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.
You are or you would not find it necessary to present an untrue qualification of marriage being a religious creation.
Originally posted by FlyersFanYou seem to think that I'm argueing against gay marriage or something.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
spousal rights' ... put the word civil union on it and it will be much
easier for them.
I don't care what your states classification is, this is a world issue.
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.
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]
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
So words make the difference do they?
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
Unless the pope is right ... then people should be taking
heed about homosexual marriage being evil.
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?
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.
Proverbs chapter 14
Foolish people don't care if they sin, but good people want to be forgiven.
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.
Originally posted by MadGrimbo
The gays, well they die out, and the reproducing hetrosexuals live into the future and explore the stars...
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,