It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush vs Gay Rights

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 02:25 PM
To KJ, it was towards Craz, not you, sorry if I didn't explain that. Craz said some ignorant things so I responded in kind.

Anyways, as the level headed non all mighty powerful invisable people that live in the clouds believers have said and stated, it doesn't affect you! Sorry, but a gay marrige affects you in no way. Unless you gay, it doesn't fricken affect you! Only reason I stand up for it and support it is because of my freind Amber and her fiance. They love each other, and are going to Vermont to get married in the summer. Why do they have to go to Vermont? Cause Vermont doesn't have it's head up it's ass.

Sorry, but there is no way this could affect you. Hell, they said the moral fall of society would happen if blacks and whites married. Did it? No. But hey, I guess this time it different for instead of race it's sexual preferance. And why you worried about religous marrige? Well, which religon? Some religons allow gays and lesbians and don't see them as all evil children of satan sinners. Sure a christian marrige doesn't allow gays/lesbians, but other religons allow it, or don't they count cause they aren't christian marriges?

posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 03:19 PM
Dude, no other religion allows gay marriage. Religion being "(the) belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddist, Hindu, etc.

So, if a religious institution will not allow it, it can not happen.

Like I said, only the recognition and rights need be extended.

If what is needed to be given is not what the homosexuals want it doesn't affect them. They only get equal treatment under the law, which would constitute the rights and treatment of the priviledges extended due to the coupling.

posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 06:57 PM
Uh, those aren't the only religons in existence. Witchcraft, Druidism, and mine, pebble people(not recognized) allow gay and lesbian marriges. But they aren't mainstream with millions of followers, so they usually aren't counted as religons. But they do exist, do have marriges, just not recognized as much as the mainstream religons are.

posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 06:59 PM
mariage = religious

civil union = not religious

you do the math

posted on Mar, 27 2004 @ 08:20 PM
Ivan, you do realize that a judge signs the certificate, right? Not a guy who takes the time out of his busy day of raping little boys then covering up to say the words, but a judge. And guess what? Witchcraft and druidism and Pebble People are religons. But I asked, does a marrige only count if it a christian religon? Cause people keep saying bible this, bible that, yet never say Torah says it is wrong, here are the verses that prove it. No, only christian this, christian that. So, is it only a marrige if the religon that does it agrees with you? Or what?

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:28 AM
So James, let me get this straight.

This is you?

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 05:33 PM
Uh, what is that? A paper weight?

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 06:36 PM
No dude, it's a pebble person.

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 06:55 PM
No it isn't, Pebble People, like all gods, are invisable, makes it harder for people like you to disprove them, and easier for me to prove they exist, cause you can't disprove them.

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 01:25 AM
first of all its CAZ not CRAZ, unless thats part of your name calling campaign

Dont take this to harshly, ill try to be gentle....I read multiple threads on this website, and most everytime i read one of your posts i wonder.....exactly what part of the ball park your in? Are you even IN the park? I can tell your young....and that logical reasoning skills are still being learned. (think without pre concieved notions)

Your back to demeaning peoples faiths by saying "all powerful invisible people" I asked that out of common respect for peoples faiths (any) that you refrain from this type of shallow rhetoric....but i see that your counter points are so weak that you have to resort to a cheap tactic to support your agruments.

Also..."too busy raping lil boys" statement was also inaccurate....not ALL priests engage in that activity, so a blanket use is derrogatory and again does not suport your argument, it only makes it WEAKER. (PS, I havnt been into church for more than a wedding in about 6+years., im affraid ill burst into flames if i cross the threshold) But demeaning peoples religion is neither tasteful nor a good debate practice.

JMAES, im glad to see you here at least attempting to debate and use your brain, thats more than many and makes you above average in my book, but

Alot of replies i see to your posts tend to tear into your arguments as weak (indeed most are) keep trying, but try without your preconcieved notions....

should i again ask the question i asked pages ago on this topic....WHY has not one MAIN stream faith, adopted any type of gay inclusion until just very recently (were talking thousands of years of history) the same question from a sociological perspective....while gays were around, and examples exist of them being within societis, whay has none adopted gay lifestyle things as a main policy/part of their culture? or to ask the same thing from a different angle, What things about the gay lifestyle did those cultures/religions find not appealing (or appalling enough) to begin to use/incorporate them into practice long ago?

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 07:42 PM
Sorry Caz, for some reason I thought it was Craz.

Second, how is all powerful invisable people demeaning? They are all powerful invisable people. What religon do you know of that doesn't have a all powerful invisable person? God is a all powerful invisable person, Allah is an all powerful invisable person, Shiva as far as I know is an all powerful invisable person. The Jewish god is an all powerful invisable person. My Pebble People are all powerful invisable people. So how is it demeaning? I just say it how it is.

Then, the fact that ONE preist did it and the church covered it up is enough. Now if one did it and the church turned him into the police no problem. But thousands did it and the church protected them, and that is wrong.

posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 08:57 PM
You are right on that James. I wonder what does happen to priests who are said to be molesters.

Is there some law that protects them?

posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 12:10 PM
Sorry KJ, been in Florida on vacation.

Anyways, from what I have seen, yes. Out of the thousands that molested kids, less than fiftey are in jail. Then, when victims try to sue, the church says they bankrupt. Which is pure and total bull since the only thing with more money than them is, well, not Bill Gates or Wal Mart owners, not the government, hell, they have trillions in debt, not GM, the onlt thing I can think that has more money than the church is nothing! Sure most of the money they make is through people putting money in the tray that is passed around, but the bigger ones get money through showing up on tv, being in movies(Yes, if a movie has a church scene at a famous one((Mainly New York City ones)) the church makes money, tax free, off of it) and of course the people who donate money to churches whpo are rich, like the Kennedy family did in the past.

But it isn't only American churches, there are more Catholic churches on in more countries than there are McDonalds.

But still, the church has its own rules(aka money they give to politicians) so they can rape all the little boys they want and only lose less than 50 people. Even better, they have more child rapists in their organization than NAMBLA, yet NAMBLA is known for child rapings, and the church not.

posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 12:44 PM
Option one.

Screw the current protection of priests. Grab them and stuff them in a cell.

Try them.

Send them packin to a cozy vacation in a gray cell.

Option Two
If they claim higher authority, send them packin to the Vatican.

Let's see what the Italians do to child molesters.

Side note: is this a problem in other countries?

posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:22 PM
Actually if you look at most of the priests that have been identified, they are mostly Irish priests...not Italian. I'm Irish also, so this isn't a rascist statement, just an observation. I wonder why this is?

posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Actually if you look at most of the priests that have been identified, they are mostly Irish priests...not Italian. I'm Irish also, so this isn't a rascist statement, just an observation. I wonder why this is?

No no, I was saying Italy because of the Vatican. If they claimed a higher authority (Rome) than the U.S. government, then I was saying to extradite them there.

posted on Apr, 5 2004 @ 07:28 PM
Well, I think it just the catholic church is CYA, covering your ass. For you see, they only know of some of the rapists, but not all. How much you wanna bet the catholic church knows the ones who haven't been found out? So far there is an estimated 25,000 known. How many others out there are not caught because the church is protecting them?

And again, the church has more child rapists than NAMBLA and yet NAMBLA is the one known for raping children. How messed up is that?

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 04:20 AM
Ok, james, you said there was about 25000 victims, this ranges over about a 25 yr period of time as well, meaning about 1000 victims (alleged) per year,
now divide 1000 by the # of catholic churches nation wide (i dont know but ill guess based off of the aprox 200 in the philly area) lets say 100 catholic churches for an average metropolitan area... this would mean that there was about one person per church per year alledgdly molested.....this would be a very miniscule, less than 1% of ALL parishoners were ever affected...

i agree that no one should have been molested, ill agree that the church as an institution tried to conceal many cases, but
your blanket assault against the many worshipers and decent majority of the priests that are innocent is unwarrented and shows no depth of understanding at those statistics that you use.

leave religion out of it and hit my sociological or zoological points.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 03:56 PM
Caz, others use religon for an arguement agaisnt gays and gay marriges, I just use it to make fun of the ignorants.(aka catholics and other christians)

Anyways, a worm doesn't need to mate, it reproduces by itself. Is that against nature? If the only thing that is with nature is male and female having sex, then worms are against nature.

Second, why are we worried about the birth rate? We have over 6.5 billion people on the planet. I don't think a few gays and lesbians will bring the downfall of the race.

Third, there are gay animals in the wild. Ever see a dog hump another male dog? Or the species of monkeys over in Japan(I think Japan) where the female monkeys get each other off if there are no males in the area/no males attractive enough to them.

posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 04:16 PM
Ahhh yes the monkeys. Guy on Guy, Girl on Girl, mother on son and father on daughter with oral sex all around. It's in nature, so I guess that would make it natural. You can read about the bonobo monkeys here.

Anyone else care to use the "nature" idea in a religious context?

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in