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.

 

Is gay marriage a Trojan horse?

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by discharged77
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Thanks dude, this guy is really mad and he is taking it out on me for some reason? Just because I don't believe in all this gay craziness, it's just over the top, sex is sex, the next thing you know people who practice bestiality will want to marry their horse because they claim they where "born this way"


Actually, I can give a legally defensible reason against human to animal marriage.. an animal cannot legally enter into a contract with a human
And I could argue that a homosexual is not of sound mind to enter into a contract.




posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You are way off, I don't think any less of you as a human or American or whatever. I just don't believe in giving special rights to people based on sexual preference. It's silly comparing this to race, it's ridiculous and it shouldn't even be on the public radar.


How is entering into a legal contract with the consenting adult of my choice a 'special right'... It's one that YOU already have... Don't get pissy just because I want it too!



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Actually, I can give a legally defensible reason against human to animal marriage.. an animal cannot legally enter into a contract with a human


And I could argue that a homosexual is not of sound mind to enter into a contract.


Yes, one could argue that, but one would also have to prove it in court. The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, so it would be inadmissable to challenge on those grounds.

edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: massive quote fail



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77

And I could argue that a homosexual is not of sound mind to enter into a contract.


So now I'm not of sound mind? Yeah, you think of me as an equal... You need to put down the shovel... That hole you're digging is deep enough already.
edit on 4-9-2011 by JaxonRoberts because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by discharged77
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


You are way off, I don't think any less of you as a human or American or whatever. I just don't believe in giving special rights to people based on sexual preference. It's silly comparing this to race, it's ridiculous and it shouldn't even be on the public radar.


How is entering into a legal contract with the consenting adult of my choice a 'special right'... It's one that YOU already have... Don't get pissy just because I want it too!
You need to calm down, no one is getting "pissy". ? It would be a special right because it is not legal and we don't define marriage as two males. You have the right to get married also, get out there and find a nice lady before you get to old.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by discharged77

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Actually, I can give a legally defensible reason against human to animal marriage.. an animal cannot legally enter into a contract with a human


And I could argue that a homosexual is not of sound mind to enter into a contract.


Yes, one could argue that, but one would also have to prove it in court. The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, so it would be inadmissable to challenge on those grounds.

edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: massive quote fail


LoL

Well then Hollywood would make much more sense if they reinstated that classification.

Hahahahaha I wish someone would inform Napolitano of that
edit on 4-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by discharged77

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Actually, I can give a legally defensible reason against human to animal marriage.. an animal cannot legally enter into a contract with a human


And I could argue that a homosexual is not of sound mind to enter into a contract.


Yes, one could argue that, but one would also have to prove it in court. The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, so it would be inadmissable to challenge on those grounds.

edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: massive quote fail
I am sure that I could find a boat load of psychiatrists that would be on board along with many other health professionals.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by discharged77
 


Condescending much?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by discharged77

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Yes, one could argue that, but one would also have to prove it in court. The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, so it would be inadmissable to challenge on those grounds.

edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: massive quote fail
I am sure that I could find a boat load of psychiatrists that would be on board along with many other health professionals.


Probably.. still, in cases where one's rights are to be abridged, the burden of proof falls on the one doing the abridging. In the case of conflicting expert witnesses, all things being equal, the testimone of the witness for the party with whom the burden of proof resides holds less weight.
edit on 9-4-2011 by rogerstigers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
ATS: home of homophobes, racists, biggots and God fearing-bitter little people. What the hell? The initial attraction of this place WAS the exact opposite.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by discharged77
 


Not like "us"?

Yup i see the whole "Divide and conquer" tactic is really working on you.

People are people, we need to stop focusing on how different we might think we are, and just accept eachother.

These are the exact things that are holding us back as a civilization.

Do you want to be the problem or the solution?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JustinSee
 


I couldn't agree with that comment more.

Everyone talks about conspiracies and such, yet they fail to see that their ignorant hate makes TPTB proud. If a way of thinking keeps you divided and hateful than how could you think it's right?





posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Discharge77, buddy, open the doors, and step out of the closet. Not everyone hates you as much as your father did!



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by discharged77
I am fine with making all marriages civil unions, it wouldn't matter to me either way. I'm sure if it was up to religions to marry gays in churches they would be hard pressed to find a church that would do it?



And I support that 100%. Churches should have the right to decide without fear of litigation who they can perform a religious ceremony for/to/on.


Churches are not above the law. If marriage were made legal for gays and a church refused to marry them then they should be stripped of their tax exempt status.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


that is ridiculous!!! If it is against a religion to act out on gay lust, to have gay sex, and gay marriage, how can they be forced to hold gay marriages. You see - not that I agree with the OP on everything, but this post you mjust made is what he was talking about, in a nutshell. It isnt enough for gays to have justice of the peace marriages, not enough for churches to be "encouraged" to consider changing their views about gay marriage. You literally want to see religions forced to state that their God "must have been wrong about one or two things". It isnt enough for gays to be accepted - for many of them or their supporters they must be wedged into every nook and cranny until we are choking on them.
I say if a church that follows the Bible wants to change its mind, rock on - i can see a lot of people being very upset adn confused by that. But to try to force churches is wrong.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by discharged77
 


In Sth Africa it is.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by chrissiel123
 


As far as I can tell the Bible prohibits sexual intercourse to full climax...but it doesn't stop arousal to help the meeting between a male and female. You just have to be careful about the self-indulgent pleasure. Pleasures of the flesh is what got us wiped out time and time again. I doubt we'll ever learn. But then who are we learning from. Maybe our creator, Ea-Enki, showed us how to be pleasured by any sex, or maybe En-Lil added same-sex attraction to stop us from breeding, jeopardizing Enki's creations. In this sense it is neither wrong or right. It just is.

Read the Terra Papers, it gives answers and throws up ideas to all sorts of questions.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
A trojan horse for what?
Homosexuality within the church?
Hell! We wouldn't want that!
Next thing you know, priests all over the world might be playing 'show and tell' with altar boys, orphans, and students of thiers...

I say NO!

:



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Is gay marriage a trogen horse?
lost of hot an sweaty men inside that wanna get out...
most likely yes.
give them a break if they want to spend their life
with another preson and be recognised buy the state
why the hell not.
It's not going to affect anyone who isn't gay, for the
people who say it's a sin, well that may be but it's their
sin. so leve people to their own devices, politics shouldn't
be a reason for denying two loving people their right to
be recognised as so.
biggets be dambed.
P.S. I'm married it's no picknick but i got the choice
and that choice should be afforded to all people


edit on 5-9-2011 by wondera because: i forgot the Y on sweaty



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I don't know what kind of crazy-nonsense world you live in, but in this one - children and animals CANNOT enter into legal contracts - PERIOD!

There is a HUGE difference between whether the sexual organs of two consenting adults can determine their eligibility to enter into a legal contract with each other, and the unprecedented ability to sign a legal contract with a child or an animal.

THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join