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.

 

Gays, the new blacks?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Nobody is saying your church has to recognize gay marriages nobody is even suggesting that churchs be mandated to perform gay marriages. Its a question of the state recognizing gay marriage which us a perfectly legit request. If you have a problem with that saying that its not the job of the state to recognize marriages fine please revoke all the bigamy laws since marriage is no longer the business of the state. You cant have it both ways do you see what Im saying?




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Nobody is saying your church has to recognize gay marriages nobody is even suggesting that churchs be mandated to perform gay marriages. Its a question of the state recognizing gay marriage which us a perfectly legit request. If you have a problem with that saying that its not the job of the state to recognize marriages fine please revoke all the bigamy laws since marriage is no longer the business of the state. You cant have it both ways do you see what Im saying?


Yup, I agree.

If it's not the job of the state to recognize gay marriage - then it's not the job of the state to be involved in ANY marriages.

And if there's no state involvement, then there's no problem with it, right? Or is it an issue with granting legal rights to gay couples in the same way they're granted to married couples?

Looking at the divorce rate, it's not as if marriage is held to be a sacred and firm promise, to start with...exactly what would be ruined, in allowing gay couples to marry?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Would you make a law for legaliseing to steal and sin?


Can I ask how you think that's even the same thing? Like most crimes, stealing involves a victim. Without a victim, generally speaking, there is no crime. Could you please point out who is the victim in a same-sex union? "Sin" is completely subjective, too - not everyone agrees on the definition, but regardless, that's relating to a perceived "crime" against a religious tenet or doctrine, and absolutely should not be an influence when making laws.


Both polticain and relgious people disagree on same sex marraige .


Not all do, I'm afraid. Some do, yes. But many others think there's absolutely nothing wrong with a same-sex union. Not everyone in the US (and indeed, around the world) is a white hetero Christian who can't swallow the concept of two people loving each other when they're of the same gender.


Why do have to marry in the chruch after the know its wrong in christianity and other relgion is wrong. Its like a theif working in a bank.

Again, your analogy is flawed. A thief has perpetrated a crime against a victim. Who is the victim in a consentual same-sex relationship? Does it harm you? No, of course it doesn't. Besides which, who said anything about church? Marriage doesn't have to be linked to the church, or indeed, have any religious connotation at all.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts - particularly as the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples is astronomical, and so I'm interested in what you'd be trying to preserve here.



[edit on 8-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

If you dont like what i am saying please choose your word in a respect manner . And if you try to convice me that being a gay is alright you will never convince me as long as i live.


So you've made up your mind, and closed it. That's very, very sad.

It's also what happened when thousands of people said more or less the same thing about being black.





[edit on 7-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]


Let me clarify something. Homosexuality is an abomination. This is IAW with the KJV 1611. They are not the same as Black people, as Negro is a race, nothing more. There is nothing inherently good or bad about being a race. Caucasians used to have this thing about seeing dark-skinned people as being less human. But, hey, don't take that to mean that slavery is about not recognizing another race as human, as slavery is still going on, and among people of the same race!

It is not sad that one knows right from wrong and closes one's mind to wrong. It is very apparent that being too open-monded will allow debris to settle in your head. The fact that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years doesn't mean it is an acceptable thing; Cain was the first to comit murder, and murderers have been with us ever since, too. Wrong is wrong.

Now, to get right down to the nitty-gritty, this thread is nothing more than someone trying to make an issue that isn't there. I know of know homosexual (and I know plenty of them) who is being treated as is claimed. An homosexual gets no special treatment, right or privilege for being sexually perverted, but they do deserve the right to be treated as a human being. Wherever some of you may live may have regional problems with basic concepts, but we here in backward, religiously "extreme" Alabama are clear with that concept. You can ask some of my homo-coworkers, or homo-supervisors, if you'd like.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Let me clarify something too, if I may be so bold


Homosexuality is only an abomination if you follow certain religious doctrine.

Not all of us do. Some religious doctrines would allow us to stone a woman to death for committing adultery, and to punish a woman in the same manner for being a victim of rape. So we can see that religious doctrine isn't always the best system to follow in terms of law and order.

More to the point though....what does the above sentiment have to do with the legal issues relating to homosexual marriage? The law is meant to follow the American tenet of "seperation of Church and State", and so it should.

As for "right" versus "wrong" - and with all due respect, what makes you more right than, say, anyone else? Your trust in the Bible? That simply means you refer to a book for moral guidance. Others have different means of doing so - what makes your opinions more "right" than theirs?

This is about the law. Not Christianity. And that's the way it should stay.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
As this is an international board, maybe I should clarify that I am in the U.S. and that this nation's culture, morals and standards were built on that foundation.
As far as Marriage is concerned, it is very much a religious ceremony, and is Biblically as well as historically a union between a man and a woman, a union that is supposed to be until death, and for the purpose of procreation.
You most certainly do not have to be a Christian, but the nation is.

If you are from another nation, then there is no reason to debate as I am sure we have different standards, mores and taboos. Furthermore, I restrain from telling those of other cultures how to conduct their national business.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well, I can see why no one really replies to my posts, considering they have other, more controversial posts coming in. While I am a Christian, and I do believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, there is no reason to say, "It is wrong, and everyone should agree with me." As you can see from my earlier posts, there are ways to argue against homosexuality (and the comparison between it and the discrimination of blacks) without relying on religious factors. Honestly, the religious debate is a pointless one, especially under these circumstances. There are social and political problems with the increasing trend in homosexuality, therefore these problems should not be ignored and a Jihad issued.

And one more thing as far as the actual debate of this topic goes. Gays, as far as I can tell, are not officially or socially segregated from straight people. They are not forced to sit at the back of the bus. There are no gay schools or straights schools. There is no gay restroom and straight restroom. So how can this debate even be considered? The only segregation I have ever heard about that has to do with gays is when some gays wanted to start their own schools. In other words, they wanted to be segregated and to be special. While the blacks faced the problem of segregation and discrimination, the homosexuals seem to embrace it.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   


And one more thing as far as the actual debate of this topic goes. Gays, as far as I can tell, are not officially or socially segregated from straight people. They are not forced to sit at the back of the bus. There are no gay schools or straights schools. There is no gay restroom and straight restroom. So how can this debate even be considered? The only segregation I have ever heard about that has to do with gays is when some gays wanted to start their own schools. In other words, they wanted to be segregated and to be special. While the blacks faced the problem of segregation and discrimination, the homosexuals seem to embrace it.


Therein lieth the problem, though. Even today, though it's illegal, many minority or "different" groups are subjected to discrimination. Just because there are laws against it doesn't say it's not happening. A friend of my exhusband's was fired after it was discovered he was gay. Because the state in question is an "at will" state, trying to prove discrimination was impossible - his contract was simply terminated. It happens.

And by the same token if homosexuality wasn't such a "bad" thing in the eyes of so many people, perhaps gays wouldn't feel the need to wish for a segregated school.

Sadly, social segregation still happens today - granted, it's not generally considered to be anywhere near as severe as with blacks earlier in our history, but it's still happening. Why?

Because we're still teaching that "homosexual = bad".



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   


You most certainly do not have to be a Christian, but the nation is.


Firstly, the majority of the populace may be Christian, the nation itself is officially neutral regarding religion. You can pretend that the Establishment Clause doesn't exist, or doesn't say what it clearly does, that doesn't make your opinion fact.

Secondly, while the majority may be Christian, fundamentalists are a distinct minority within the Christian community, unless you contend that non-fundamentalists are not "real" Christians.

Christians as a group are hardly united on issues like homosexuality and abortion. I know plenty of Christians that are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, etc. Jesus himself never expressed an opnion on either issue. The only time homosexuality is even touched on in the Gospels is the story of Jesus healing the Roman soldier's slave (probably a catamite, considering the time and place) and Jesus didn't browbeat the soldier about "sexual immorality" (remember this was a guy who stuck up for a hated prostitute too), but simply healed the slave.

In fact Jesus had very little to say about sexual issues at all, but he did mention something about a rich man getting to heaven being as difficult as fitting a camel through the eye of a needle - a passage I have never seen quoted by the Religious Right. It's funny how conservative "Christians" never stop talking about sexual "morality", which Jesus was apparently almost totally unconcerned with, but never bring up his condemnations of greed and materialism, which on the contrary he spent a great deal of time preaching about.

Fundamentalists like to talk about Jesus, but rarely seem to listen to him. They seem to read the OT and Paul's letters with great care, but ignore the Gospels. Why? Because Jesus's simple, clear, compassionate philosophy simply doesn't lend itself well to the didactic judgementalism that characterizes all forms of religious fundamentalism.

Though I am an agnostic, I have to admit that I would love to see Jesus' reaction to fundamentalists and their ilk in the afterlife. I suspect they would be in for quite a shock.

[edit on 6/8/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   


"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams




"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1758




"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Edition, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 10:78




"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 2000 Years of Disbelief by James A. Haught




"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
The Big three all disagree in homosexauiliy.

As regarding victims , is the teaching of children relgion is harder when the surounding is different from.

The lifestyle of homosexaulitily is existing through drugs and porn industries so this effect everybody socialy.

If people live in a coumminty there are victims



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

In fact Jesus had very little to say about sexual issues at all, but he did mention something about a rich man getting to heaven being as difficult as fitting a camel through the eye of a needle - a passage I have never seen quoted by the Religious Right. It's funny how conservative "Christians" never stop talking about sexual "morality", which Jesus was apparently almost totally unconcerned with, but never bring up his condemnations of greed and materialism, which on the contrary he spent a great deal of time preaching about.



[edit on 6/8/05 by xmotex]


That is such a good point and absolutley on the button.
Great stuff.


Easy mas my homosexuality was a well established fact years before I ever encountered pornography and I have never done drugs, you're just getting into illogical attacks now in the hope that mentioning homosexuality in the same sentence as any number of nefarious activities will somehow invalidate the issue.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche

Originally posted by xmotex

In fact Jesus had very little to say about sexual issues at all, but he did mention something about a rich man getting to heaven being as difficult as fitting a camel through the eye of a needle - a passage I have never seen quoted by the Religious Right. It's funny how conservative "Christians" never stop talking about sexual "morality", which Jesus was apparently almost totally unconcerned with, but never bring up his condemnations of greed and materialism, which on the contrary he spent a great deal of time preaching about.



[edit on 6/8/05 by xmotex]


That is such a good point and absolutley on the button.
Great stuff.


Easy mas my homosexuality was a well established fact years before I ever encountered pornography and I have never done drugs, you're just getting into illogical attacks now in the hope that mentioning homosexuality in the same sentence as any number of nefarious activities will somehow invalidate the issue.



How did you became homosexaul? You dont have to answer if you dont want to



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
The Big three all disagree in homosexauiliy.

As regarding victims , is the teaching of children relgion is harder when the surounding is different from.

The lifestyle of homosexaulitily is existing through drugs and porn industries so this effect everybody socialy.

If people live in a coumminty there are victims


This sentiment seems to be so very, very misguided and misinformed.

Could you please show how drugs and porn in society are directly related to homosexuality? (and indeed vice versa).

We could easily say that drugs are often fought over between black and Latino gangs - does this mean we should ban blacks and/or Latinos from living in a particular neighbourhood? Or perhaps "drugs are often associated with very low income families" - again, using your logic, should we make it a crime to be poor?

Even if there was a link between homosexuality and drugs/porn (which I think is dubious at best - if you really want to go down that path, we could easily surmise that there's a link between busty blondes and porn - should we make being a busty blonde illegal?), does that mean EVERY homosexual is guilty? No. Of course not. Just as it's unfair - and yes, ridiculous - to deduce that "because some druglords are black, all blacks must be the same". It's the same thing.

Please explain? Overgeneralising in this nature is dangerous.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
For the record, states have significant input on marriage.

The recognition of marriage is indeed defined on a state by state basis.

It doesn't matter if you are a judge, priest, justice of the piece, or Elvis, all say the following "By the power granted to my by the state of [insert state here] I pronounce you man and woman/man [if you live in New Hampshire]."

Although various religions may have specific ways that a marriage ceremony happens, the actual anointing of a marriage is regulated by the state. You either have a license to perform marriage or you don’t. A priest that doesn’t have said license does not create a marriage as far as the state is concerned. As hard as Elvis tries, if he doesn’t have the license of the state, he’s just creating a hunk ‘o hunk of burning crap.

States call the shots on who can perform officially state sanctioned and recognized marriages, and what marriages they recognize. BTW, it is possible that a state you move to will not recognize your existing marriage. Possible is the key word, I haven’t heard of any instances where marriages weren’t outside of same sex ones.

Also, I've always thought the definition of morality was a subjective term. What's perfectly moral to me may not be moral to someone else.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
the problem i have with gay marriage is this...Marriage is thru the church. Its not only a legal bond,


Tell that to the atheist who get married by a county judge.


Originally posted by spliff4020 No religion recognizes homosexuality as legitimit.


Wanna bet?
Buddhists' are completely neutral on this point, they have no problem with gays.
Same goes for Unitarians.


Originally posted by spliff4020 What it is, is a disease filled lifetstyle.


Just a myth, you have no facts to back that up.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

If you dont like what i am saying please choose your word in a respect manner . And if you try to convice me that being a gay is alright you will never convince me as long as i live.


So you've made up your mind, and closed it. That's very, very sad.

It's also what happened when thousands of people said more or less the same thing about being black.


Let me clarify something. Homosexuality is an abomination. This is IAW with the KJV 1611.


Let me clarify something, it is homophibic satan worshipping anti-christians like YOU that are the abomination.

And the bible makes it very clear that marriage between races is just as bad as gay sex.

No where does it say that gays THEMSELVES are evil.
Also the KVJ 1611 is about the most deliberately mistranslated version of the bible their is.



They are not the same as Black people, as Negro is a race, nothing more.


They aren't even that actually, the Human GEnome Project has clearly found that race exist only as an idea in our minds.


But, hey, don't take that to mean that slavery is about not recognizing another race as human, as slavery is still going on, and among people of the same race!



INdeed, NOW that is a good point. America was prcatically built on White slavery(they called it "indentured servitude" but a rose by any other name....).


It is not sad that one knows right from wrong and closes one's mind to wrong.


Yes it is, because then one doesn't know wrong and can't recognnise wrong when it happens.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

If you dont like what i am saying please choose your word in a respect manner . And if you try to convice me that being a gay is alright you will never convince me as long as i live.


So you've made up your mind, and closed it. That's very, very sad.

It's also what happened when thousands of people said more or less the same thing about being black.


Let me clarify something. Homosexuality is an abomination. This is IAW with the KJV 1611.


Let me clarify something, it is homophibic satan worshipping anti-christians like YOU that are the abomination.

And the bible makes it very clear that marriage between races is just as bad as gay sex.


Slooow down. I already dropped the evidence that shows that NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the Bible is against Blacks. NOWHERE!
Blacks were never cursed. Ham was never cursed. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say Ham was cursed. Or that Blacks are cursed to be slaves.

Which shows the title of this thread is bunk. Gays arent the new Blacks. And never will be, never can be. Each group has a different history.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   
in the 70's you had The Jeffersons, in the 2000's you have Will & Grace. It's the best way to make something more acceptable, your Television set.

I don't mean that to sound like I'm against either I'm not (gays a little), but it's just a fact.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join