California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional., page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:27 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by Rook1545


Thank you, Rook

No.....it is foolhardy to 'fight'. The Christian thing to do is to accept. Fighting gets us nowhere......mutual understanding eventually leads to acceptance.

OR, maybe I should have said it the other way...."mutual acceptance eventually leads to greater understanding"...

Yeah, I like that one better!!

{editted for the extra text}

[edit on 5/15/0808 by weedwhacker]


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 04:29 PM by Annee
Originally posted by Rook1545
reply to post by weedwhacker


I am a parent, and while I was not impressed with the attitude, I can't say I was outraged. The part of my country I live in is full of conservative neanderthals. I guess you can only fight it for so long before you just give up on them and realize that the world is leaving them and their archaic beliefs behind. I have seen too many of those people fester in their own ignorance and loathing of anything different that it turns them into embittered old before their time relics left to stew in their own juices ranting madly at anyone who will listen. It does not breed more ignorance, for the most part it breeds pity. I think that is what most of these people need. They need to be pitied because they cannot embrace the world for what it is, and instead hate it for what it isn't.


You too - huh?

The ones that get me - are those who believe it is a "New Evil Phenomenon". Coming about because we are losing our morals and offending God.

Ah - like homosexuality and trans-genders - etc. haven't been with us since the begining of life.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by Annee]


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:13 PM by Anonymous ATS
The earlier mention of religion brings a question to my screen: "Doesn't it always seem to come right back to some kind of religious issue ?" And it surely seems to.

Knowing (at least for me and my house) that religion is utter bunk, I'm all for letting gays marry and have every right they're entitled to. The Constitution was written blindly, so as to cover any stripe of American.

I'll also agree that there exists a total disconnect of logic when one tries to make the case that there will be fathers marrying daughters, and people marrying animals, JUST BECAUSE we suddenly allow gays to marry. That's absurd ! One thing doesn't ALWAYS lead to another.

At least with a father/daughter scenario, it's still a male and a female, albeit an incestuous relationship, but at least they kept the male/female arrangement....they just consider ages, and so on. Marrying an animal ? Not for me !

To the poster from England: I'm glad to hear gay marriage is legal over there, my information was just the opposite. So that's good news.

Rather than take a hard-line label of "gay" or "straight", I just consider myself "sexual". Meaning, if I find a relationship that's good for me and the other person, then unless a crime is committed, no one else has the right to interfere.

One thing we'll never learn as a society, is that there really is no such thing as 100% GAY or 100% STRAIGHT, because at some point in a person's life, they engage in some sort of same-sex exploration or sex play. I think it takes more effort to prop us this "straight" life, with all the cheating, lying, two-timing, etc. that goes on, than it does to just say one is "sexual".

Dreaming of a better world.....


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:51 PM by Witness2008
reply to post by TKainZero


If a law is not constitutional it does not matter how many people want it. States can not pass laws that are unconstitutional. Is there something unhealthy in homosexuality?


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 05:52 PM by cashlink
reply to post by WhatTheory


Oh boy, I knew this thread was going to turn to this.
I already smell religion belief wrapping itself around Constitution law.
The only reason that most people think being Gay is unnatural is because We are brain wash to beleive it is and the Bible said it is.


I got news for you, being Gay is normal and it is ( NOT A HANDYCAP).
I am APPAULED of some of the comment here on this discussion.

It is very clear that " science" has proven this years ago.
Men and Woman being born as homosexual is not any different as being born with brown hair or black hair or blue eyes or brown eyes being born black or white or what ever.

Who on Gods green earth is to dictate whom we are to love and not to love. ( not the Bible) a book that was written by Man himself 2000 years ago.

Oh and Please dont tell me the Bible was was inspire by G-d for man to write it.
I can write a comic strip and preach to everyone G-d inspired me to write it .

After years of research in Religion, I now have concluded that the Bible was written by many writers at diffrent times, and many of the writing where taken from other religions such as the Koran, and the Tora, and some of Egyptian Religion that was written over 3000 BC.
These writings where combined and pull together then later on put in a book and then rename a new religion called (THE HOLY BIBLE)

This Holy Bible was put together to help man to live a better life and to respect one another.
I would also have to say, to let man know that there is a higher power that exist.
But something happened along the way of the teaching of this religion, it got CORRUPT.

Now this Religion, wants to control what people thinks, and dictate what you should beleive in and accept what a pastor interpret "HIS" belief.
It is known that some pastors have their own hate agenda, and to extort money from you.

Now back to being born Gay Iam able to back my argument with this.





In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that "almost all people who are homosexual first go through a phase in which their homosexuality is ego dystonic," according to the American Psychiatric Association.

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).


Text of APA resolutions The American Psychological Association (APA) promptly endorsed the psychiatrists' actions, and has since worked intensively to eradicate the stigma historically associated with a homosexual orientation (APA, 1975; 1987).

Conclusion Some psychologists and psychiatrists still hold negative personal attitudes toward homosexuality. However, empirical evidence and professional norms do not support the idea that homosexuality is a form of mental illness or is inherently linked to psychopathology.


psychology.ucdavis.edu:80...

So I hope We all have learn something new here, and I truly hope the band on Gay marriage is lifted, and found Unconstitutional.


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:02 PM by Annee
Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by WhatTheory


Oh boy, I knew this thread was going to turn to this.
I already smell religion belief wrapping itself around Constitution law.
The only reason that most people think being Gay is unnatural is because We are brain wash to believe it is and the Bible said it is.


Exactly - as Bible Believers used the "Mark of Cain" and "Curse of Ham" - - to justify enslaving those of black skin.

Equality is equality. Religion has no place in government.


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:11 PM by TKainZero
Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by TKainZero


If a law is not constitutional it does not matter how many people want it. States can not pass laws that are unconstitutional


What do you mean? How is this more constiutional. Where does it say between a Man and a Man? There are TONS of places where you can quote "Man and a Woman".


Here today 4 Judges decided to spit in the face of the people of California. They overturned the VOTE of Californa, and the LAW of California, voted on BY THE PEOPLE, in 1977, and AGAIN in 2000.

Now the Judges have imposed thier will on the people, for a time.

This will be overturned by the people of California in the November elections, i gaurente THIS.

So let them have thier little 6 moths of glory, until the people overturn them in the elections.



This is a MOCKERY of many things...

This IS a big Day in history... a big event... when a few overturn the will of the people.


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:11 PM by Annee
Originally posted by TKainZero
Heres a very simple ilistration.


Go to a power outlet in your house.

The working mechinism is:
A. A 'female' hole that
B. the 'Male' prong inserts into the wall

Noe please take 2 male parts... how does that work?


And did those plugs sit down - have a coffee with you - and talk about their feelings and love and desires? Did you put your ear to their little "bodies" and listen to their beating heart and blood flowing through their living tissue?

I'll just refer you back to:

Reverend Ken Collins. www.kencollins.com...

"We are the gardeners, it is the garden in which we learn and demonstrate stewardship. Frogs have a function, but humans have a destiny. Unlike frogs, humans have no need to replace themselves, not only because we perform no natural function, but because we are immortal spiritual beings.

Humans have sexuality because we are animals, and animals have sexuality. Therefore, many humans mate and have offspring. While it is true that much of our sexuality results in rape, adultery, betrayal, abortions, abused and abandoned children, battered spouses, and prostitution, these vices are only possible because we are capable of virtues.

And herein can be found the true purpose of human sexuality. In Christianity, there is no docetic dichotomy between spiritual and material, between law and grace; one is lower and the other higher, and the lower one serves the higher. In the same way, our sexuality serves a spiritual purpose, even if we are chaste or childless. Our sexual urges force us to be social creatures, for without it we would be content as hermits, never learning the joy of fellowship, never learning the give-and-take of love or friendship, never practicing upon each other the skills we need to be in full fellowship with God. The primary purpose of our sexuality is not procreation, rather it is to teach us how to love, how to have fellowship; and when we slough off the cocoon of sexuality, we emerge as creatures fully able to contemplate God, fully able to have fellowship with Him and with each other.

It is a bit much to ask of sexual creatures, but let us look beyond our sexuality to our ultimate purpose: to know and contemplate God in His glory."



reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:17 PM by greeneyedleo
reply to post by WhatTheory



Since marriage is defined as being a man and a woman


Are you SURE about this??? Reeeealy sure???


Among the definitions of man and woman, you also find this:


dictionary.reference.com...

MARRIAGE
5. any close or intimate association or union

MARRIED
1. united in wedlock; wedded: married couples.
2. of or pertaining to marriage or married persons; connubial; conjugal: married happiness.
3. (of an antique) created from components of two or more authentic pieces.
4. interconnected or joined; united.
5. (of a family name) acquired through marriage.








[edit on 15-5-2008 by greeneyedleo]


reply posted on 15-5-2008 @ 06:26 PM by WickedStar
reply to post by WhatTheory


Ok, this will be fun! First off WhatTheory. Despite the fact that you're argument about homosexuality not being "natural" is completely base. I'm going to go ahead and address it anyways. Consider it a lesson.

If you're going to say that homosexuality is unnatural then you must also find that people who wear eye glasses, people who use walking canes, people with colorblindness, people who wear prosthetic limbs, people who take medication, people with hearing aids etc. must also have their rights restricted because they either A. engage the world with the aid of "unnatural" implements or b. engage the world differently than you because of genetic difference. To further your train wreck of logic: Why should a person who suffers renal failure caused by a genetic disease enjoy any less rights than someone who has two functioning kidneys?

Also, your comparison of homosexuality to the practice of incest and bestiality is completely despicable. Statistics prove time and time again that people who do engage in those acts are largely heterosexual. What is really troubling is that people, like you, who jump the grand canyon of logic to make that association must really be the ones who are truly sick. What person in their right mind would make such a drastic conclusion when discussing the love shared between two consenting adults of the same sex? Furthermore:

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Originally posted by projectvxn
Comparing gay marriage to bestiality and incest is completely illogical.

Not by using your logic. LOVE is LOVE right?


Your statement here is completely idiotic because an animals are incapable of expressing love in such a manner that we could identify it as such. When your dog is capable of saying "I love you" and being truly cognizant of the fact that he/she is saying it then we can discuss that issue further.

Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by WhatTheory
Exactly, being gay is a form of a handicap since it will not allow one to breed.



Umm...I assure you that homosexuals are fully capable of procreating. We aren't biologically different than heterosexuals. Matter of fact, my best friends is with the mother of his first child right now creating a sibling for their son.

Finally, you made this comment:

"Just because nature MIGHT have some other obscure species that is gay, that still does not mean its normal. "

Homosexuality does not just occur in some other obscure species. It has been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. see here

These species include but are far from limited to:
Giraffes, Dolphins (who are the only other mammal who has recreational sex), killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, Dogs. The list goes on and on.

You say that you have no hatred for homosexuals; yet you would deny us (I'm a proud fagot by the way) the basic human freedom to love whom we choose and to do so openly. How can you even consider yourself a thoughtful member of the human species and still harbor this sentiment? I have the feeling that you are perhaps young and if you are then I rest knowing that as you grow, so will your ideology. However, before you begin making broad generalizations about a rich, colorful, extremely intelligent and equally ancient subculture of the human race, please pause first and think really hard about how you will sound, how you will present yourself and how easily your arguments will be destroyed.

The floor is yours.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^