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.

 

I Am a Straight, Married Christian Male in Support of Gay Marriage

page: 29
60
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xaberz
 


as far as the whole preconception thing, read this thread (Its still open so feel free to post)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This gives a new insight to the whole "Is homosexuality natural" Argument...

well actually its more about gendercasting but whatever ;p




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Take religion out of the equation fully, as marriage is no longer in that realm and what do you have? Inequality on the basis of discrimination on the part of the government towards one group of people.


Where was the "Plug your ears to maintain your religous ignorance" Warning mr?


lol jk good point, i hope that your dumbed down version of what weve been saying this whole thread will get attention



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spw184
reply to post by yes4141
 


Hedgehogs masturbate and dolphins have oral sex, so thats kinda natural too...


I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or were just adding a point.

Yer, I've heard about things like this. Of course it is all 'natural'- it is just our bodies and therefore hardly 'synthetic'. But his point was that certain parts of the body are 'unnatural' for sex, yet why is one 'other' part of the body condemned and others condoned?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Here is a good article The Animal Homosexuality Myth

I would suggest reading over it as it will debunk that animals do it so it's natural argument that keeps going back and forth.



Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.



Quote from article ^
edit on 15-9-2011 by GNUFanx86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GNUFanx86
Here is a good article The Animal Homosexuality Myth

I would suggest reading over it as it will debunk that animals do it so it's natural argument that keeps going back and forth.


Information on the author of The Animal Homosexuality Myth.

Luiz Sérgio Solimeo - - Christian Writer

Luiz Sérgio Solimeo is the author of Defending A Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.

Aren't we all surprised?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by The Old American
 


Change your ways and ways of thinking or change your christian status; you can't have both better yet.. read the bible from cover to cover.................




^Perfectly said. God clearly states in the Bible He HATES homosexuality. How can you claim to be a "christian" and support something completely against God?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buildingthenations

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by The Old American
 


Change your ways and ways of thinking or change your christian status; you can't have both better yet.. read the bible from cover to cover.................




^Perfectly said. God clearly states in the Bible He HATES homosexuality. How can you claim to be a "christian" and support something completely against God?


Oh Bull! I am so sick of man's interpretation of what God thinks and says.

The bible was written by man. Religions is created by man.

All the gays I know are Christian - - BTW.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


My quote was by Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects. Which you ignored. The article has research quotes from different scientists.

Go through and debunked them all, you can't. They all aren't Christians.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Oh Bull! I am so sick of man's interpretation of what God thinks and says.

The bible was written by man. Religions is created by man.

All the gays I know are Christian - - BTW.


They wouldn't be true Christians. Just because someone wears that label doesn't make them so.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ -Matthew 7:21-23
edit on 15-9-2011 by GNUFanx86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GNUFanx86

Originally posted by Annee

Oh Bull! I am so sick of man's interpretation of what God thinks and says.

The bible was written by man. Religions is created by man.

All the gays I know are Christian - - BTW.


They wouldn't be true Christians. Just because someone wears that label doesn't make them so.



Definitely not the right wing Christians of today. Somehow they forgot only God judges.

If Jesus is the message of Love - - - then today many Christians are the message of the little man - - his prejudices and hate.

God did not write the bible. Man did.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GNUFanx86
reply to post by Annee
 


My quote was by Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects. Which you ignored. The article has research quotes from different scientists.

Go through and debunked them all, you can't. They all aren't Christians.


Oh - excuse me.

You have chosen the few who support your belief. How quaint.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Oh - excuse me.

You have chosen the few who support your belief. How quaint.


You just did the same thing



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Marriage once was in the pervue of the religous, and now is in the realm of the state, so to be a free and equal society, to prevent discrimination on all aspects, it should be open to 2 consenting adults, where the issues has not been through the courts before, to get married, be they gay, or straight or of different skin colors.



Why just 2 consenting adults, though?

Why not 3 consenting adults, or 5, or more?

Long ago marriage was between 1 man and many women. Even today, the muslims have 1 man and 4 women, and the mormons have 1 man and as much as 21 women.

What's wrong with more that 2 people marring each other?

The more the merrier. Group love is bigger than couple love. Even the lord said love one another. There are lots of "swingers groups" that exchange wives to liven up their marriage. But, it's not legal in any state. Swingers get a bad reputation today, and they suffer the same kind of persecution that gays suffer. Yet, they only share their love among more people than couples do. Why should those who love more get shunned and punished, while those who love less get accepted and rewarded?

Notice that a muslim man cannot fully practice his religion in the United States today, because while other nations allow him to have 4 wives, the US will only allow him to have 1 wife. That's discrimination against religion. There's no freedom of religion if the civil law prevents the expression of the religious rules.



edit on 15-9-2011 by DRAZIW because: add text


How about that? We actually agree on something. I'm anxiously awaiting the day that my two wives and I can be actually "legally" married. But the U.S. had to go and try to put an end to the Mormon "threat" by outlawing their tenants.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GNUFanx86
 


Interestingly, I was listening to a radio talk show host tonight who mentioned that some things are natural but it doesn't make them healthy. He said that strychnine is natural but very toxic. I can think of something else natural but toxic, the Red Tide that sometimes appears on the Gulf Coast of Florida.

What is Florida Red Tide?
A: In Florida, red tide is caused by microscopic algae (plant-like microorganism) called
Karenia brevis or K. brevis. The organism produces a toxin that can affect the central
nervous system of fish, birds, mammals and other animals.


www.doh.state.fl.us...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

Do you not understand that what you have asked, has already been decided by the Supreme court of the United States, and has been found to not be within the constitution or even backed by any law of the United States of America? After all the issue of Plural marriage was decided back in the 1850's and has been illegal, along with violating other laws, namely bigamy. So associating a plural marrage, which as been already through the courts, with an issue that has not been through the courts, pretty does not hold water what so ever.

The facts are that the issue of plural marriage has been already debated, argued and fought over in the courts, gay marriage has not been.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 

I am not trying to dumb it down, but if you look at how the courts look at issues like this, they usually go through and take it to the lowest common denominator, trying to work through the issues and figure out what is and is not a factor in what is constitutional and not. And in the long run that is how this issue will come down to, if the position is to present an inequality on the part of the law against one group or not. The courts can not and usually do not factor in religion, usually trying to stay away from any part of such, as that would breach the wall of separation. To factor in religion into an issue like this, then the questions would arrise as to which denomination of the Judaic religions have the best claim and that would never be allowed or permissible.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The facts are that the issue of plural marriage has been already debated, argued and fought over in the courts, gay marriage has not been.


Plural marriage has been accepted practice in many nations around the world for thousands of years. It is accepted in many religions to varying degrees. It is still the practice in many non-western nations even today. It is not against any known religion. It is not immoral nor unethical by any known standards. It is simply an arbitrary decision made by a group of western nations that marriage between one man and one woman is to be the law of the land.

On the other hand, here is how the Bible describes gay activity:



"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22 KJV

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. -- Leviticus 18:23 KJV

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: -- Leviticus 18:24 KJV


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -- Leviticus 20:13 KJV


According to Judeo-Christian religious doctrine "man with man" is an "abomination", as is "man with beast".

Since it was considered an abomination, it wasn't even considered by the Supreme court. For who would request the supreme court to decide on something that the society already accepted as an abomination?

However, attitudes change. This is the modern world. And society is more tolerant today, even of things previously considered abomination.

As we see from the Bible, "man with man" comes just before "man with beast", both alike being considered abominations. However, since "man with man" is now acceptable, and a ready subject for the supreme court, then "man with beast" should also be accepted, and considered for a supreme court ruling.

Why should "beastiality", the sex between man and beast, be any different, from gay love? Men can love animals too. All god's creatures are capable of being loved by men.

My point is, what gives people the right, to arbitrarily decide that marriage should be limited to 2 humans?

Once we leave religion out of the picture, and we deny the biological significance of the male verses female difference, there's no basis for making marriage limited to any particular form.

Why can't men marry the animals too?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





Why can't men marry the animals too?


There is the issue of animals being unable to give informed consent, and sex with such an animal partner may be considered animal abuse by some.

If government stayed out of marriage, pseudo-problems like this would be solved.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Plural marriage has been accepted practice in many nations around the world for thousands of years. It is accepted in many religions to varying degrees. It is still the practice in many non-western nations even today. It is not against any known religion. It is not immoral nor unethical by any known standards. It is simply an arbitrary decision made by a group of western nations that marriage between one man and one woman is to be the law of the land.


Actually, it was not arbitrary, but was rather outlawed in order to try to stop the spread of the Mormon faith through America. The U.S. was afraid they would be taking over some of the newer territories, since Utah had such a large population of them, and that they would attempt to make themselves sovereign. Since the government couldn't outlaw the religion, they outlawed one of it's tenants, called it barbarism, and spurred the Mormons into (possibly early) action.

And no, I'm not Mormon my self.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

Do you not understand that what you have asked, has already been decided by the Supreme court of the United States, and has been found to not be within the constitution or even backed by any law of the United States of America? After all the issue of Plural marriage was decided back in the 1850's and has been illegal, along with violating other laws, namely bigamy.


Woah woah, polygamy and bigamy are two different things here. With bigamy, the wives are unaware of each other, and have not agreed to the husbands being wed more than once.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join