specially
touched by God and it was considered a blessing and goodluck
to have both a female wife and a homosexual 'wife'.
But that
was a long time ago.

flyersfan: Where can I read more about this? I find your statement very interesting. Are you referring to an indian having a female wife and a male 'homsexual' partner, or are you talking about an indian having a wife who herself is homosexual and therefore is also interested in bedding squaws?

Option #1 doesn't interest me, but option #2 could be fun. :^)



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
-

[edit on 25-2-2005 by voorwaarts]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGrimbo
The gays, well they die out, and the reproducing hetrosexuals live into the future and explore the stars...


gay people are not incapable of heterosexual sex, just like heterosexuals are not incapable of gay sex. As I said before, sexuality is a bell curve. Most people fit somewhere in the middle. There are very few completely gay and very few completely straight people in the world.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I'm not a Catholic, I’m a Christian. Living in Holland, where nearly everything is allowed, I can tell you that (Amsterdam) it’s far from heaven. If a registry officer doesn’t want to marry gay couples he/she get sacked. Marihuana is legalised and abortion and euthanasia is completely integrated in the way of live, prostitutes in the EU pay their tax and pimps are advertising at jobcentres to get employees. If you don’t take the(blow) job as long-term unwaged female you will lose you’re benefits.

Must be a heaven on earth for a lot of you folks but I think you rather should be feeling sorry for this kind of mankind lawmaking.


2 Timothy
But know this, that in the last days, grievous times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof. Turn away from these, also. For of these are those who creep into houses, and take captive gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
maybe those so concerned with gay marriages should be jumping on the environmental bandwagon......check it out, and see what our pollution is doing!!!

www.dhushara.com...

maui.net...

www.foe.co.uk...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join