Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 51
60
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

Several things:

1) Marriage is no longer within the area of the Religious. It has not been for many years, and as the government has the control over such, therefore the arguments based on religion and gay marriage is pretty much a moot point. While a minister or a priest can marry 2 people together, it still requires the permission of the government for it to be legal within the context of the law. No marriage license, no marriage and even a priest will not violate the law.

2) The government and the courts would dismiss any case where a priest or a minister refused to marry 2 people of the same sex, as it would violate the separation of Church and State, and the Freedom of Religion. There has been very few cases where the courts can compel any church, as long as it does not violate that separation, and when it does, then it is subject to a whole range of laws.

3) Government employees, do not have the right to discriminate against anyone, if it is within the full confines of the law. They are bound by the laws of the country to do their duty, and like any job, refusal to do the job is grounds for termination. If they don’t want to do the job, they can find another one as there are plenty of people willing to take their place, they are, like most of us, replaceable.


Ultimately you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority, who has done nothing to warrant such abuse. Would you ask a group to pay taxes and follow the laws of the country, yet deprive them of the very benefits of being a part of that country? This country, the USA, was founded on that very principle, where the colonist were expected to be members of the English society, yet were deprived of the very same rights as those back in England, they fought and rebelled against such tyranny. Years later, other groups endured discrimination, even biracial marriages, were fought over in the courts and were found to be legal and with the full protection of the laws, yet here again religion in those cases were used as a means to discriminate and to keep discriminating against them. Religion has no part in the laws of the country, and ultimately will either have to take a back seat, or under the very arguments that you propose, those who are not Christian, could not legally be married.




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
wow 1000 replies! hot topic!

i agree with the above, it wraps it up: you either have separation of church & gov,

or you have the law allow religious discrimination.

it's obvious which one is fair regardless of how personally we feel 2 men as husband and husband and living out their lives happilly ever butt focking or whatever is gross or whatever



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Ultimately you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority, who has done nothing to warrant such abuse. Would you ask a group to pay taxes and follow the laws of the country, yet deprive them of the very benefits of being a part of that country?



That's the problem here. It's all about interpretation and twisting language. This is not a minority. These are people defined by their "activity", not by race or gender or country of origin, or handicap or age, or any factor that is out of their control, nor by established belief system we call religion that teaches morals and ethics.

These are simply a group of people who prefer to do some particular activity that all religions consider "deviant".

Man came out of the jungle, by defining and establishing pillars of right actions and shunning other activity defined as wrong. There are logical and reasoned arguments for why some things are considered right and others considered wrong. Not everyone is mature enough or knowledgeable enough to understand the reasons, so we have "religion" to guide the innocent. We are headed back to the jungle, by unwinding all these established norms.

If we allow groups of people to call themselves a "minority" simply based on their activity, then we need to protect "Robbers", and "Pirates", and "Namblers", and "Animal Lovers (carnal)", and "Congressmen", and "Arsonists", and each of these "minority" groups deserve our tax breaks, because they too deserve equal rights to the benefits afforded to other groups.

They are simply defined by their preference for certain kinds of activity.

Whether some of us think that activity is wrong or right, it shouldn't matter, we should still support them in their right to engage in it, with our blessing. That is the crux of the problem.






edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Thank God the tide is turning against the religious bigots and truly ignorant.

I do support the sliding scale and believe most people are near the middle - - so I don't find BI sexuality odd at all.

But to discredit the birthright orientation of those on the far end of the scale in both directions - - is pure ignorance.

Some people live in their own little isolation "caves" - - perhaps in a same thought community - - - ignorant of the realities outside of that cocoon.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

But that is the point, you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against one group of people.

While, the arguments that you have used is all based off of religious, the inescapable truth is that this country is not based off of religious laws. This object that you have mentioned, is it really correct?

No one really can state why one person is gay or not, the best minds can not state for a fact as to the reason behind it. Yet only those who are religious, those who have no medical training, tend to not go through peer review, who ultimately allow their religious belief to justify and state it is a choice. Yet all indication is that people are born gay, and so there is the ultimate problem.

There is a science to attraction, yet scientists have yet to figure it out, and many are starting to believe that is the key to what makes a person gay or straight lies within that research. So while it may seem convenient to state that a person is gay by choice, the hard reality is that they are born that way, so the original assessment is that they are a minority, by birth, different in the aspect that they are not attracted to the opposite sex, but are to the same sex.

Based off of the very arguments that you have presented, those who do not believe or follow the same sect of Christianity, their marriages would be invalid and void, or would not be allowed to get married. So what would all of the Hindu’s, Muslims, pagans, Jews, and others who are not Christians suppose to do, after all they do not believe in the bible, and it is very specific as to what should be done about such, and would be an affront to the very beliefs that you espouse.

For years many have used religion as an excuse to execute and keep discrimination alive, to exclude and to ultimate use it to perpetuate fear in the general population. Yet in the end it divides the citizens, where there are those who would state one thing and others who state something else.

You state that it is about interpretation and a twisting of the words, yet are you not doing the exact same thing when it comes to religion? After all you keep stating that such is wrong, yet the belief that is espoused and has been rejected is that we are Christian. Not every one is Christian, and this country is not all Christian. There are many different beliefs, and as a means to keep the peace, the law has to be oblivious to religion.

It is that factor and that alone, that prevents any country from further splitting and fracturing. In recent history, countries like Ireland, Yugoslavia, and Sudan, if anything should show us that when religion is used as an excuse, those countries on a whole suffered, and its people can never heal the hurts that they endured. It would be a shame if that happened to the USA, all over people such as yourself, showing intolerance, all on the grounds of religion beliefs and using it as a weapon, and an excuse to discriminate against others.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
There is a science to attraction, yet scientists have yet to figure it out, and many are starting to believe that is the key to what makes a person gay or straight lies within that research. So while it may seem convenient to state that a person is gay by choice, the hard reality is that they are born that way, so the original assessment is that they are a minority, by birth, different in the aspect that they are not attracted to the opposite sex, but are to the same sex.


Funding for this research is very limited. I've been following this interest for 20+ years.

While studies and individuals themselves strongly support we are what we are born - - the "bullseye" absolute scientific proof is still elusive.

But - - we knew Polio and Malaria existed - - - long before we found the cause. (I am NOT saying homosexuality is a disease). Only that science is not a "dial in" - get an instant answer.

There is also the fear of finding an absolute - - - while homosexuality is still in such a flux of being accepted by many as being natural for the person born that way. We don't want parents running to doctors to have their kids brain chemicals scrambled as in the Fruit Fly testing.

Camps are now springing up in various parts of the country for children as young as preschool age who don't fit the "sexual norm". These kids are not making a choice. They are as they are born. Awareness has helped the parents of these children to accept them as they were born - - - and provide them the support and love they need to live in a society that is still maturing in this area.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
But that is the point, you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against one group of people.


We discriminate against an "activity", not a group of people. If those people didn't engage in that particular activity there would be no discrimination against them. There's nothing special about them that would entice us to discriminate against them otherwise, they look just like the rest of us.

We all discriminate. We cannot avoid it. To live on earth, man must judge and discriminate, make choices, select things.

How we discriminate is based on our beliefs.

All of our beliefs come from our society, the environment we grew up in, and are adaptations of other peoples beliefs that have been around before us.

We don't "create" our own beliefs. We "choose" from a variety around us, and religion provides one source for our choices.

The reason we choose any particular thing, is partly a function of our own understanding, and partly a function of the attitudes others express towards us when we select this or that.

Kings don't get to marry because of attraction to their mate, they marry for duty. It is the custom of the land.




Based off of the very arguments that you have presented, those who do not believe or follow the same sect of Christianity, their marriages would be invalid and void,


All the major religions recognise marriage. It's not an exclusive Christian practice. There are no religions that marry two men.



For years many have used religion as an excuse to execute and keep discrimination alive,


Religion is one source, but you don't need religion for that. Just think of the design of man, it will be obvious to "some" who are observant.



It would be a shame if that happened to the USA, all over people such as yourself, showing intolerance,


We tolerate, but don't celebrate or promote. There's a differnce.

Each person should support the things he believes in. That is his right.

I, for one, support the right for anybody to form "unions", it makes perfect financial sense today; the more the merrier. It would solve alot of problems.

But, I don't support the corruption of the term "marriage" with other forms of unions that differ from the male+female type; and I don't support legally requiring Priests or Churches to hold and conduct other types of unions that might be against their beliefs.

To have freedom of religion, you must be able to practice that religion without being legally required by civil law to contravene the tennents of your faith.
edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 





For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -- Ephesians 6:12 KJV


This is seemingly an apt quote. Seems to imply that people should not simply accept what is told to them by anyone/ thing - that would most definitely include the very powerful bible and church. It would also seem likely to instruct people not to blindly subjugate/ punish/ outcast people if they have not made another person suffer- e.g. actual 'morality' rather than taught morality.




If planting, do you know that it matters where you plant that seed? In fertile soil the seed will grow, otherwise the effort is just a waste of time and energy.


It is almost a skill to be so wonderfully patronising. Subjective enjoyment/ happiness seems to hold no value to you- does 'flesh' (not sure why I'm adhering to your outlook...) enjoyment have less worth than supposed 'spiritual' enjoyment? Subjectively it likely does not and what other intuition do we have but our own? If we cannot subjectively realise enjoyment for the 'soul' then there is no possible way for us to have any perception of such a thing. All we have, fundamentally, is our own senses and experiences that those senses give us- if this 'soul enjoyment' is immeasurably more important than 'flesh enjoyment' then how can people be expected to even begin to conceive of such a thing when they have no way of sensing it? It is just as possible (far, far more really) to be fiction as it is to be how others explain it to be.




We don't "create" our own beliefs. We "choose" from a variety around us, and religion provides one source for our choices.


I absolutely, emphatically disagree. We do NOT choose what we believe. Whether we actually consider something to be true or not is a reaction of the mind. Despite possibly lying to either yourself or others about such a belief you cannot genuinely choose what you believe.
edit on 9-10-2011 by yes4141 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by yes4141
This is seemingly an apt quote. Seems to imply that people should not simply accept what is told to them by anyone/ thing - that would most definitely include the very powerful bible and church. It would also seem likely to instruct people not to blindly subjugate/ punish/ outcast people if they have not made another person suffer- e.g. actual 'morality' rather than taught morality.


The young person has to accept what his/her parents say. Because they don't know enough to walk on their own. If an adult feels he knows enough, that's another matter. The position of the Church is that the Fathers of the church know more than the average lay person about spiritual matters. Therefore these Fathers give advice and guide those who will listen. It you decide to walk in the light of the Church (or any religious order) then you accept the admonishments and/or guidance of the elders.



It is almost a skill to be so wonderfully patronising. Subjective enjoyment/ happiness seems to hold no value to you- does 'flesh' (not sure why I'm adhering to your outlook...) enjoyment have less worth than supposed 'spiritual' enjoyment?


You'll have to try it to find out for yourself. When you know, you won't need to speculate.



Subjectively it likely does not and what other intuition do we have but our own? If we cannot subjectively realise enjoyment for the 'soul' then there is no possible way for us to have any perception of such a thing. All we have, fundamentally, is our own senses and experiences that those senses give us- if this 'soul enjoyment' is immeasurably more important than 'flesh enjoyment' then how can people be expected to even begin to conceive of such a thing when they have no way of sensing it? It is just as possible (far, far more really) to be fiction as it is to be how others explain it to be.


But if you close your eyes you no longer see. So, you can understand partly the difficulty a person born blind would have understanding what a painting in an art gallery is, or how a movie like the Terminator might be experienced. Because you can conceive of such things, you can, by analogy, get a partial understanding of how there could be other experiences for which you are currently blind. So, if you are told that a particular "behavior" is responsible for "closing your eyes", and rendering you blind, but if you change that behavior your eyes will be opened, and you'll be able to see these new vistas, then it's up to you to try out the changes required to enable the sight, and go exploring those new domains of experience. Lust closes the eyes.




I absolutely, emphatically disagree. We do NOT choose what we believe.


Then if our belief cannot be chosen, then our actions cannot be chosen either. For we act in accordance with our beliefs. And all those who punish others for acts they think are wrong cannot help but punish, for they have no choice either. One wonders why man bothered to write any laws at all, since it doesn't matter what we write down, people can't change their beliefs and actions, they are already programmed in from the beginning.

Each person should therefore just carry on, doing his own will, whatever he feels impelled to do today. There's no hate crime. Since, choice is not possible. There are simply acts compelled by the programming built into the person who acts. That's all. All this lawmaking is a waste.





edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

Funny, as the accepted definition of the word discriminate is as follows:
The unjust of prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age or sex.

On that definition, based off of the arguments, using religion as an excuse, thus puts it into a negative connotation.
You say that you discriminate against an activity, however, by the very arguments that you have presented, you are discriminating and preventing the fundamental right for a group of people to be happy, one in which has never been discussed or been through the laws of any country, until here recently, that being gay marriage. Yet you it is on that very belief, that it would lead to far greater problems in the long run, opening up legal doors that should never be opened.

Not all of our beliefs come from our society, as that does not explain much of social problems today. And it is also false that we do not create our own beliefs, that is a fallacy, as we do create the very beliefs that we tend to show to the world.

While you are correct that kings marry for duty, the point being that in the USA, there is no king, nor is there royalty, so why do people get married, if not for the concept of love and wanting to be with another person?

Here again, based off of your arguments, it could be argued, and successfully that if a marriage is not based off of a sect of Christianity, it would not be valid or acceptable, as that is the precedence that has come before, and ultimately will follow.

There is where you are wrong, as it is not the design of man that the arguments have been used to espouse discrimination on other groups of people in history. Every group that has suffered major forms of discrimination, religion, in particular that of Christianity was used as the baseline excuse. Even when it came to mix marriages, it was one of the primary arguments against such. Even slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow Laws, religion was used to justify there being for such.

Here again, seems that there is a fallacy in the argument that people can not change, as they can, if they want to. And ultimately it has to be a want and a desire, and they can change. Body builders prove that. They want to have a body that looks all muscular, and they work at it, changing they way they look, and they end up changing that.

Really, there are no hate crimes? So the KKK lynching a person, while using derogatory remarks, that is not hate? Or how about what was done to Mathew Sheppard, where he was beaten, dragged behind a truck and left to die out in the middle of no where, that was done why? Cause of hate, and ultimately, it can be traced back to a religion that stated such was wrong. And what about what was is going on in Egypt, where Coptic Churches and its practitioners are either being killed or destroyed, think that is not hate, think again, that is a hatred and an intolerance towards that which is different.

So there you go, the examples of discrimination, along with a good definition, along with the examples of hatred, all coming from the base arguments of religion.

And all of this cause one group wants to be equal in a society, which despises them for what they were born to be.

Yet here again, you fail to accept or realize, that in the USA, no religion or church would be compelled to change its ways or forced to perform a marriage with same sex couples. As all churches would be considered to be private organizations, and the precedent has already been set.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Funny, as the accepted definition of the word discriminate is as follows:
The unjust of prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age or sex.


What is unjust? There is no race, age or sex involved here. There's only some activity.




You say that you discriminate against an activity, however, by the very arguments that you have presented, you are discriminating and preventing the fundamental right for a group of people to be happy


Why can't they be happy in a gay union?

Why must they chose to label their form of union a "marriage?"

How does that change their reality?

A marriage has a specific meaning, involving a man and at least one woman.

Why do gays need to change the definition of marriage to be happy?

Do they understand that by using the term "marriage" they are confusing the language for others?

Do they care about people other than themselves?




While you are correct that kings marry for duty, the point being that in the USA, there is no king, nor is there royalty, so why do people get married, if not for the concept of love and wanting to be with another person?


Around the world people marry for many different reasons. It unites families, not just two people. It helps facilitate business. It has even helped resolve disputes between nations and kingdoms in days gone by.



Here again, based off of your arguments, it could be argued, and successfully that if a marriage is not based off of a sect of Christianity, it would not be valid or acceptable,


Marriage has nothing to do with a sect of Christianity. People were getting married long before Jesus came.




There is where you are wrong, as it is not the design of man that the arguments have been used to espouse discrimination on other groups of people in history.


We're talking marriage and design of man, not other types of discrimination.





Every group that has suffered major forms of discrimination, religion, in particular that of Christianity was used as the baseline excuse.


To discriminate is human. It's about preferences. We discriminate against things we feel are wrong, and in favor of things we feel are right.




Here again, seems that there is a fallacy in the argument that people can not change, as they can, if they want to.


Right, I agree. And gays can change and become straight if they want to. Or a person can change and abstain from sex altogether, become a monk/nun if he/she want's to.

There's nothing that says a person has to have sex, much less gay sex. It's a choice.




So there you go, the examples of discrimination, along with a good definition, along with the examples of hatred, all coming from the base arguments of religion.


We hate evil, and love good. What's wrong with that?



And all of this cause one group wants to be equal in a society, which despises them for what they were born to be.


But you just said they have choice. So, which is it? Can they chose their behavior or not?



Yet here again, you fail to accept or realize, that in the USA, no religion or church would be compelled to change its ways or forced to perform a marriage with same sex couples. As all churches would be considered to be private organizations, and the precedent has already been set.


Anyone wishing to "qualify" to perform a civil function will have to follow the law.

Priests will either be unable to perform civil marriage, or have to marry anyone who comes to them.

You cannot have some people obeying the law and others being exempt from the law.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW
Why must they chose to label their form of union a "marriage?"


Separate but equal?

That's been done.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 


Being a homosexual is not an activity. It is how people are born, for those that are. It simply means that if a person is a homosexual they are attracted to members of the same sex, namely theirs. So where is the activity in that?

Because it has been proven in a court of law that a gay union is not equal to a marriage. There is a fundamental inequality in how the law looks at such, and therefore it serves to discriminate against one group all based on sexual orientation.

It unites families? I guess then all of the families I have seen and been a part of, that is a fallacy in its own sense. Did not unite my families, nor did it unite many others, where religion was involved.

Yes, that is true, that people were getting married long before Jesus came onto the picture, however, you are using Christianity and the Bible as an excuse as to deny one group of people the same rights as another group, thus using your arguments, using Christianity as the only source for the reason to deny 2 people of the same sex as a right to get married, could also be used to deny 2 people who were of different religions or even 2 different races from also getting married. And it was, in the history of the US, there is a famous court case of Loving, where 2 people one who was white and one who was African American, broke the law by getting married, the arguments used to prevent such, well Christianity and the Bible were used to justify such. Even in the north, where such was readily more acceptable, it was socially frowned on, if not outright forbidden for 2 people of differing faiths to get married.

Yet the arguments you are presenting, based on religion, shows a strong nature of being prejudicial and discriminatory in nature. And the arguments that I am presenting shows correlating evidence to prove that such has occurred before in the USA.

Not really, as not all of us discriminate against anyone. Discrimination is not just about preferences, it is about the unjust prejudicial treatment of a group of people, based on a category.


Gay people can not change, according to the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatrist Association, that is something that can not be changed, no matter how hard they try. A gay man can not become straight, and those places that do such, do far more damage than good, and such practices fail under all peer review.

We are not talking about evil, unless you are saying that Gay people are evil. Are you saying that?

No there you are wrong. In all court cases, where the Boy Scouts of America has been brought before, they have been victorious, and the courts ruled that they are a private organization, therefore outside of the law when it comes to who they can let in. Churches would fall under the same category, and there fore Priests will be excluded from such. Consider this, if an organization takes government money, they have to follow government rules and laws, including if it is legal, perform gay marriages. Last time anyone checked, Church’s and religious organizations are Nonprofit, take no government money, and therefore do not have to follow the same guidelines as their counterparts who work for the government.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by spw184
 

It would offend the members not the Church, the church is an inanimate building and um it kind of proves god is fallacy.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
Being a homosexual is not an activity. It is how people are born, for those that are. It simply means that if a person is a homosexual they are attracted to members of the same sex, namely theirs. So where is the activity in that?


We need to decide whether people are born bound and can't choose, or born free and can choose their way of life. Once we fix that, we can approach this problem with a definite solution.



Because it has been proven in a court of law that a gay union is not equal to a marriage. There is a fundamental inequality in how the law looks at such, and therefore it serves to discriminate against one group all based on sexual orientation.


Biologically, it can be easily shown that gay union and straight union are fundamentally different things. We cannot make them equal by writing a law. We only confuse the language by using the same terms to label different things. The rights and benefits straight couples enjoy in marriage are there because of their unique type of union.




Yes, that is true, that people were getting married long before Jesus came onto the picture, however, you are using Christianity and the Bible


But, if you read most of my posts you would see that I also use sources other than Christianity to make my case. I do not exclusively refer to Christian doctrine to present my arguments.




Not really, as not all of us discriminate against anyone. Discrimination is not just about preferences, it is about the unjust prejudicial treatment of a group of people, based on a category.


We discriminate against Robbers, and Arsonists, and all sorts of other categories of people too. But, these categories are defined by "activity".




Gay people can not change, according to the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatrist Association, that is something that can not be changed, no matter how hard they try. A gay man can not become straight, and those places that do such, do far more damage than good, and such practices fail under all peer review.


If people cannot change, then we are all stuck with who we are, and we cannot make people like others, or accept them, and any prejudice or discriminationary practice one individual engages in towards another is just due to the the way that person is born. There's no point making any laws against discrimination, because the laws can't change people from who they are.




We are not talking about evil, unless you are saying that Gay people are evil. Are you saying that?


All men are good. But, they can do evil things, especially when they come under malignant influences.



Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. -- Ecclesiastes 7:29 KJV



Homosexuality is just another "invention" of the mind.




No there you are wrong. In all court cases, where the Boy Scouts of America has been brought before, they have been victorious, and the courts ruled that they are a private organization, therefore outside of the law when it comes to who they can let in. Churches would fall under the same category, and there fore Priests will be excluded from such.


But the Boy Scouts are not participating in the formation of a civil contract that is valid for the state. Marriage is the business of the state. It "should" just be a private affair, and be confined to the private religious orders, then you'd be right, but the state took it over some time ago.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DRAZIW

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Ultimately you are using religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority, who has done nothing to warrant such abuse. Would you ask a group to pay taxes and follow the laws of the country, yet deprive them of the very benefits of being a part of that country?



That's the problem here. It's all about interpretation and twisting language. This is not a minority. These are people defined by their "activity", not by race or gender or country of origin, or handicap or age, or any factor that is out of their control, nor by established belief system we call religion that teaches morals and ethics.


edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)


A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power

1. Are gays politically dominant? No.
2. Are we subdominant to the rest of civilization? A lot of times.
3. Do gays have lesser social status? Sometimes.
4. Are gays payed less for employment? Yes
5. Do gays have less political power? Yes.

Now ask yourself, are gays a minority group?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I love how drax is being so heated in his debate, I would LOVE to see one of you bibletumpers to say this to a REAL LIFE gay like me, IN REAL LIFE. It would be almost as funny as asking a firefighter about 9/11....

Also, you said that you are tolerent, but do not celebrate homosexuality.


No words. We don't even know how to process this. A gay Tennessee couple was beaten by church leaders this past week after trying to attend services at the Grace Fellowship Church.

What's more mind-boggling is that one of the attackers was one of their fathers. In fact, he even instigated the assault.

Jerry Pittman, Jr. says that when he and his boyfriend Dustin Lee arrived to the church, this happened:

"I went over to take the keys out of the ignition and all the sudden I hear someone say 'sic 'em!'

My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad's request. My uncle smashed me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn't help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back."

No bystanders came to their aid during the attack.

Charges have since been filed against deacons Billy Sims, Eugene McCoy, Patrick Flatt, and Jerry Pittman, Sr.



ALT link: www.truthwinsout.org...



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DRAZIW
 

In answer to your question, when it comes to homosexuality or straight a person is born that way, it is not a choice. People do not choose their sexuality for those that are gay. Many who I have talked to, all stated the same thing, that they had no interest in the opposite sex from the time they were a child, so that is a good indication that they were born that way.

There is the problem, what does biology have to do with the issue of marriage? After all it is the discussion of a social contract between 2 people to be married, in all aspects of the word marriage, and to follow through with vows.

Are you stating that gay people are incapable of honoring a promise or a vow that they make, or failing to fulfill a contract that they sign? Are gay people somehow, beyond being attracted to members of the same sex, different from others? No, they are very much capable and are able to fulfill contracts, so that argument really does not hold water.

Ah, but your quotes dealing with Buddhism is misguided, after all HH the Dali Lama, has been shown to state that he does not know what the aspects of gay marriage would entail, cause the sutras that are used for guidance, does not ultimately cover that particular issue or some of today’s social problems. He neither condones or accepts it, remaining neutral on the entire subject. And if the head of the Tibetan government in exile, the 14 incarnation of the Bodhisattva is willing to make that statement, why is it so hard for other religions to actually admit that just maybe the holy scriptures are a bit out of date when it comes to social problems that the world faces, such as gay marriage?

And yet you still do not see where such has been through the courts, precedents has been set, and such has already been determined as being wrong, long before many of us have been married. It is not discrimination, rather it is what is correct and doing the correct thing. And those are activities. A robber is not born a robber. Some Arsonists are born that way, know it is wrong, but have a compulsion, where they are able to get help with dealing with that compulsion, that is sound, been under peer review and ultimately, is accepted as it does not harm the person getting the help.

We are all prejudice, that is true, however, when that prejudice goes into discrimination, then there is a problem. That is the issue, not if we are prejudice, but rather if it is correct to discriminate against another person based on who they are, in this case a minority. That is wrong, to forbid or discriminate against a minority all cause of fear, which is what you have been displaying in your postings.

And here you go again, with giving biblical quotes. It is the same old arguments, yet one would say that you are being hypocritical in your arguments, as you probably do not follow all 615 laws set out in the bible. No one does, and if you did, just how much did you pay for your slave?

Yes the State took it over long before the USA was a country, and was regulating it long before we came on to discuss and debate this issue. As it is now in the hands of the state, it should not be do discriminate against anyone, as the state and religion are 2 separate issues.

You would ask gay people to pay their taxes, work a job, do things that everyone else would do, yet fail to give them the same rights as everyone else does, that is the essence of discrimination on the part of the state, perpetuated by the use of religion. This arguments were used over and over against different groups, like the African Americans and others that were different to justify this discrimination. Perhaps it is time to allow such to go by the wayside and to make it where everyone is equal and allow the rule of law to take effect, instead of being like the Federal Government, having 2 sets of laws, one for the people that they govern, and one for those who govern the people.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spw184

Now ask yourself, are gays a minority group?


No.

They are a group, because a certain number of people calling themselves gay go on parades "Gay Pride Day" and participate in many "activities" together, like hanging out in particular bars and clubs, and dress in certain peculiar ways. So they stand out from the rest of the population by their "activity". But, when they want to "hide", they simply dress and act like the rest of us, and no one could tell they walk among us. So, we "can't discriminate against them" unless they want us to. Because we can't identify them without their help. They have to tell us that they are gay before we'd have a clue.

In this sense, they are no different from the MAFFIA, who also form a group defined by their "activity'.

If gays are a "minority" then the maffia are a "minority" too. They are both indistinguishable from normal people until we see them in action or they reveal who they are to us.

We should give the MAFFIA the same equal rights we grant to GAYS.



edit on 10-10-2011 by DRAZIW because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Yes the State took it over long before the USA was a country, and was regulating it long before we came on to discuss and debate this issue. As it is now in the hands of the state, it should not be do discriminate against anyone, as the state and religion are 2 separate issues.



So you understand, then, that since marriage is a state matter, that anyone performing a marriage, even a Priest, must accept all couples straight of gay to be married, and cannot discriminate against gay couples?





new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join