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.
Originally posted by xmotex
Most of Aermacchi's cooked statistics come from Paul Cameron, a guy that is a well-known anti-gay activist who uses flawed methodologies to come up with the kind of results he wants. He's an activist, not a scientist.
They're also passed around by the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the weirdos that protest at soldier's funerals?) under a title that would probably be a TOS violation here on ATS.
[edit on 3/18/09 by xmotex]
He's an activist, not a scientist.
Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Aermacchi
I'm wondering whether gay sexuality is the issue for you, or if it's all sexuality.
Some Christian churches (certainly not all) teach that sex for any purpose other than procreation is sinful. That would make most of us sinners, in which case sin is not limited to a particular segment of the population, as you seem to be saying.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Sestias
OOPS....that was sexist....because, historicaly, in a divorce, guess who gets the lion's share? Yup...the woman.
Oh, my....the dillema, if the 'divorce' is now between two men, or two women.....
Maybe THAT is what the lawyers are concerned about.....
[edit on 3/18/0909 by weedwhacker]
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi
I am proud of you, Aermacchi.
You stand your ground....I do not have to agree with you to admire your stance.
It takes guts.....
Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by Aermacchi
I agree with weedwhacker in that you have an unusual amount of the courage of your convictions and you're willing to stand your ground and defend it. Many people would give up in the face of so much opposition.
I would, however, like to point out again that you don't appear to have been censored or reprimanded by the mods at any point--at least I haven't seen any warns or other such comments on your posts. Your freedom of speech has not been officially challenged in any way, so it doen't seem justified for you to claim persecution. You are, I think, voicing a majority opinion as far as the whole of the population goes even though you may not feel like it in a thread like this. The majority has a responsibility to listen to the voices of the minority, even as they are outnumbered, otherwise you have mob rule.
As for the ACLU, I am amazed and sometimes appalled too at some of the issues they take up. But they are defending the rights of minorities and free speech in general and they do more good than harm, IMO.
I do not agree with your opinion, as the famous quotation goes, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
watch it, aermacchi. you have now been reported to the mods. ATSs' hate speech standards are more strict than ever and you are walking a very fine line.
i will not be baited into arguing with you, but to be sure: i have some bile i would like to spit in your general direction.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I don't like this idea, I use to support it. Religion infact did not create marriage or any such union. This is a huge popular myth even among the educated, I use to believe it before I did more research. Why should people give in to religion and make civil unions available for those who are not religious, and give religion the opportunity to have people married after obtaining a civil union or domestic partnership license? Why should religious people only get this title of marriage? The religious right in this country needs to get over itself and let other consenting adults live their lives when something IS NOT legally affecting them.
[edit on 24-3-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]
Why should people give in to religion and make civil unions available for those who are not religious, and give religion the opportunity to have people married after obtaining a civil union or domestic partnership license?
They aren't giving in to religion and they do make civil unions available to those who want them.
Why don't you start at the beginning and when you get all caught up with the arguements already waged, Ill be more than happy to debate this with you.
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Marriage now is not at all a sacred union, I can marry whoever I want for less than 24 hours if I see fit or for money, long as I am an adult or old enough for parental consent. Marriage now is a lawful union and by allowing gay people to take part in this union no straight people are legally affected.
Civil Unions are different, they do not give the same priviledges that marriage does on a nation wide basis.
The only main argument that holds any water against gay marriage is religion. But marriage was not created by religion and is not moderated by religion, it is part of our rights and law. It is a legal issue. There is no reason to change our entire system, simply including gays in marriage is a completelty reasonable idea, unless you have some sort of personal opposition that has no legal standing.
What makes you think one has to be legally affected as the only reason for a premise to the debate? This was explained in more detail in the thread and I won't go into it twice so again I ask READ THE THREAD. You obviously have not
Sounds like they need to change THOSE laws then.
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
Because otherwise what consenting adults do is none of your business. I do not have time to read the thread, if you do not wish to reply to me then DON’T. I don’t know who you think you are but barking (typing) these orders while hilarious is getting tedious.
I don’t know who you think you are but barking (typing) these orders while hilarious is getting tedious.
Sounds like they need to change THOSE laws then.
Why change the laws so that everything is the same except the name? That’s just silly, it makes more sense to just include gays in marriage unless you have personal issues with it. Again I don’t care if this is a personal issue for you; right now in the US marriage is a LEGAL issue, so any argument that does not stand up legally is irrelevant.