Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Like it or not, all 50 States must now recognize Gay Marriages!

page: 29
29
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I see this as denial of equal rights to a portion of the population based on prejudice and religion.


Yes! Absolutely!

30 years ago I worked for a company that hired gays/lesbians/couples predominately. As a straight female divorcee - I was the minority. I was literally immersed in "gay" 8 hours a day for 6 years (and then there were weekend get togethers). Besides that my straight Hollywood daughter has had gay roommates.

So - if it seems I am disinterested in all the blah blah blah excuses (and they are excuses) - its because I have heard it all ad nauseum in this fight for equality for the last 30 years of my life.

There simply is NO legitimate reason to deny Equal Rights for Gay Marriage.




posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


Not going to discuss morality/procreation/age of consent - - - as I find them unnecessary padding to any legitimate argument of consenting adults joining in marriage.

Edited to fix quote brackets

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Annee]


You talk a good game fast and loose with the law and adhere to it but only when it suits you and your own special world view. Sort of like the way you described your religion making God in YOUR own image



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Lol, are you kidding?
The vast majority of our laws are based on social and moral values.



I am not kidding. Society evolves just like everything else.

Yes - moral would be "cause no harm" as I stated.

There is NO harm in consenting gays marrying.

NO Religion in government - Period!

-------------------------------------------------

You are trying to legislate me by your beliefs - I'm not interested.


EQUAL is EQUAL - - - its that simple.


Yeah but its not that simple anne. The 14th amendment isn't elastic and it doesn't make fairness for EVERYTING a damn Government entitlement and you better get over your angst for religion because YOU CAN have religion in Government, where are you getting this idea? That BS propaganda about the separation powers? Looks like I am going to have to give Binghams interpretation on that too.

It is basically THIS simple, The Government puts the ten commandments on the stairs of a court house, the ACLU sues them, a Judge that knows what this is about wisely says: Has Congress decided to establish a state religion over this? Answer, NO, then their is no issue.




I am not trying to legislate you by my beliefs - which you have no interest in.


Sure you are anne, yo uare trying to force society in legitimizing same sex couple as deserving of the same sacrifices the same contributions to society as opposite sex couples marriage was designed to assist and you inisis, no gays get it based on equal protections of the 14th amendment using logic xtrozero has artfully exploited the reesulting humor to it if in fact it meant what YOU think it means BUT it DOESN'T!

Got it anne, this isn't anne world. It's America.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I see this as denial of equal rights to a portion of the population based on prejudice and religion.


Yes! Absolutely!

30 years ago I worked for a company that hired gays/lesbians/couples predominately. As a straight female divorcee - I was the minority. I was literally immersed in "gay" 8 hours a day for 6 years (and then there were weekend get togethers). Besides that my straight Hollywood daughter has had gay roommates.

So - if it seems I am disinterested in all the blah blah blah excuses (and they are excuses) - its because I have heard it all ad nauseum in this fight for equality for the last 30 years of my life.

There simply is NO legitimate reason to deny Equal Rights for Gay Marriage.


Look Anne how many times do I have to tell you MARRIAGE DOES Discriminate it is SUPPOSED TO and has immunity from your determined efforts to change hundreds of years of religion and secualr tradition and Government mandated rules and laws so that it can't be given to just anyone. You wanna say your married if your gay GO AHEAD! But Gays have got to quit forcing themselves into things they have no business being in or changing the definition of American institutions that you have no business being involved in if you don't fit the definition.

It was never created that way for a reason, just because gays covet the political and status it has for legitimate relationships because they deep down know theirs can not be the kind of relationship opposite sex couples have IT IS FOR THEM and ONLY them and has the same rights under the 14th amendment to KEEP GAYS OUT and I have given the entire history and legal reasons why it was made for one man and one woman relationships.

Under YOUR idea of the 14th amendment we would all be perfectly the same doing what ever the hell we wanted according to our own unique moral guide and what a clusterfrag THAT would be. If you are going to continue to attache your toxic attitude to the term "Morals" for its religious implication, Ill give you a clue to how long this country would last without morals and morality and a BOOK we got MOST of them from where thank god they never change and they never should.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

NO Religion in government - Period!


Not to get off on a different subject, but you seem to say this statement a lot. Do you know the whole separation of church and state is not to keep religion out of the government but to keep government out of religion. Our forefathers were religious people, but they didn’t want to see a state sponsored religion like England had, and so they wanted freedom in religion without state influence.

Religion is here to stay… sorry

Values and morals are based on something; do you think they just happen? And do you think a world with no religion would be better? History says otherwise, so I wouldn’t be so quick to think religion is the curse that prevents you from achieving your own personal utopia.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

NO Religion in government - Period!


Not to get off on a different subject, but you seem to say this statement a lot. Do you know the whole separation of church and state is not to keep religion out of the government but to keep government out of religion. Our forefathers were religious people, but they didn’t want to see a state sponsored religion like England had, and so they wanted freedom in religion without state influence.



I am fully aware of what separation of church and state is and where it came from.

I personally do not support ANY faith based belief (including my own) in government - - and will continue to campaign for a 100% completely secular government.

This country was built on diversity of culture. E Pluribus Unum - "one from many" or "out of many one" - - One secular government representing every citizen. That can not be accomplished using any mythology belief system.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Values and morals are based on something; do you think they just happen? And do you think a world with no religion would be better? History says otherwise, so I wouldn’t be so quick to think religion is the curse that prevents you from achieving your own personal utopia.


Morals and values come from simple logic and respect for others You don't need any type of mysticism.

Some animals - such as the Timber wolf & elephants have extremely complex social structures - - without reading a bible.

Where did I say a "world without religion"? I didn't.

History? I would say selective reading.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

This country was built on diversity of culture. E Pluribus Unum - "one from many" or "out of many one" - - One secular government representing every citizen. That can not be accomplished using any mythology belief system.


And I'm sure you mean a government that supports and officially recognizes EVERY lifestyle and behavior that is different from the majority.

Maybe the answer is to leave marriage in the hands of the church and do away with the state recognition of it. Then just make everything a civil union with a legal binding document, I guess that would satisfy you. That way if 10 people wanted a civil union, or a 15 year old to a 50 year old, or a brother and sister, or two men, or dare I say it… one man and one woman, they all could have it.

But let me ask you a question? Is there any way today that you can be legally obligated to a partner with about everything that a married couple would be except maybe for the tax break?



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

This country was built on diversity of culture. E Pluribus Unum - "one from many" or "out of many one" - - One secular government representing every citizen. That can not be accomplished using any mythology belief system.


And I'm sure you mean a government that supports and officially recognizes EVERY lifestyle and behavior that is different from the majority.



Again: you try to pad and complicate the simplicity of: Equal is Equal

Again: Consenting Adults and Cause No Harm.

I'm sure there are many hetero "people of faith" who role play to keep their sex life alive. Probably many who are in to some form of S&M. There are heteros who practice anal sex and homos who find it disgusting.

It is none of my business.

You can't give up the control.



posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero


But let me ask you a question? Is there any way today that you can be legally obligated to a partner with about everything that a married couple would be except maybe for the tax break?



Your sentence structure is a bit confusing.

But I am sure this question has already been answered quite clearly in this thread.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


wow, middle ages and dark ages would be fine by me, homosexuality is a sin check romans and leviticus, and for straight people their should be no fornication or sodomy, guys who are gay can only do fornication because sodomy; well we all know what sodomy is. guys who arent homo lets just stick with no fornication



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


uh yea THEIR IS...... MARRIAGE IS A SPIRITUAL BOND BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. marriage was something made for by religion no gays allowed infact it was a sin. name a religion that openly says that you can be gay and get married or better yet name a religion that only accepts gays period i bet you cant find one of these.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
MARRIAGE IS A SPIRITUAL BOND BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN.


What about those atheists who don't believe in "spirit"? They can still get married. No problem. They define their marriage. And the state allows that.

I define my marriage. There is no religion in my marriage. NONE. There were no religious words spoken at my wedding. It was not in a church and religion plays absolutely NO PART in my marriage or my ceremony. And it is perfectly legal.

But I'll bet you can't go into a church and get legally married without the state's license and paperwork.


Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal institution. Some people CHOOSE to have a religious component, but it is not required at all.



name a religion that openly says that you can be gay and get married

Quakers. And they are Christians. So, the answer is Christianity.


The United Church of Christ More Christians.

Unitarian Universalists


Originally posted by make.changes
or better yet name a religion that only accepts gays period i bet you cant find one of these.


In my opinion, a "gay only" church defeats the purpose of equality, but there are such churches.

New Covenant Church of Atlanta Christians
The Gathering Place Christians
GayChurch.org Christians

Google it.
There are MANY. Mostly Christian.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by Annee
 


uh yea THEIR IS...... MARRIAGE IS A SPIRITUAL BOND BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN. marriage was something made for by religion no gays allowed infact it was a sin. name a religion that openly says that you can be gay and get married or better yet name a religion that only accepts gays period i bet you cant find one of these.


Marriage was/is literally a business contract. It is a legal contract to protect rights and property of two people joining as one household.

The romantic concept of marriage is a very modern concept.

Marriage was not made for/by religion - - other then culturally some form of religion was government/law in ancient times. It had nothing to do with "falling in love or spiritual bonding". Those are modern social/cultural concepts.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


wow, middle ages and dark ages would be fine by me, homosexuality is a sin check romans and leviticus, and for straight people their should be no fornication or sodomy, guys who are gay can only do fornication because sodomy; well we all know what sodomy is. guys who arent homo lets just stick with no fornication


If you want to believe it is a sin - that's up to you.

However - your belief has no business in laws governing those who do not share your belief.

Archaic belief's have no business in "ALL people's" government. Gay people are part of "ALL people" and require Equality by Law.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Here is a good article from a Christian perspective:

Marriage, gay or otherwise, is a spiritual choice: I think biological arguments ARE helpful in countering the anti-gay Christian perspective, which attempts to cast homosexuality (or at least homosexual behavior) as unnatural, deviant, sinful, or perverse. It turns out that homosexual orientation does have genetic precursors (and is therefore largely innate, i.e. a God-given attribute) and that homosexual behavior is fairly common and natural in the animal kingdom.

Homosexuality, by these observations, is no more perverse then being red-headed or being left-handed (and actually exhibiting "left-handed behavior"). These examples are instructive, because they too exist as more rarely seen attributes, and they too have been targeted historically by superstitious societies and persons fearing difference or exception. Red-headed women gained the unwarranted stigma of being tempters and ruiners of men simply because they had red hair. The Latin word for "with the left hand", is the root of the English word "sinister", meaning evil or bad. Ancient Greeks and Romans felt that the left side was responsible for the improper and perverse.

www.crossleft.org...



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee


Homosexuality, by these observations, is no more perverse then being red-headed or being left-handed (and actually exhibiting "left-handed behavior").


The difference is a red head/left hander (which I am left handed) doesn't produce behaviors contrary to societies’ norms.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee


Homosexuality, by these observations, is no more perverse then being red-headed or being left-handed (and actually exhibiting "left-handed behavior").


The difference is a red head/left hander (which I am left handed) doesn't produce behaviors contrary to societies’ norms.


Behaviors?

Your prejudice is showing.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
duplicate post

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Annee]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The difference is a red head/left hander (which I am left handed) doesn't produce behaviors contrary to societies’ norms.


Social norms (behaviors):

Get married and have a family
Shaking hands upon meeting someone
Women shaving their legs/underarms
Standing quietly while in an elevator

There's noting inherently wrong with behaviors that do not conform to social norms. The thought that everyone should conform or comply with socially acceptable behavior flies in the face of the ideals of freedom that we hold so dear in this country. Surely you're not suggesting that people that exhibit behaviors contrary to society’s norms should not be permitted to do so? Or should be outcast from society? Or, most importantly, should not have their legal rights protected?






top topics



 
29
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join