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 DRAZIW
Originally posted by spw184
Now ask yourself, are gays a minority group?
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)
Originally posted by DRAZIW
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?
Originally posted by spw184
Gays are not organized, and you contradicted yourself. Earlier you said that gays "Dress and act a special way and go to special bars and clubs" Or somthing of the sort, but now your saying that they are indistinguishable?
I sense a dollap or confusion here.
Originally posted by spw184
How about this: Gays can get married, but not in a church, or the churches have the right to deny couples to get married. Done. Problem solved. We can get married by a judge, or a police officer, or a politican, or lady gaga, or a flying rainbow dinosaur for all I care.
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.
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.
Then if our belief cannot be chosen, then our actions cannot be chosen either. For we act in accordance with our beliefs.
Each person should therefore just carry on, doing his own will, whatever he feels impelled to do today. There's no hate crime.
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.
The gay man is indistinguishable when he wants to be, and when he wants to be "flamboyant" he puts on his identifying robes. ....
...Gays are typically lazy, they want all the benefits with none of the work or obligations that make it possible.
Homosexuality is just another "invention" of the mind.
Originally posted by DRAZIW
Originally posted by spw184
How about this: Gays can get married, but not in a church, or the churches have the right to deny couples to get married. Done. Problem solved. We can get married by a judge, or a police officer, or a politican, or lady gaga, or a flying rainbow dinosaur for all I care.
Too complicated.
A better plan. Gays can get "Civil Union" and Straight remain "Married".
Then Gays can fight for whatever "rights" they think the Civil Union should have.
1) want tax breaks -- lobby congress and explain why you should get tax breaks i.e. what is your contribution to society?
2) want visitation rights? -- lobby congress and explain why you need this
3) want protection against being forced to testify against your partner? -- explain why you deserve this right.
Straights have fought for all these things separately for themselves over the ages. Gays just want a fast track to the treasure.
Fight your own battles.
Gays are typically lazy, they want all the benefits with none of the work or obligations that make it possible.
Originally posted by DRAZIW
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?
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
So the argument on how priests and ministers would be forced to perform the ceremony for gay people, even though they do not want to, ultimately fails, as they would be protected from lawsuit on that aspect.
Originally posted by yes4141
How dare you hold other people and ideas to a different standard than yourself.
Originally posted by DRAZIW
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
So the argument on how priests and ministers would be forced to perform the ceremony for gay people, even though they do not want to, ultimately fails, as they would be protected from lawsuit on that aspect.
They would not be "forced" to perform the ceremony, they simply would not "qualify" for the civil function of joining the couple in marriage.
When a Christian couple wanted to get married, there would be two ceremonies, one civil, where they sign the papers in front of a civil agent of the state, then they walk across the street to the Church for a religious blessing, where the Priest joins them in the eyes of God. Since the Priest would no longer qualify for the civil document signing ceremony, marriage would have to be split into two parts, one to satisfy the state, and the other to satisfy God, and these two parts would have to be in "separate locations", because one is "Public" and the other is "Private".
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by DRAZIW
No, that would not happen, there is no evidence to support that argument. If that was true, then the Catholic church and every other church that has broken the law, would have been shut down by now and they have not. So the argument is not really valid, when you consider every thing that many of the different church’s in the USA have gone through, to include the different law suits where the courts did have to intervene and decide what was and was not legal in different aspects, from the Mormon’s, the group that handles snakes, the peyote ritual of the Native American’s, and the different scandals that has affected the different church’s and yet nothing has stopped them or the ministers from fulfilling their duties, even when they clearly violated the separation of Church and State.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by spw184
I was looking at the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, and other baptist churches around the country where they have been proven in a court of law of violating federal and state laws, either through criminal activities or by getting involved in politics and were able to get off with just a slap on the wrist, instead of being shut down. The USA really does not get that too far involved with churchs tending to shy away from all legal issues surrounding them, as much as possible.
What standard?
Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by DRAZIW
What standard?
That what you claim to be certain of is objectively correct yet the exact same situation for others and they are objectively wrong!
The only answer to this can possibly be that your only reference point is your own subjectivity, therefore if you believe something to be certain then you only have that one approach to it which simply emphasises my point.
A little conservative of you to only reply to that small part.
Originally posted by yes4141
reply to post by spw184
Basically this: he claimed that he knew 'the truth' and believed in it yet another person who believes homosexuality is real/ not a choice/ not evil etc. is deluded and in denial.
He is implying that whatever he believes is obviously 'more true' than what anyone else believes.
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by spw184
Well there are all of those scandles of the choir boys being molested.